Journal of the Institute of
Communication & Journalism

NEWS YOU CAN USE

Editor: N. P. Chekkutty
Executive Editor: Dr. J. Geetha

The Humanist Agenda

From the Desk

The Images

Politics of Culture

Post-script

Media Focus
Calicut Press Club
Kozhikode - 673 001
e-mail: icjclt@vsnl.com

HOME

SUBSCRIBE TO MEDIA FOCUS

The Mixed Menu

M.G.S. Narayanan

Credibility at Discount

The native press in India, with English and ‘vernacular’ newspapers and magazines, came up in the second half of the 19th century. It was a by-product of the freedom struggle. It was founded and promoted by rebellious and sometimes radical amateurs. The profit-seekers came rather late into the scene. The political idealists who came first, without any training or technical knowledge picked up the rudiments of journalism as they went along. They worked with the minimum of capital and very crude printing and distribution arrangements.

Many of the editors, reporters, compositors and hawkers (sometimes one did the work of all), were also volunteers who did not work for wages. Patriotism and nationalism fuelled their machines rather than petrol or electricity. Even when they had some rich patrons, they modestly kept themselves in the shadows, for reasons of safety or out of altruistic motives or both, projecting the daring fighters into public life. Often the police and the pro-British courts harassed them. The presses and buildings were confiscated, the managers and editors were fined or arrested, and the newspapers had to suspend publication for long periods.

The writers and editors were appreciated and cheered by semi-literate mass audiences. The newspaper was usually read aloud in small gatherings. A magazine passed through many hands and many preserved it as a valuable memento. The volume of pamphlets and bit notices was considerable. Poets and artists contributed to the great collective effort for creating a tempo of warfare.

A good case in point is the early history of Mathrubhumi, the first Malayalam newspaper established as the mouthpiece of nationalist movement in Malabar. The founding fathers decided not to go to the rich patrons for the necessary capital, but to democratise the collection by appealing to the common people to take shares of small denominations. Hundreds of people came forward to buy shares, and they did so without expecting dividends in future. An indication of their selflessness is the fact that many of them never cared to make use of the certificates even after Independence when the paper became well established. Much later, clever businessmen cornered the shares. The certificates were fished out by the heirs of freedom fighters from old table drawers and lumber-rooms.

Everything changed in the post-Independence era. The ownership structure, the process of recruitment, the qualifications of the staff, the machinery, the circulation techniques, and most important, the readership too. The difference between the giant newspaper and the Lilliputian daily is more marked than ever today. The reader notices the dominant role of advertisements everywhere, and manipulation of news by vested interests becomes obvious to him/her whenever he/she happens to see the same news in different papers.

Professionalism is the hallmark of popular newspapers today. However, below the surface they still carry on with their political or communal prejudices -- very often the two are inseparably mixed up or mutually disguised -- and pressure tactics in the service of local interests. People often lament the disappearance of the values of the national movement, but to my mind, this change is inevitable and even desirable. There is a new, free, open, developing society in India. The question is not whether the news media conforms to the spirit of the freedom struggle or not, but to what extent they serve the needs of the new society. We can critically examine their conduct and actual role in the modern context and judge them, not according to the real or imaginary standards of a bygone era, but against the standards of our own times.

The general trend of commercialisation has brought in fresh problems. The dependence on government advertisements and paper quota limits the freedom of small newspapers to a great extent, so much so that it is obvious even to the lay readers. One also suspects that the big business houses which patronise them gradually start controlling, at least influencing, the decision making process in the newspapers. Fall in circulation is another factor that hangs over the head of journalists and proprietors like a Damocles’ sword. The strong party prejudices of individual journalists, in or out of step with those of the managers, may also become a complicating factor in processing and presenting information. The emergence of the radio and the television with different channels and frequent broadcasting of news tends to weaken the power of the print media.

Turning back to the experiences of the recent past, I have some observations to make about the character and role of the press in India today. While mainstream news is reported more or less promptly, honestly and fully for fear of competition, news about institutions, expert conferences, etc., leave much to be desired. High standards have been set in the field of investigative journalism by Arun Shourie, Chitra Subrahmaniam, etc. Their exposures have succeeded in heightening the political and social awareness of the people, and opening new lines of thinking for politicians. The results are encouraging since there is a strong demand for transparency in politics and accountability of politicians and administrators. Moreover, a good deal of serious rethinking on reservations, centre-state relations and corruption has cropped up in the news media following these exposures. Even at the academic level, fashionable slogans of socialism and communism have come to be questioned and critically examined, thanks partly to the wide coverage given to the breakdown of such systems elsewhere.

