Media manacles

It's always useful to remember the past. In August 1988, the Editors' Guild of India was constrained to declare that the Defamation Bill, ...

It8217;s always useful to remember the past. In August 1988, the Editors8217; Guild of India was constrained to declare that the Defamation Bill, which the Rajiv Gandhi government was then seeking to make law, constituted the 8220;most sinister attack on the Press since Independence8221;. It took protest marches in which proprietors walked shoulder to shoulder with editors and journalists, and an outraged public opinion, to get the Union government to beat a hasty retreat on that front.

There were other notable attempts to gag the Press too. Remember Bihar Chief Minister Jagannath Mishra8217;s infamous Press Bill, modelled after M.G. Ramachandran8217;s notorious piece of legislation? In each instance, politicians discovered honourable reasons as to why such measures were necessary. They argued, in very reasonable tones, that they only wished to ensure that indecent or scurrilous material did not make their way into print or that they only wanted to check criminal activity like blackmail. The answer to that was simple: there were sufficient laws in the country to check such distortions and perversions of Press freedom, without having to take recourse to draconian legislation.

A similar answer will have to be given to the crafters and promoters of the draft Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2000, which contains several provisions that could seriously compromise the freedom of the Press. Again, the reason advanced for such legislation is unexceptional. Indeed, if there is one sentiment that unites the country today it is the desire to prevent terrorism in all forms, especially in regions like Kashmir which continue to witness the most barbaric and mindless forms of such violence.

However, let it be stated here and now that the way to answer the terrorist8217;s stratagems does not lie in manacling the media. If the proposed Bill becomes the law of the land, journalists will be obliged to tell the police as soon as possible any information that they may have gathered which relates to terrorist activity. It does not end here. If that particular man or woman fails to do this, they are liable to a prison term of one year.

Further, the police will have the power to demand from any journalist any information connected with terrorist activity that is deemed important. If that person refuses to oblige, or provides false information, he or she could be thrown into jail for a period of three years.

Some months ago, before that diabolic individual going by the name of Dara Singh was captured in Orissa, a local journalist had happened to meet and interview him for a national TV channel. The Orissa police had, at that stage, not only harassed the journalist but arrested him as well. This newspaper had argued then that it is not the job of the journalist to perform the functions of the police. The very fact that the interview took place was a valuable clue that Dara Singh was at large in the vicinity and that now it was for the police to close in on him.

Freedom of the media is a complex phenomenon, crucially dependent on various factors including the right of a journalist to keep the identity of his/her source confidential. If draconian laws rob journalists of this right, then their valuable sources of information may dry up as well. The Law Commission argues in defence of the proposed mini-TADA that the rights and privileges of the Press are no greater than those of other citizens. True, but the Press performs a function that other citizens are not called upon to do that of providing information within a democratic polity. Indeed, people8217;s rights and privileges are normally enhanced by the traditional rights and privileges of the Press.