EDITORIAL: A Singular Lesson

The Prime Minister’s decision to drop the defamation Bill will be widely welcomed in the country. The decision is liable to partisan interpretation. It is as possible to see it as a victory for journalists and others who saw the bill as a most dangerous attack on the freedom of the press as to see it as a demonstration of Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s sensitivity to public opinion. In fact, it is both. It is certainly a victory for the journalists who have seldom been as united as on the issue of the defamation Bill. They took the stand that they would not engage in a dialogue with the government till the bill had been dropped. They have had their way. The Prime Minister, on his part, has shown good sense in bowing to the opposition which was by no means confined to the journalistic community. Opposition came from the legal fraternity as much as it came from the print media. It is difficult to think of a leading lawyer who has had a good word to say about the bill. Indeed, it would not be wide off the mark to say that there was a near unanimity even among the sitting judges of the Supreme Court and various high courts that the measure was misconceived and so bad in purely legal terms that it could not possibly withstand scrutiny. It is to Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s credit that he has recognised not only the power but also the legitimacy of this opposition, though we, like many others, would wish that such a situation would never have been allowed to rise.

The Prime Minister has said that the “issue of defamation remains” to be tackled and called for a national debate so that the rights of the individual (not to be defamed) and freedom of the press can be suitably reconciled. On the face of it, this is a legitimate formulation which it would be wrong to cavil at in the context of his decision to drop the bill. But the reality is that the atmosphere has been so vitiated that a worthwhile debate with the hope of a national consensus is just inconceivable. The debate should have been initiated before the bill was finalized or at least before it was sought to be pushed through Parliament in a most ham-handed manner. It is too late in the day to ask for such a debate. The matter has to be dropped totally at least till the next general election. The country is already in the grip of election fever. Opposition parties are busy putting their act together. Whether or not they succeed in this enterprise, their energies will be directed towards just one end – discrediting the Congress government in general and the Prime Minister in particular. A substantial section of the intelligentsia, especially the journalists and the lawyers are ranged with and behind the opposition. They are not likely to change their attitude in the coming months. Mrs. Indira Gandhi had to live with a similar combination against her. Mr Rajiv Gandhi has no option but to do the same. He has cut his losses. Persistence with the bill would have given his opponents a powerful stick to beat him with. In fact, they must be disappointed over the turn of events. They would have loved the confrontation between him and the press to go on. They must feel cheated. But beyond cutting his losses, nothing else is in the Prime Minister’s reach. He would be well advised to divert his attention to building his defences and devising, if possible, a strategy whereby he can seize the initiative on social and economic issues of interest to the common people.

In the context of this happy development, it would appear to be in bad farm to ask for action against those who misled the Prime Minister on this question. Even otherwise it would not make much sense to do so since it now transpires that almost all leading members of the cabinet were party to the bill in one way or another. But the issue of the competence and bona fides of the advice to the Prime Minister which this episode raises will not go away. Some individuals will see in this statement an attempt on our part to exonerate Mr Rajiv Gandhi for his share of responsibility for the disgraceful proposal. But we are guided by larger considerations. India’s Prime Minister has to deal with scores of problems every day: he cannot possibly go into details; he has to depend on advice of those he trusts; they owe it to him to offer sincere and competent advice and not to cater to his whims and prejudices. This Prime Minister happens to be relatively young and inexperienced in the business of politics. As such, the responsibility of his advisers increases. In this case, as in many others, they have not lived up to their obligation. He cannot sack the whole lot. But he can create a new structure on lines of the American national security council on which he can rely for assessment and advice. Men who could not anticipate that the popular reaction to the bill and the manner in which it was sought to be enacted into law would be furious, do not deserve to be trusted ever again on a sensitive issue. A politician is nothing if he is not able to anticipate the popular response to a move. Mr Rajiv Gandhi’s leading ministers have failed to live up to this elementary test. By the same token, those around Mr Rajiv Gandhi who have had to cope with the hardliners in the cabinet and done it successfully deserve to be commended. They have earned their keep.

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.