By : Arshad Shah
The Press in Imphal was forced to go off the stands yet again last month. In a State which in all probability seems unlikely to cultivate the idea of democratic ethos for a long time, it was not the first instance and most probably it will not be the last. The times we are in dictate us that arbritary will shall prevail, “ rule of law” is too high a concept, and “ institutionalization of power” belongs to the lips of those who cannot afford to wield a gun. Human rights violations pertain to the Armed Forces , while for an important institution like the Fourth Estate, mere condemnation by Rights’ Activists would be as effective as CM Ibobi’s lip-service on foreign investment.
It should not be surprising when the Manipur Government tries its best to curtail the media, when the rest of the country is enacting laws to ensure unfettered enjoyment of the Right to Information which heralds a new era in the freedom of the Press. Insecure governments in India have been known to do so since the time of Indira Gandhi. Indira Gandhi enacted a range of laws and amendments which sought to terrorise the media during the Emergency. (It was also during this time that the Indian media, except for some courageous newspapers like the Indian Express “ crawled when they were asked to kneel”.)
The Indian Constitution gives no special rights or privileges to the Press as does the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. However Article 19 (i) (a) of the Constitution does guarantee freedom of expression for every citizen which includes:-
(i) The right to impart information and ideas.
(ii) The right to recieve information and ideas from others through any lawful medium.
It is this Article that gives editors and journalists the right to publish any news or information, and to comment on public affairs, and the public the right to recieve iniformation of which the UNCHR speaks so forcefully. These are fundamental human rights. The freedom of the press rests on the same fundamental rights, and implies the right to print, publish, comment and criticize without any interference from the State or any public authority. It includes the right NOT to publishor comment as well.
True, no one, no institution including the media is above the law. In a democracy, the media is expected to be socially responsible and media laws exist to see that this actually happens. But the catch is, these media laws are so loosely - worded, thay can be interpretated in any manner, even on issues that have nothing to do with the stated objectives of the law.
In fact in India and Britain, unlike in the U.S., the media faces several constraints. There is always the fear that media laws may be used to harass publications which are anti-Government. Perhaps that’s why many of these laws are vague in nature.
Take for instance, the medieval Official Secrets Act, 1923 of the colonial British which the British have amended but India hasn’t . A bigh thorn in Press freedom before the RTI, it doesn’t even define what exactly is a secret. With such loose wording, it can be used by the Government on the media exactly as President Bush uses “ Democracy” to terrorise nations across the Islamic world.
The Indian OSA continues to operate in secrecy at the top administrative levels and has been exacerbated by the traditional feudal mindset, which presupposes a distance between the “ rulers” and the “ruled”, the former being a priviledged class.
Some provisions of the OSA are so harsh that a journalist can land into trouble anytime. Anybody found guilty as per OSA is not entitled for bail under Section 498 of Cr. P.C. The prosecutor does not find it difficult to prove the guilt of the offender. The conduct and character of the accused and the circumstantial evidences are enough to prove the charge.
Iftikhar Geelani of the Kashmir Times languished in jail for nothing. Tehelka was slapped with the OSA as they made the crime of exposing corruption at the Official level. In 1997, India Today lifted and published excerpts fo the Jain Commission report but escaped the OSA taking advantage of the fluid political situation then.
In 1999, the Frontline lifted and published excerpts of the heated correspondence between the then Defence Minister George Fernandes and Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. It too came under the OSA radar.
Again, look at Obscenity. What is the definition of obscenity in India? We don’t have one! In the US, it is roughly defined as “ dirt for dirt’s sake”. In India, obscenity is decided on the whims of individuals or groups. It hardly passes the legal test.
Defamation, which comes under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, is an impractical and unrealistic issue in India. Because the Judicial system is extremely slow. ( Also, unlike in the US, even minor factual errors can be used to sue a publication for defamation. Many bureaucrats in India who file for defamation do not actually stand up in court and so their cases are dismissed).
The Right to Information (2005) has been formulated keeping in mind the idea that no civilised society can afford to have a law like the OSA for its media. This has been strengthened by the realization that there should be more transparency in the workings of the Government. OSA restricts information, while RTI ensures access.
Scholars and experts feel access to information should be restricted only in exceptional cases. And many States in India have enacted legislation on RTI. The Maharastra Act on RTI is very stringent, recommending jail terms for those who deny this right to the people and the media.
Now compare it with CM Ibobi’s efforts to put a blanket ban on the media in Imphal.
Obviously, some views are so dogged , no amount of arguments however forceful can convince otherwise.
The government would do well to learn to prioritize issnes, one of which is minister harbouring militant in their quarters.