There was efficient reporting by the national press on caste wars and booth capturing in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, etc., including instances of police atrocities like the blinding the prisoners, obviously under instruction from the patrons above. They did not succeed in sending our politicians to jail or even putting them to shame and all those crimes have continued, but the blatant audacity and cool confidence that sanctioned them with immunity have disappeared. Perhaps all this has led to the development of more sophisticated methods in crime. Nevertheless, the very fact that criminals are a confused and divided lot is re-assuring to the public, since the rest of the work is to be taken up by agencies other than the press. New political and social workers have to take it up from where the journalists have left, because actual constructive programmes cannot be conducted by the media. After criticism and exposure, they have to wait for the next stage.

Having projected the positive aspects of the media at present, let me say something about the negative side also. My remarks are those of a reader keenly interested in getting reliable information.

When the Ram Janmabhumi- Babri Masjid conflict was slowly heading towards a crisis, I was in Delhi occupying a key position in the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) under the Ministry of Human Resources Development. The council was supposed to be the advisor to the Government of India on matters connected with historical affairs. The council had in its possession all the information concerning the historical side of the case, including the confidential records and the collection of data submitted to the prime minister by the two sides.

In fact, the confidential documents only went to confirm, elaborate and illustrate the published materials. Anyone ready to take pains to consult the published archaeological and literary data could easily see the facts being suppressed by the official statements. For example, it was clear that an early medieval Vishnu temple of the 12th-13th century existed on the site. Again, it was evident that the mosque was built upon the ruins of the temple, using the material parts of the temple including sculptured pillars and stones. Of course, that did not mean that any one had the right to demolish a structure that possessed great archaeological, religious and sentimental value, but the historical and political problems had to be viewed and tackled separately.

The ministers and leaders of the ruling parties and left parties were not bothered about the historical facts. On the other hand, they were interested in hiding them instead of educating the public to adopt a healthy attitude towards them. They did not even like to solve the problem, but were interested only in using it to win political support and votes. They were anxious to cover up the archaeological data, suppress the spirit of enquiry and forestall any possible compromise. That this would be harmful to the national interest in the long run, and might even lead to a violent explosion and irreparable damage -- as it occurred in December 1992 -- did not worry them greatly.

Contrary to expectations there were hurried attempts to brand any critic as a communal reactionary, to isolate and harass him and stifle the voice of dissent and protest. Historians of the so-called left and a few politicians created an atmosphere of frenzied anti-Hindu propaganda with the blessings of the ministry. The bogey of Hindu Fascism was raised. Even by the beginning of 1992 the politicians in power, bureaucrats and a set of Marxist historians of repute and influence had entered into a conspiracy to widen the conflict by setting the Hindu and Muslim extremists against each other, to adopt the age-old strategy of divide and rule. They were attempting to suppress the known historical facts and encouraging the Muslim extremists to go ahead with provocative statements. It seemed that they were banking on the stupidity of Hindu extremists to resort to violence in retaliation so that they can raise a clamour about Hindu fanaticism and Fascism and exploit the situation. By the end of the year the other side obliged, and now we have to live with the consequences.

Perhaps events could have taken a different course if the facts about the history of the temple-mosque controversy had been openly acknowledged and published by the Government, and the rulers had taken the initiative for conciliatory talks on the basis of facts instead of resorting to false propaganda.

The press people in Delhi were aware of all these developments, but kept an ominous silence. Those who were not informed could have got the facts if only they exhibited normal human curiosity to collect the facts before they went into the press with their aggressive ‘anti-fascist’ reports. They were generally eager to publish doctored information doled out by some junior officials of the council privately and never listened to any one else. Several senior historians were also playing a double game for small favours from the administration. The journalists whom I knew were in the same boat, never caring to pick up the facts from available sources, even when they were alerted. They were anxious to please the big bosses who played with threats and temptations on all sides. A small number of influential and intelligent Marxist historians had established themselves in key positions in all state-owned educational and cultural bodies and the popular press even from the days of Congress rule, and continued it under the Janata regime. They were able to take the ruling parties, the media and the whole country for a ride. Our generation is now paying the price for having allowed a bunch of anti-national intellectuals to take over the brain trusts of the nation.

Under such circumstances, a mature media world could have taken up the responsibility for publishing the available facts and exposing the extremists on both sides who were aided and abetted by those who mattered in the ruling and left parties. Perhaps their timely intervention in 1990 or 1991 or early 1992 could have averted the tragedy of December 1992 and saved the nation from all sorts of evil consequences. I think the national press failed there due to their ignorance of history, refusal to think and follow the available clues and, above all, rank dishonesty and cowardice.

