Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2011 > Media Self-discipline? — No Comments

Mainstream, VOL XLIX, No 51, December 10, 2011

Media Self-discipline? — No Comments

Monday 12 December 2011

#socialtags

by ATULKRISHNA BISWAS

“Some of the press who speak loudly about the freedom of the press are themselves the enemies of freedom. Countless people dare not say a thing because they know it will be picked up and made a song of by the press. That limits freedom.”
—Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury (1887-1972)

Votaries of democracy and advocates of freedom of expression would stand by press freedom, even though unrestrained in tone and tenor, and without a sycophantic note. A subservient or controlled media is more a bane than a blessing for the people or democracy. They laud the media as the fourth estate for democracy.

Some of the recent observations of the Chairman, Press Council of India, Justice Markandey Katju, on the Indian media have triggered off a strong reaction from a section of the media. Holding his views as “ill-considered, sweeping and uninformed”, the Editors’ Guild of India stated that the Chairman wanted to instil a sense of “fear in the media”. Let us acknowledge that the new Chairman, PCI has spoken a lot of things which can rarely be questioned with a mind in proper frame.

Justice Katju pointedly stated: “The media often divides the people.” Talking specifically, he noted: “Whenever a bomb blast takes place anywhere in India” an e-mail or SMS from the “Indian Mujahideen or Jaish-e-Muhammad or Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islam” claiming “responsibility” for the dastardly action is flashed across the television screen. “The name will always be a Muslim name.” He goes to add further: “Now an e-mail or SMS can be sent by any mischievous person who wants communal hatred................ The subtle message being sent by showing this is that all Muslims are terrorists or bomb throwers. …...the entire Muslim community in India is demonised, when the truth is that 99 per cent people of all communities are good, whether they are Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs or Christians, and of whatever caste, region or language.”

There are other instances too to display the malice of the media against certain communities or classes of citizens. It is often seen, for instance, that names of alleged criminals or rapists are withheld by if they belong to the upper echelons of the society but given wide publicity otherwise, damaging without remedy their reputation permanently. The media is a standing threat to the reputation of the vulnerable sections of society. Their genuine concerns or causes rarely get the attention of the media for remedy or redress.

MAY I share an experience from the field as a District Magistrate in Nalanda that witnessed serious communal disturbances later with tragic consequences?

Sheodani Singh, a correspondent of a daily newspaper published from Patna, one day approached me to seek a special permit for three quintals of sugar, then a controlled commodity. His plea was that he needed the sugar on the occasion of his father’s death anniversary. To drive his point home for the special dispensation, he contended, with full justification, that it was customary in his community to entertain a large body of relatives, guests and neighbours with sweetmeats on the occasion. An advocate too in the local court, he argued his case, I admit, quite convincingly.

I politely declined his prayer for allotment of three quintals of sugar, citing my inability within the government orders (G.O.) in this behalf. The correspondent went away palpably unhappy. He felt that I did not favour him deliberately, though it was well within my power to sanction his special requirement. I explained to him that his request for special quota was too large for me to sanction without going against the extant G.O. One action in contravention of the G.O. would be cited as precedent and open the floodgates for similar requests.

To meet special needs on occasions, for example, marriages, shraddh etc. the State Government had authorised the District Magistrates to sanction sugar up to 20 kgs in excess of the normal quota. The correspondent kept on grumbling: “You can sanction any quantity you like but you don’t want to oblige me. Your predecessor was so kind.” I pointed out to him that I never went against the G.O. which could make my position vulnerable. But he was unable to see my point.

Three days later I returned to my head-quarters late at night from Rajgir, the celebrated seat of power in ancient India, after receiving a visiting dignitary. At my official residence, I was greeted by an envelope superscribed “MOST IMMEDIATE/ CONFIDENTIAL” from an unexpected quarter—the local Post Master. On opening its content, I was simply shocked. The same correspondent had filed for his Patna daily a story of raging communal clashes in one part of Biharsharif town. According to the despatch, three-to-four persons were killed in the day whereas several were critically injured and many more were missing. The thrust in the story was that the district administration was either blissfully ignorant or totally callous towards the communal strife in the town right under its nose. The local Post and Telegraph Office did not transmit the story. Referring to a section of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the concerned telegraph clerk wanted the District Magistrate’s prior clearance for transmitting a story on the sensitive issue of communal violence. The era of fax or email facilities was not even in the distant horizon of Bihar in
1980-81. I deeply admired the righteous sense of duty of an unknown postal assistant.

It is, however, a fact that Biharsharif had pockets with communal sensitivity, prone to the outbreak of skirmishes involving two communities. It’s also true that some minor incidents involving the Hindus and Muslims of the locality had taken place a week before in that part of the town. Accompanied by the Superintendent of Police, I had promptly visited the area, took stock of the situation, held meetings with leaders of both the communities of the area and ensured restoration of normalcy. As precautionary measures, several police pickets were stationed in the area to maintain vigil and avert untoward incidents, if any. Collection of intelligence was intensified and rumours scoffed at. The State Government was kept fully posted with the latest developments along with preventive measures put in place on the issue.

The correspondent’s despatch was totally concocted and baseless. A detailed report along with the ‘story’ from Biharsharif was sent to the State Government whereupon his accredi-tation was promptly terminated. The then Bihar Chief Minister, Karpoori Thakur, though a known votary of press freedom, did not favour irresponsible reporting that had a bearing on the communal front. He resisted pressure from various influential quarters to the contrary. Successive Chief Ministers too, I understand, withstood the pressure brought upon them for restoration of the accreditation to the Biharsharif press reporter.

The author is a retired IAS officer of Bihar and a former Vice-Chancellor, B. R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur.

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.