Press freedom

The answer lies in the concept of press freedom. Freedom of the press embraces a variety of rights. The right guaranteed is not merely the individual right of the proprietor of the newspaper, or the editor or the journalist. It includes within its capacious content the collective right of the community, the right of citizens to read and to be informed. In substance, it is right of the public to know. The purpose of the press is to advance public interest by publishing facts and views. This enables citizens to make informed decisions and reach proper conclusions and thereby play their part in controlling the government and enforcing the accountability of the wielders of power. Freedom of the press has a dimension that is vastly different from the ambit of other individual freedoms. Press freedom facilitates enforcement of accountability and the press is thus an instrument of democratic control. Protection of freedom of the press in effect subserves and strengthens democracy, an essential feature of our Constitution.

Recent example of judicial concern for press freedom was the issue of notice by the Supreme Court to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu regarding the sentence of imprisonment awarded to five senior journalists of one of the country8217;s most respected newspapers, The Hindu. It should be realised that an attack on a particular newspaper is an onslaught on press freedom everywhere. In reality it is an infringement of the fundamental right of the citizens to know. The solidarity displayed by the national press on this issue cutting across political and ideological divide was most heartening, reminiscent of John Donne8217;s famous lines: 8216;8216;No man is an island entire of itself. Every man is a piece of the continent, part of the main. 8230; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee8217;8217;.

Life after death

8226; On November 22, 1963, three great personalities died within a few hours of each other: C S Lewis, John F Kennedy and Aldous Huxley. All three believed, in different ways, that death is not the end of human life. Suppose they were right, and suppose they met after death. What did they discuss? The meaning of human life and whether it is possible to know about life after death? In a book, Between Heaven 038; Hell, Peter Kreeft gives a fascinating account of their imaginary discourse. Lewis is portrayed as a Chrstian theist, Kennedy as a modern humanist and Huxley as an Eastern pantheist. Lewis attempts to give a convincing explanation of the riddle of the universe on the authority of Christian revelation backed by reason because according to him 8216;8216;faith may go beyond reason but it can never simply contradict reason.8217;8217; To Kennedy 8216;8216;that8217;s a very unusual position. Such a faith in reason!8217;8217; An animated dialogue ensues between them. Huxley interjects and invokes the personality and teachings of the Buddha and bases his case on experience, 8216;8216;no authority, no divine revelation, no faith in another8217;8217;. The arguments go on without reaching any unanimity. But all agree with Huxley that 8216;8216;whatever the outcome of the argument, we must follow the argument in order to follow the truth, and we must follow the truth in order to follow the light8217;8217;.

One wonders what subjects these three intellectuals are busy discussing at the moment. Could it be the disintegration of the USSR and demolition of the Berlin Wall? Or globalisation and its impact on human rights? Or, of course, the war on terrorism, marginalisation of the United Nations and Iraq? It is a pity we cannot eavesdrop on their lively conversations.

Vatican and strikes

8226; Whilst researching material on globalisation8217;s impact on human rights I was thrilled to unexpectedly come across Pope John Paul8217;s statement on the right to strike. According to the Vatican 8216;8216;recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good8217;8217;. This is eminent good sense and more persuasive than some judgments. 8230;..