Opinion Vivek Katju writes: Use of draconian laws against media outfits shows process can be punishment

Two, every step has to be taken to limit collateral damage. If there is a charge of illegal funding and of using those funds for actions against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the state, then the net cannot be spread so wide as to involve persons who cannot prima facie be involved or have a knowledge of these activities even if they have an association with an organisation. This is especially so with regard to media outlets. A pervasive atmosphere of fear is contrary to the values and tenets of the Republic. It is necessary for senior members of law enforcement agencies to uphold the foundational values of the Republic even while combating those who seek to harm the state.

Three, enforcement agencies and the judiciary must ensure that matters pertaining to those laws in which bail is not easily available are decided very early. It can be rightly argued that there are thousands of undertrials in the country who are languishing in jail and their matters deserve to be expedited too. Hence, there is no need to give special consideration to those who are charged under stringent bail-denying laws. There is merit in this argument but there is a distinction between laws where bail is denied in the normal case and where official apathy or poverty leads to people being kept unnecessarily in jail.

All these issues have surfaced in a recent case where arrests have been made and a couple of scores of suspects belonging to or associated with a media organisation have been questioned. The process is ongoing. The accusation is that the media outlet received funds from organisation/s which are arm/s of the Chinese propaganda machinery. The premise is that a media organisation which took “tainted funds” will necessarily take positions inimical to the national interest on some sensitive and controversial issues. The media outlet has denied these charges and has asserted that whatever it has published can be examined to assess if it has pushed a pro-China line.

The fact is that all countries seek to influence other countries’ attitudes, approaches and actions in one way or another. That is the game that nations play. Some elements of this game are above board and covered by international instruments relating to diplomacy, including in its cultural variant which involves attempts to spread soft power. Other aspects are not covered by global agreements and are subterranean but are undertaken by all countries. They are also countered by countries that are targets. Put crudely, it is a cat-and-mouse international game which is going on all the time.

The subterranean game covers a wide range: From straightforward espionage to the spread of influence through funding of undercover bodies which seek to subvert organisations and individuals. A net of not-so-open advantages is also spread. Certainly, media outlets, NGOs and think tanks should exercise every care that they do not wittingly or unwittingly take funds from sources that are ultimately controlled by agencies or institutions of foreign governments. The very acceptance of funds can infringe the law but ultimately, such issues are to be decided by the courts. The problem in India is that the legal process takes so long that the process in many instances itself becomes the punishment.

India’s open society has been the envy of many developing countries. All diplomats of this writer’s generation can testify to this fact. This has been a great aspect of India’s soft power. Naturally, it is necessary to fight terrorism of any variety with all the might of the state but it is possible to do so and also preserve India’s essential democratic and constitutional values and social harmony. This is, of course, the responsibility of the entire political class but is no less an obligation of the civil services, especially of its senior echelons.

The writer is a former diplomat