I would like to move on to the havala case. It is clear to the reader that some bold journalists honestly tried to do some investigative reporting, but were they carried away by carefully planned leakage of information? Why did they fail to bring out valid evidence when the administrators were obviously concealing what they knew from the people? It is difficult to believe that it was due to inefficiency on the part of the journalists. What happened behind the camera between the reports in the press and the court verdicts in the case? Mystery surrounds the entire episode. However, the apparent forgetfulness of all the media in such a vital issue, and their long silence on all matters connected with the havala cases in subsequent period need not be considered as an insoluble riddle.

There are several cases in Kerala in which the over-enthusiasm of the press in the early stages and their sudden vow of silence in the middle of the struggle seem to be inexplicable. The cases in point are those about the disappearance of Chekanur Moulavi and a number of less known persons. Earlier, there was the case of nuclear espionage attributed to two women from Mali island and a few high-placed scientists who were stated to have acted as their accomplices. I read impassioned, patriotic outbursts of several senior journalists and politicians in the newspapers and magazines. Today those people responsible for the uproar appear to think that the people have a short memory. The principle of accountability before the public should not be restricted in application to the politicians and government officials alone.

More recently, there was the ice-cream parlour sex case in Kozhikode. It would appear from early reports in the press that everybody in the media world knew everything about it, and that all the evidence had been handed over to the police. Though the press created such a big noise at the outset, the case suddenly collapsed. The concerned members of the public waited in vain for the fourth estate to reveal the rest of the story. If the police withdrew from the investigation due to political pressure, the press had an obligation to expose the police and the politicians who acted in a criminal way behind the scenes. However, the questions in the minds of the reading public have so far remained unanswered. The unavoidable conclusion in this case too is that the press in general, with very few exceptions, acts in collusion with the avowed criminals and their hypocritical patrons in politics and administration. Their pretences and promises are not sustained beyond a certain point of time.

What is the remedy? Greater competition in the media world; more educated journalists endowed with a larger dose of honesty and moral courage; more and more members of the public who take an active interest in public affairs - these are the prescriptions that I would prefer to give. I would like to remind the press that they are the self-nominated watchdogs of liberty in a democratic country like India. As such their achievements will shape the achievements of the nation, and their failures will be disastrous to the people.

[GO TOP]

K.M.Roy

Decline and Fall
of the Indian Editor

To whom is an editor answerable? This is a question which remains unanswered even after endless deliberations. As everybody knows, the editor has three distinct relationships: with the proprietor, with the subordinate editorial staff and with the public. There is no doubt that a person who accepts employment, whether in a newspaper, industry or a business house, also accepts the obligation of loyalty to the employer.

Looking from such an angle, there is no question of a dispute over the loyalty of the editor to the proprietor. But journalism does not come under any generalised business. I do not mean that running a newspaper is not a business at all. But I have an apprehension in accepting it as an industry in the strictest sense, though it has become an industry which involves big investment. If we accept that an editor is a custodian of public interest, we have also to accept the principle of obligation to the society. This is a question of undefinable dual loyalty.

In the changed newspaper industry, it is not easy to question the right of an owner to ask the editor to quit if the newspaper faces financial loss or drop in circulation. It may be because the editor might have been forced to act against the policies agreed upon by him at the time of employment, though the policy of a newspaper is not laid down in writing anywhere in the world.

However, there is no instance of an editor being dismissed for drop in circulation or financial loss. But we can find a number of instances of the editor being fired even after having brought financial success to the newspaper by boosting circulation and popularity. The sacking of veteran journalist B. G. Verghese, editor of the Hindustan Times, by G. D. Birla is a case in point. The editor did not submit to the dictates of the proprietor in editorial policy matters. The bitter experiences of editors like Khushwant Singh and Arun Shourie were also the same. Another recent example is the dismissal of H. K. Dua, editorial advisor of the Times of India. The Press Council of India was seriously involved in this controversy.

The whole episode began with the decision of the Enforcement Directorate to take action against Ashok Jain, the then chairman of Bennet Coleman and Co., the owners of the Times of India group, who was charged with violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). Though Mr. Jain put up a strong legal fight against the move, he failed as the Supreme Court rejected his petition for anticipatory bail.

Meanwhile, the Times of India started a tirade against the Enforcement Directorate branding its action as a violation of the freedom of the press. Veteran journalist H.K.Dua was sacked from the post of the editorial advisor, for not joining hands with Mr. Jain in his campaign to prevent the directorate from performing its duties. Dua, who approached the Press Council complaining against his dismissl, narrated the extra-journalistic interests of the Times of India. He stated that he was wrongfully dismissed "because of his refusal to accede to the demand of Ashok Jain to help him in his alleged FERA case by creating public opinion, to lobby with the political leaders and to write articles in his favour".