The Imphal Free Press
The Press in Imphal was forced to go off the stands yet again last month. In a State which in all probability seems unlikely to cultivate the idea of democratic ethos for a long time, it was not the first instance and most probably it will not be the last. The times we are in dictate us that arbritary will shall prevail, “ rule of law” is too high a concept, and “ institutionalization of power” belongs to the lips of those who cannot afford to wield a gun. Human rights violations pertain to the Armed Forces , while for an important institution like the Fourth Estate, mere condemnation by Rights’ Activists would be as effective as CM Ibobi’s lip-service on foreign investment.
It should not be surprising when the Manipur Government tries its best to curtail the media, when the rest of the country is enacting laws to ensure unfettered enjoyment of the Right to Information which heralds a new era in the freedom of the Press. Insecure governments in India have been known to do so since the time of Indira Gandhi. Indira Gandhi enacted a range of laws and amendments which sought to terrorise the media during the Emergency. (It was also during this time that the Indian media, except for some courageous newspapers like the Indian Express “ crawled when they were asked to kneel”.)
The Indian Constitution gives no special rights or privileges to the Press as does the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. However Article 19 (i) (a) of the Constitution does guarantee freedom of expression for every citizen which includes:-
(i) The right to impart information and ideas.
(ii) The right to recieve information and ideas from others through any lawful medium.
It is this Article that gives editors and journalists the right to publish any news or information, and to comment on public affairs, and the public the right to recieve iniformation of which the UNCHR speaks so forcefully. These are fundamental human rights. The freedom of the press rests on the same fundamental rights, and implies the right to print, publish, comment and criticize without any interference from the State or any public authority. It includes the right NOT to publishor comment as well.
True, no one, no institution including the media is above the law. In a democracy, the media is expected to be socially responsible and media laws exist to see that this actually happens. But the catch is, these media laws are so loosely - worded, thay can be interpretated in any manner, even on issues that have nothing to do with the stated objectives of the law.
In fact in India and Britain, unlike in the U.S., the media faces several constraints. There is always the fear that media laws may be used to harass publications which are anti-Government. Perhaps that’s why many of these laws are vague in nature.
Take for instance, the medieval Official Secrets Act, 1923 of the colonial British which the British have amended but India hasn’t . A bigh thorn in Press freedom before the RTI, it doesn’t even define what exactly is a secret. With such loose wording, it can be used by the Government on the media exactly as President Bush uses “ Democracy” to terrorise nations across the Islamic world.
The Indian OSA continues to operate in secrecy at the top administrative levels and has been exacerbated by the traditional feudal mindset, which presupposes a distance between the “ rulers” and the “ruled”, the former being a priviledged class.
Some provisions of the OSA are so harsh that a journalist can land into trouble anytime. Anybody found guilty as per OSA is not entitled for bail under Section 498 of Cr. P.C. The prosecutor does not find it difficult to prove the guilt of the offender. The conduct and character of the accused and the circumstantial evidences are enough to prove the charge.
Iftikhar Geelani of the Kashmir Times languished in jail for nothing. Tehelka was slapped with the OSA as they made the crime of exposing corruption at the Official level. In 1997, India Today lifted and published excerpts fo the Jain Commission report but escaped the OSA taking advantage of the fluid political situation then.
In 1999, the Frontline lifted and published excerpts of the heated correspondence between the then Defence Minister George Fernandes and Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. It too came under the OSA radar.
Again, look at Obscenity. What is the definition of obscenity in India? We don’t have one! In the US, it is roughly defined as “ dirt for dirt’s sake”. In India, obscenity is decided on the whims of individuals or groups. It hardly passes the legal test.
Defamation, which comes under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, is an impractical and unrealistic issue in India. Because the Judicial system is extremely slow. ( Also, unlike in the US, even minor factual errors can be used to sue a publication for defamation. Many bureaucrats in India who file for defamation do not actually stand up in court and so their cases are dismissed).
The Right to Information (2005) has been formulated keeping in mind the idea that no civilised society can afford to have a law like the OSA for its media. This has been strengthened by the realization that there should be more transparency in the workings of the Government. OSA restricts information, while RTI ensures access.
Scholars and experts feel access to information should be restricted only in exceptional cases. And many States in India have enacted legislation on RTI. The Maharastra Act on RTI is very stringent, recommending jail terms for those who deny this right to the people and the media.
Now compare it with CM Ibobi’s efforts to put a blanket ban on the media in Imphal.
Obviously, some views are so dogged , no amount of arguments however forceful can convince otherwise.
The government would do well to learn to prioritize issnes, one of which is minister harbouring militant in their quarters.
The Imphal Free Press
No comments:
Post a Comment