Author: Arvind Lavakare
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: November 18, 2003
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/18arvind.htm
The Hindu of Chennai, India, has
probably set a world record in print journalism. Its editions of 10th,
11th and 12th November 2003 published a total of 163 letters to the editor!
Included in that aggregate was a record of 67 letters in just one single
edition (of 11th November) that were accommodated at the cost of two lengthy
articles which customarily adorn that newspaper's edit page. And here's
the last statistic: 158 of those 163 letters were centred on or around
just one topic --- another world record probably.
The leitmotif of that unprecedented
correspondence in The Hindu was tea and sympathy and support --- for The
Hindu, naturally. The cause celebre was that on 7th November 2003 the Tamil
Nadu legislative assembly accepted the findings of its Privileges Committee
that the newspaper's editorial of 25th April 2003 affected the entire functioning
of the assembly besides amounting to contempt of the House, and therefore
sentenced the newspaper's editor, executive editor, publisher, chief of
bureau and the writer of that editorial to 15 days simple imprisonment.
The Hindu very quickly challenged
the legality of the TN assembly's decision in the Supreme Court. On 10th
November, anyone scanning The Hindu editorials were confronted with 52
tea and sympathy letters to the editor --- probably a new one-day record
for any newspaper. The second article on the edit page was axed for creating
that record. And when, on 10th November, the Supreme Court stayed the arrest
the fivesome of The Hindu, the next day's issue of the newspaper bombarded
its edit page with 67 letters, thereby breaking the record set just the
previous day. But it had not had enough. Its issue of 12th November had
39 letters on the subject.
Point to note is that all this unabashed
use of the 'letters to the editor' section was by a 125-year- old newspaper
that freely labels the Hindutvawadis with such tags as 'communalists,'
'fascists' and 'Nazis' without letting through a single letter of rejoinder.
Even in its 11th November report on the proceedings before the Supreme
Court, The Hindu correspondent detailed the arguments of the counsel for
his newspaper as well as of the counsel of Murasoli, the other newspaper
similarly charged by the TN assembly, but wrote not a word on the TN assembly
counsel's point of view. That, dear readers, is one facet of the much-touted
'freedom of the press.'
Be that as it may, 'freedom of the
press' was the flavour of those three November days. Anybody who was anyone
in the field of politics, journalism or human rights was proclaiming 'freedom
of the press' and condemning the action of the TN assembly. 'Article 19(1)(a)
of our Constitution,' they said; 'the free press of a vibrant democracy,'
they shouted; 'how dare Amma throttle it?' they thundered. Nobody cared
to go deep; the old Indian trait of superficiality was at play once again.
Thus few of us are aware that in
India freedom of the press is a part of the freedom of speech and expression
granted by Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. There is no specific Constitutional
provision ensuring freedom of the press. According to the Supreme Court
judgment in Sakal Papers v Union of India, (AIR 1962 SC 305) the freedom
of the press is regarded as a 'species of which freedom of expression is
a genus.' Being only a right flowing from the freedom of speech, the freedom
of the press in India therefore stands on no higher footing than the freedom
of speech of a citizen, and the press enjoys no privilege as such distinct
from the freedom of the citizen. (M P Jain in Indian Constitutional Law,
Wadhwa And Company, Nagpur, Fourth Edition, Reprint 2002, page 527).
Further, there is the view of P
M Bakshi, former director, Indian Law Institute and former member of the
Law Commission of India. Commenting on trial by media on page 37 of his
book The Constitution of India (Universal Law Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, New
Delhi, Fourth Edition, 2000), Bakshi says while the law does not prohibit
investigative journalism in the abstract, the law does require the players
to stay within the limits flowing primarily from a. the right to reputation
b. the right to privacy and c. the law of contempt of court.
Most of us who talk of 'freedom
of the press' at the mere drop of a hat are not aware that, as per a Supreme
Court judgment, telephone tapping would infringe Article 21 ('Protection
of life and personal liberty') of our Constitution unless it is permitted
'under procedure established by law.' (People's Union for Civil Liberties
v Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 538).
Furthermore, in the immediate case
of The Hindu, there is the matter of Keshav Singh v Speaker, Legislative
Assembly where the Supreme Court ruled that in a conflict between the freedom
of speech and a legislative assembly's privileges under Article 194, the
former will yield to the latter. (AIR, 1965 All. 349).