At the same time various journalist unions, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Ashok Mehta, a reader, approached the Press Council complaining against the unethical activities of the Times of India. The complainants said that the Times of India started a column, the Human Rights Watch, in January 1998 when the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Jain’s petition seeking anticipatory bail. Most of the articles and news items published by the newspaper against the Enforcement Directorate in this column were either distorted or one-sided.

Several prominent journalists and jurists expressed their surprise and concern at the misuse of such columns. In these columns the Times of India published interviews with eminent personalities on the controversy. But the newspaper twisted or distorted most of the views expressed by these personalities to suit its purpose. Famous cartoonist and columnist Rajinder Puri complained later that a vital sentence from an interview given by him to the daily had been deleted when it was published.

The sentence deleted was: "At present, the Times of India’s campaign does not appear to be a campaign for human rights, but a private war against the Enforcement Directorate". Others who came out with similar criticisms and allegations included Justice Rajinder Sachar, former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, and R. M. Lal, editor of the PUCL Bulletin.

Considering all aspects of various complaints, the Times of India was censured by the Press Council "for carrying on a campaign against the Enforcement Directorate with the manifest intention of pressurising and deflecting it from performing its lawful duties".

About the Human Rights Watch column, the Press Council said: "It is difficult to believe that the respondent newspaper did not know its duty not to give adverse publicity to the Enforcement Directorate in the cases where the chairman of Bennet Coleman and Company, which runs the newspaper, was himself under investigation." The Press Council opined that the Times of India had violated norm 10 of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct which said that publication of news/ comments/ information on public officials conducting investigations should not have a tendency to help the commision of offences or to impede the prevention or detection of offences or prosecution of the guilty. The Press Council also upheld the complaint that the Times of India had sought to give a communal colour to its campaign by publishing two reports from the leaders of the Jain and Tamil communities condemning the Enforcement Directorate’s alleged high-handed handling of members of their respective communities.

The president of the Indian Newspaper Society, the association of newspaper proprietors in India, Vijay Darda, issued a statement expressing strong objection to the council’s decision to censure the Times of India, which, according to him, was only publishing a series of articles on human rights in an effort to highlight the continued harassment of Mr. Jain. Apart from that, the INS president turned against the Press Council chairman Justice P. B. Sawant, a former judge of the Supreme Court, criticising him for his remarks on the issue. He said that these remarks indicated his ignorance of the ground realities of the industry as well as absence of understanding of the climate in which India had created a free and independent media.

But this argument was rejected by C.R.Irani of the Statesman, a former INS president, who came out with editorials and statements condemning the Times of India management for violating journalistic ethics in publishing distorted reports and columns to protect its chairman who was charged with violations of the FERA. Mr. Irani did not spare even the Indian Newspaper Society. He stated that the INS was afoot since the Supreme Court rejected Mr Jain’s petition seeking anticipatory bail. Mr. Irani also stated that the resolution condemning the Press Council got passed in the INS meeting held at Aurangabad in a dubious way as its draft was not circulated among the members.

All these events proved beyond doubt that not only the Times of India, but even the organisation of newspaper proprietors in the country considered the freedom of the press as their unquestionable freedom to safeguard their vested interests and they accepted no obligations to the society. The bottomline here is the linkage of newspapers with industries and the ownership of newspapers by business houses.

Our country had witnessed a relentless battle by two textile giants -- Dhirubhai Ambani, chairman of the Reliance Group of Industries and Nusli Wadia, chairman of the Bombay Dying -- through the press in the latter part of 1986. Newspapers like the Indian Express, the Times of India, the Patriot and Blitz joined in this fierce battle. The root of the Ambani-Wadia conflict lies in the astonishing growth of Reliance which threatened to sound the death-knell of its older competitor in the textile zone. This type of corporate war in the media is going on even today as the ownership of newspapers, particularly the national dailies, is with big industrial houses.

All these unhealthy and unethical trends shatter whatever illusions we may have of objective journalism in a business-controlled press. The Press Council, which is undoubtedly a toothless body, could stand only as a silent spectator before this catastrophe. The first Press Commission appointed by the central government in September 1952 under the chairmanship of Justice Rajadhyaksha to study the Indian press had found a considerable degree of concentration in the ownership of newspapers and warned that this dangerous tendency might develop into a threat in the future.

