In a democratic country such as India, the media cannot function without freedom of expression. A robust media is important to not just keep democracy alive but also strengthen it. But the media has to be held accountable for actions that go against national interest
In the last one year, Bihar has witnessed four fatal attacks on journalists. Recently, a journalist working with a leading Hindi daily was shot dead in broad daylight at Sasaram. Before that, it was alleged that an associate of mafia don and RJD leader Mohammad Shahabuddin killed another journalist in Siwan. likewise, a journalist was also killed in Jharkhand. So, journalists are being killed at regular intervals, but the champions of freedom of expression have been maintaining complete silence.
Till now, no Press Club meeting has been organised for the murdered journalist, Dharmendra. There is no long speech in favour of freedom of expression, nor is there any write-up about the murder of fellow journalist in Sasaram by the champions of free media.
In fact, this is more serious a threat to the freedom of expression than the Government seeking to ban a news organisation just for a few hours. A few days ago, when Ministry of Information & Broadcasting slapped a 24-hour ban on a private news channel for allegedly violating the cable and television regulation Act, many editorials were written and statements were issued criticising the Government’s decision. Protests were held, and the move and motive of the Narendra Modi Government were questioned. The decision was evencompared to the Emergency days or even fascism!
It was also alleged that the Government wanted to silence the media by using the cable and television regulation Act. Nobody wants to listen to the arguments put forth by Government of India. It is good that almost the entire media comes together to oppose a ban.
After a week’s protest and back channel compromise, the Government put the ban on hold. But the incident has again underlined the need for serious discussion on the rights to freedom of expression. People of this country are extremely touchy about the right to free speech. When the Constitution of India came into force, freedom of expression was almost absolute. But that time, Jawaharlal Nehru was worried about the speeches of Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who was spearheading the movement for Akhand Bharat (united India) just after partition. His speeches were fiery and attracted most of the Press coverage at that time.
In fact, after partition, large-scale attacks happened on Hindus in East Pakistan and a big number of Hindus migrated from that region. After that terrible violence, Nehru and Pakistan’s Prime Minister liaquat Ali Khan decided to sign an agreement to stop violence, which came to be later known as the Nehru-liaquat pact. According to that agreement, nobody in either country would engage in any activity which may precipitate war; even speeches were to be curbed. But the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution of India was the biggest hurdle in the finalisation of the pact.
Pakistan considered Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s speeches as war-mongering. Nehru even discussed this with his Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. At that time, under the leadership of Nehru, it was decided to define and restrict the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Constitution.
A meeting between Nehru, Sardar Patel and Bhimrao Ambedkar was held, and the result was the first constitutional amendment. But it was not on the basis of this pact but on the basis of a court verdict in the case of Cross Roads magazine. The publication was vehemently opposing the policies of Nehru. A case was filed and the verdict came in favour of Cross Roads.
Another case which became the basis of the first constitutional amendment, was the RSS magazine, Organiser. These are facts extensively documented. The amendment to the Constitution was the first move to curb the freedom of expression, which was vehemently opposed by Syama Prasad Mookerjee and others in Parliament and outside too.
The second serious move to curb free speech was during the Emergency, when all the rights of media were suspended. It was also opposed at that time, and after the Emergency was revoked, the curbs too were lifted. The third move was also during the Congress rule, when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister. The Government introduced a defamation Bill in 1988. It was aimed at limiting the right of freedom of expression. The Rajiv Gandhi Government could not, however, succeed, and was forced to withdraw the controversial Bill.
The forth serious move was again mooted during the Congress rule under Manmohan Singh, when a proposal was made to amend the cable and television Act. By that proposal, the Government of the day wanted to give powers to the area magistrate to stop the telecast of news channel if the magistrate though it fit. This move was fiercely opposed by journalists, again the Government was forced to withdraw it.
If we analyse, we can see a pattern in these moves to curb the freedom of the media. But the threat has now changed. The job security of journalists and threats to reporters are to be taken into account. When a journalist is not sure about his or her job security and works under tremendous pressure, how can we expect that person to be fairIJ How can we expect a reporter to work fearlessly if he or she is constantly under threat to his or her lifeIJ These are the major hindrances in the way of free press. The editors’ guild and other media organisations have to think about this.
There is another side to this story, where news channels show fiction for hours. Dreaded terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s supposed death report and the Islamic State’s visuals are classic cases of fiction writing. It’s a matter of serious research as to how many times news channels killed Baghdadi! News channels never think twice before airing an audio or video clip or about the authenticity of such clips. Just putting a disclaimer, that the channel hasn’t verified the the contents of visual/audio, won’t do.
There has to be some lakshman Rekha for the media too. News channels had established a self-regulatory mechanism, but the time has come to rethink on that mechanism, because it has not been strong enough. If the media wants to have the right to freedom of expression intact, it has to introspect too about accountability.
(The writer is a senior journalist)