Communalism Combat  
  - Archives  
  - Feedback  
  - Subscription  
 - Advertising
 - Other Publications
 - Combat Themes

 

  Khoj  
  - About Khoj  
  - Teaching Tolerance  
  - Khoj for Teachers  
  - History  
 - Quiz for Kids
 - Articles on Khoj

 

  Aman  
  Peacepals  

Press Freedom

Intimidation Of The Media -Who Gains?

The Gujarat Police has slapped sedition charges on The Times of India, Ahmedabad, for suggesting that Ahmedabad’s new Commissioner of Police, Mr O P Mathur, had underworld links. If the Commissioner was offended, he was within his rights to have initiated criminal and civil proceedings of defamation against the publication and its employees. But sedition?           

In Thane, hoodlums claiming to represent an outfit known as Shiv Sangram Sanghatana, attacked the house of Kumar Ketkar, editor of the Marathi daily “Loksatta”, in broad daylight and subjected him to verbal abuse and terror before the police arrived a full 40 minutes later. Ketkar’s offence? In a satirical vein, he had questioned the need for the Maharashtra government to spend Rs 300 crores on erecting a statue of Shivaji in the Arabian Sea when Maharashtra’s children are malnourished, have no access to schools and our farmers are committing suicide. 

If an arm of the state can press so serious a charge as sedition on one of India’s biggest media groups with such impunity, what could be in store for smaller publications and individual journalists? Is this not a direct attack on the freedom of expression and opinion? Are the cops above criticism? Can criticism of an individual police officer amount to sedition? Is government policy not subject to democratic debate and discussion?          

As for the Ketkar case, time and again, mob rule has prevented the slightest whiff of dissent when the subject matter is even vaguely related to Shivaji. And more often than not, these mobs have had overt or covert political support: this is a handy device for silencing opposition to pet causes. If an editor of Kumar Ketkar’s standing of a mainstream publication can be intimidated in such a brazen fashion, what hope for other dissenting journalists?       

In fact, this growing lack of tolerance to any criticism from the media also extends to the judiciary. In September 2007, three journalists and the publisher of “Midday”, a New Delhi eveninger, were convicted by the High Court for contempt of court for arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may have had an undeclared conflict of interest while deciding some cases involving the shutting down of small shops and commercial establishments. Another senior activist and journalist was pulled up for even suggesting that a discriminatory system of justice is prevalent in our courts when granting bail. Remember, the judges have also ruled that they are not subject to scrutiny under the Right to Information Act nor are their individual assets a matter for public scrutiny.          

A clear trend is now emerging. On the one hand, various arms of the state are cracking down on the media whenever unpalatable facts are uncovered. On the other, bands of ruffians are unleashed on the media, generally with the patronage of politicians and sections of the administration, to silence even the mildest criticism.  This dangerous trend appears backed by every political party across the spectrum. Such intimidatory tactics also have a demonstration effect and are intended to create a climate of fear. No disquieting questions are to be raised regarding the economic, political and social fallout of India’s tryst with globalization and financialisation.      

Are mediapersons going to be cowed down by such blatantly intimidatory ploys? Are we going to be content to play the role of passive spectators? To ask inconvenient questions is the raison d’etre of journalism. Are we a mature democracy or are we fast becoming a backdoor banana republic?

 On Sedition and Freedom of expression – a brief sketch

In 1922, the British authorities imprisoned Gandhi on charges of sedition (that is, inciting rebellion).Mahatma Gandhi spent years in jail for sedition. Sedition was always the favoured weapon the British used against independence fighters. A generation later, Joe McCarthy turned sedition laws against the American left. Among the charges Nelson Mandela also faced was sedition. 

The most far-reaching of these ordinances, the Emergency Powers Ordinance, was issued in January 1932, when the government determined to crack down on the nationalist movement more aggressively. As described by the British home secretary, the provisions in the ordinance were “‘a species of Martial Law administered by civil officers,’” intended to avoid the more frontal imposition that would result from direct use of the military. Nationalist organizations affiliated with the Congress were banned throughout India, and within months tens of thousands of nationalist activists were arrested and convicted under both ordinary criminal laws and  emergency ordinances. The government also ordered the preventive detention of approximately 3,500 individuals at one point or another during the course of the 1930s. 

The issue of freedom of expression in India is subject after judicial interpretation to "reasonable restrictions" but Sedition v/s Freedom of Expression has oppressive colonial dimensions. Echoes of the Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act, 1919, popularly known as the “Rowlatt Act, were found in post-Independent India with the TADA and POTA. From 1947 to 1975, independent India followed the same basic pattern established by the British in its use of emergency and security laws. 

The government also suspended judicial enforcement of rights that may have been violated under the emergency proclamation. While the formal ground for invoking the Constitution’s emergency authority in each instance was war and external aggression, in both cases the government maintained the state of emergency long after armed conflict had ceased, echoing efforts by the British to extend into peacetime the sweeping emergency powers authorized on account of war. Although the conflict with China was over within days, the 1962 emergency proclamation remained in effect until 1968. Similarly, the 1971 war with Pakistan ended within weeks, and relations between India and Pakistan were soon normalized, yet the 1971 emergency proclamation remained in effect, along with a concurrent state of emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975 in response to threats allegedly posed by “internal disturbance,” through 1977. 

While India’s constitution includes an extensive array of fundamental rights protections, its emergency and security provisions incorporate a number of the same basic principles found in the Government of India Act of 1935: extraordinary powers that may be exercised during declared periods of emergency, but supplemented by several layers of preventive detention and other security laws that readily afford the government multiple options to exercise similar powers even outside of formally declared periods of emergency. 

Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the State was allowed to make laws with the object of imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 19(1) in the interests of the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation on incitement to an offence. However, in Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that "the determination by the Legislature of what constitutes a reasonable restriction is not final or conclusive. It is subject to supervision by this Court in the matter of fundamental rights the Supreme Court watches and guards the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and in exercising its functions, it has the power to set aside an Act of the Legislature if it is in violation of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution".  

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of sedition as follows: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine”. But Explanation 3 says “Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section”

 

Issued by: Brihanmumbai Union of Journalists, Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh,
Citizens for Justice and Peace, Communalism Combat, Lokshahi Haaq Sanghatana, Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights, Forum against Oppression of Women, Stree Mukti Sanghatana, Akshara, Women’s Centre, Awaz-e-Niswaan, Trade Union Solidarity Committee, Trade Union Centre of India and other organisations

 

 
Feedback | About Us
Sabrang Communications India 2004 All rights reserved.