However, theoretical legal roadblocks
hardly worry our press excepting when the judiciary is involved. The rest
of the time, freedom of the press is construed to mean doing what it wants
to do and chooses to do.
Meanwhile, what about the accountability
of the press that questions the accountability of everyone else? There
are a number of cases where the press has got it horribly wrong but has
gone scot-free --- without offering even a 'clarification' or a 'regret,'
leave alone an 'unconditional apology' and a stick to the guilty reporter.
The most convenient escape is to be specious and say 'We stand by our report'
or, best of all, just refuse to rebut the rebuttal, leaving the onus on
the offended party to file a defamation case that never quite comes to
an end.
Just two incidents should suffice
to prove the point.
After the murder of Graham Staines
and his two children in Orissa, a nun, Sister Jacqueline Mary, filed an
FIR with the police in Baripada in Orissa that after being offered a lift
by two men dressed in women's clothing she had been raped by one of them
in the back of the car. The Indian Express said 'Orissa's second stain:
nun raped.' The Telegraph of Kolkata announced: 'Nun gang raped by men
in sari in Orissa.' This and more got highlighted all over the world and
got projected as an attack on Christians; the Indian nation's image plunged
shamefully. Later investigations revealed that Sister Mary's FIR was just
a made-up story.
Again, of the four Christian teenagers
who went to collect broom sticks in Mandasaru village in Kandamal district
in Orissa, two were subsequently found killed and one unconscious. The
newspapers treated that incident as an attack on the Christians. Once again,
our national image suffered. Investigations ultimately proved that, like
the victims, the killers too were Christians.
In both cases, no newspaper was
pulled up in any way. And it's not known whether the mandated confessional
in the church was deemed as adequate penalty for Sister Mary's guilt of
filing a false FIR with the police.
Then there was Dara Singh, murderer
of Graham Staines, being indicted by the press from day one as a Bajrang
Dal/RSS man. The conclusions of the investigation team appointed by the
D P Wadhwa Commission stated, 'There is no documentary evidence to prove
that he is a member of or office-bearer of (the) Bajrang Dal.' Once more,
no newspaper was pulled up.
Lastly, there's the fall-out of
the mayhem and murders in Gujarat following the carnage of 59 Hindu kar
sevaks at the Godhra railway station. The zenith of the vilification of
the BJP government of Narendra Modi, of the VHP and of the Hindu community
in Gujarat was an article by Harsh Mander, IAS, published by The Times
of India on its edit page of 20th March 2002 under the title 'Hindustan
Hamara --- I can never sing that song again.' The article was then circulated
over the web under the title 'Cry My Beloved Country.' The Indian nation
was once again portrayed as being ruled by fanatic Hindus who thought nothing
of a pogrom against the Muslims.
One Krishen Kak, IAS (retired) of
New Delhi, complained to the Press Council of India that Mander's article
was highly irresponsible, inflammatory, blatantly biased and damaging to
public morale, and that there was nothing in it to show that the author
had verified the stories that he had passed off as facts. What happened
to that complaint is a commentary on the 'freedom of the press' in India.
Let the Press Council's decision
of 30th June 2003 tell it to you. It recorded that 'the Inquiry Committee
expressed its deep concern over the indifferent and irresponsible attitude
of The Times of India in not filing its comments in response to the Council's
letter and in not being represented before the Inquiry Committee to present
its defence in a matter of grave public importance.'
On the merits of the case, the Council's
Inquiry Committee noted 'the article at several points reiterated rumours
that were being circulated at the relevant time. The truthfulness of the
facts mentioned therein had not been established at any point of time till
then but Shri Mander had chosen to base his views and sentiments on them,
and put pen to the opinion thus formed by him.it was expected of the author
as a responsible serving officer as well as of the respondent paper of
repute like The Times of India to be more restrained and circumspect in
pronouncing a denouement of the whole system in a communally surcharged
atmosphere.'
Worse was that though the Press
Council's guidelines require the publication concerned to publish the Council's
decision, The Times of India has not done so till now.
The unkindest cut was that Krishen
Kak's press note incorporating the Press Council's decision on his complaint
was universally ignored by the free press of India.
Free to hurt others without being
man enough to suffer hurt oneself --- that's the one-way street of India's
'freedom of the press.' Instead, a two-way traffic would be the best for
a true democracy.
