Indian journalists have made their point effectively. It is now reasonably certain that a way will be found to return the Bihar Press Bill to the state government with a request that it be ‘suitably’ amended.
The authorities concede that the Bill suffers from vagueness in that it does not define what constitutes “scurrilous” writing. Indeed, they admit that it is virtually impossible to define this phrase. They also recognise that it is unreasonable to make “scurrilous” writing a cognisable offence, arm executive magistrates with the power to order arrests and bring vendors, hawkers and readers within the purview of the legislation.
It is difficult to say at this stage what Dr. Jagannath Mishra will do when the bill is returned to him. For all we know, he may find discretion the better part of valour and let the bill lapse. It is also possible that by the time he is called upon to take a decision on this issue, his own position may be so weakened that he may have little choice but to drop it. But the opposite possibility, too, cannot be dismissed. Dr. Mishra may well modify the bill to take care of the objections conveyed to him by the Centre and push it through the state legislature once again.
On the face of it, it is not possible to object to such a procedure being recommended by the Centre and being adopted by Dr Mishra. His name is mud with a lot of journalists not only in Bihar but all over the country. They distrust him and would wish him to be sacked by Mrs. Gandhi in Bihar’s as well as her own interest. But we have to separate the two issues – the bill and Dr Mishra’s reputation. In the present context it means that once the bill is returned to him, we shall have to wait for him to produce the amended version before we can pronounce on it.
Withdrawal Needed
It is the considered judgement of a number of senior journalists by no means ill-disposed towards the Congress (1) and its leader, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, that it is impossible to frame a law which curbs “scurrilous” writings and does not at the same time undermine the freedom of the press. They are convinced that Mrs. Gandhi will still be well advised to ask Dr. Mishra to drop the bill altogether because nothing short of it is likely to reassure the journalistic community of the government’s bona fides. That is, however, her business. She has to decide how important it is for her to reassure the journalistic fraternity and whether it is necessary for her to jettison the Bihar Press Bill.
All that we would wish to add right now is that she should not allow Dr. Mishra and his ilk to convince her that an attack on him even on the limited issue of the Press Bill is a prelude to an assault on her own position. She walked into a similar trap cunningly laid by Mr. LN Mishra, Dr. Mishra’s elder brother, in the early seventies and more recently by Mr. AR Antulay. Twice bitten, she should be once shy.
The press may be the main opposition in India, as Mrs. Gandhi said in a recent interview. But by the same token, it cannot be a tool in the hands of the opposition. And it is not. In fact, the opposition is so fragmented and speaks in so many voices that journalists cannot possibly make common cause with it even if they were so inclined which, of course, they are not. They have scant respect for most opposition leaders.
Some political leaders have, as was only to be expected, supported the journalists in their agitation against the Bihar Bill. But that does not establish a link between the two. The journalists are operating according to their own lights. Those in authority may not find that convenient. No administration in any democracy ever does. But that is a separate issue. The pertinent point in the present circumstances is that, apart from some party hacks, journalists as a body are too individualistic (and often self-opinionated) to serve someone else’s purpose.
A lot of Congress (I) leaders are apparently too innocent of the nature of the journalistic profession to appreciate this point. Some of them are too self-righteous to accept that it is not a crime for anyone to criticise them. Some others have so much to hide that they cannot possibly welcome any probe into their activities. Above all, the Prime Minister’s frequent criticism of the press has convinced them that the Indian press is no good. One of them said to me the other day that one could get anything published in most newspapers. Most of the Congress (I) members have also no clear idea of what they mean by scurrilous writings, character assassination and so on.
Reporter’s Duty
The other evening a young Congress (I) leader spoke eloquently of the way he had been unjustly defamed by an English daily with many editions. The paper had carried a report that he had helped a criminal, with the blood of two police sub-inspectors on his hands, to get a passport and escape to Pakistan. As he proceeded, it came out that someone had forged a letter to the regional passport officer in Lucknow in the young MP’s name and that someone had shown the forged letter to the correspondent. So the reporter was not guilty of inventing the charge. But that did not satisfy the Congress (I) leader. It was the reporter’s duty to check up the facts with him before going into print. So indeed if was, if we are to go by the very highest professional norms. But the reporter had seen evidence which he had no good reason to suspect.
The story, however, did not end there. The individual concerned took up the matter with the editor of the newspaper who, on being convinced that the Congress (I) man had in fact been wronged, published a handsome apology with a double-column heading on page 1. This too did not fully satisfy him and he continues to believe that journalists publish anything they like without caring to verify the facts. Surely, it is not possible to agree with him at least on the basis of his “personal experience”. The reporter was misled, clearly deliberately, and so cannot be blamed. And the editor lost no time in publishing an apology and publishing it prominently. One can hardly insist on higher standards of professional rectitude. One wishes that politicians would observe similar norms even among themselves.
The discussion then shifted to a more serious issue – the communal riots in Meerut and the alleged role of the press. It appears from what was said that a particular Hindi daily has greatly increased its appeal and circulation in the area as a result of its reports and comments. But from the discussion it was not clear whether the daily was indiscreet but factually correct or both indiscreet and factually wrong. The issue, however, can be discussed independently of the performance of the Meerut press.
There is a school of journalism – the “publish and be damned” school – which believes that journalists should publish the facts as they discover them, and not worry about the possible consequences. Some of us belonging to the older generation do not subscribe to this approach. We have held that we should be careful lest we damage national interests, communal amity being one of the most important of them. But this is now a minority view. The ‘publish and be damned’ school has won widespread acceptance and appeal precisely because the impression has spread, quite rightly, that those in authority wish to hide facts, not in the national interest but in their own.
Suppression Questioned
Having gone along with the old convention that Indian commentators and journalists should not name the communities involved in a riot, apportion blame and list the names of those killed and injured, some of the senior members of the profession are beginning to wonder whether by suppressing the facts they have served the cause of communal peace. Some public figures have also come to share this scepticism. Some of the journalists have entertained the same doubt in regard to the manner they have reported and commented on developments in Jammu and Kashmir for well over three decades.
There is another aspect of the problem from which we must not shy away if we are interested in a frank and serious discussion. It is easy for an English-language metropolitan daily to adopt an above-the-battle attitude towards a communal riot. By and large journalists working on these papers are also not communal in their outlook.
An Indian-language daily from a metropolitan centre or a state capital can also adopt a similar attitude, though with some difficulty, since its journalistic staff is likely to feel involved. But an Indian-language local paper barely managing to survive, often with the support of individuals who are not particularly enlightened, is a different proposition.
As far as I am aware, no one has systematically studied the compulsions and behaviour pattern of these publications. The home ministry and the Press Information Bureau are said to keep a tab on the activities of some publications which are particularly brazen in inciting communal passions. But neither has found it fit to raise the issue publicly. Instead, the authorities have continued to criticise the press as a whole as if it is a monolith, and to swear by small newspapers.
If small is not beautiful, it is not necessarily ugly either. But who is to distinguish between a public-spirited effort and an effort guided by narrow considerations? No one has a solution to offer to this problem. In the circumstances, one way out is that those in authority let the market forces decide the fate of such enterprises. That may not be an ideal solution. But there is no other way out. Official patronage cannot in any case ensure either quality or success in a newspaper enterprise.
The Times of India, 27 October 1982