The commission had also stated that the press had a social responsibility and accountability to the public and whatever be the precise form of ownership of newspapers, the exercise of ownership rights had to be subject to some measure of restraint and regulation. Eminent journalists and organisations of journalists raised their demand for delinking of newspapers from industrial houses and diffusion in its management. But Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was the darling of the Indian press, could only stand helpless.

The second Press Commission under the chairmanship of Justice K. K. Mathew had also been asked to study and make recommendations on the ownership pattern; safeguards for the independence of the press against economic and political pressures from proprietors and management and links of newspaper with business houses. The second Press Commission stressed the need for effective steps to delink newspapers from the industrial houses and diffuse its ownership.

The commission said in its report: "When newspapers are controlled by other big business houses they become vehicles of expression of the ideology of their owners and the selection, presentation and display of news in such newspapers, would be dictated by that ideology. The newspaper industry in their hands becomes involuntarily the cultural arm of other businesses and industries and takes a vested interest in maintaining the existing socio-economic system. The newspapers controlled by them may be selective in their presentation of news and views in return for benefits conferred in respect of their other business interests. If all major newspapers come to represent a similar, if not the same, viewpoint as is not unlikely when all of them belong to large private business enterprises, a viewpoint which is against the interests of private big business may not receive a fair deal in their columns. It is enough for our purpose to say that legislative measures needed for achieving the goals of our state run counter to the vested interests of the owners of these big newspapers who have large interests in other businesses."

In spite of all these, could any government in the country take the whip in their hand to fight the business houses which were tightening their grip on the newspapers? We cannot ignore the fact that in 1971 delinking and diffusion of newspaper ownership was considered by Indira Gandhi and steps were taken to prepare a draft bill in this regard. But everything ended there. Appointment of commissions and committees one after another will not take us anywhere, unless the ruling class has the political will to act.

[GO TOP]

T.Venugopalan

On Swadeshabhimani

The dawn of journalism in India was clouded by supression of press freedom. No crimson glow lit up the sky. A foreboding of doom was discernible in the air. Damn the Utopian who preferred newspapers without government to government without newspapers! The authorities were not, or never are, in a mood to cherish such daydreams. It remains an illusion to enamour some idealistic journalists and to inspire them to put up a fight, invariably a losing one.

The press in the past had only the government to contend with. In democracy of modern times, the scenario has completely changed. Those in power, whether it is in government, in political parties, in organisations, or in any organised sector stand against the press. They all converge on it to pluck its tongue and pierce its eyes. It is the people they fear most in a democracy; and they are bent upon denying the people the right to know. They have secrets to keep; and to do so they have to silence the press. Threat to press freedom has thus developed in dangerous dimensions, which our predecessors were not called upon to tackle.

Our first journalist, or rather, journalist-to-be, William Bolt (in 1767) was not allowed even to make a start. He was a Dutchman by birth but was a high officer in the East India Company. His fast expanding business influence and growing financial affluence were not to the liking of the East Inda Company authorities. On concocted charges amounting to treason, he was dismissed from service. He wanted to retaliate by starting a newspaper to expose the nefarious activities of the East India Company. And he made his intention public. The authorities were terrified. They did not waste time. Bolt was unceremoniously deported to Europe. So the hideous history of supression of press freedom in India was heralded by a deportation order against the very thought of starting a newspaper!

The second journalist, James Augustus Hickey who was an Englishman, was destined to start India’s first newspaper. He began in a colourless way -- copying old news from European papers. But he soon made his presence felt with a bang. He dared to savagely criticise the company officials and high authorities. He even went to the extent of alleging that the Governor General’s wife had been meddling with administrative matters. Undaunted by the relentless oppressive acts of the authorities, Hickey carried on his campaign for two years. But ultimately in 1772, Hickey’s Gazette was banned and he was jailed.

Since then, the days of Indian press have never been peaceful, let alone happy. It was only natural. Before long, the turbulent days of freedom struggle came, and most of the leading papers were organs of the national movement.

But suppression of press freedom by the proprietors themselves, trying to put shackles on the editors, was a phenomenon unheard of. Almost all of our editors were proprietors as well. They were public men with a missionary zeal; and started newspapers to carry on some laudable campaign. It was unlike the modern times when people with some vested interests and a political, social or financial axe to grind, invest money and become newspaper proprietors. And to avoid the exigency of handling a recalcitrant editor, they become editors themselves,  retaining the right of press freedom under their wings.

Perhaps the first Indian journalist to face oppression of press freedom from the proprietor was the editor of three Malayalam newspapers in succession, the legendary ‘Swadeshabhimani’ K. Ramakrishna Pillai (1878-1916). He became a victim first at the hands of the proprietors and last at the hands of the government. He has the unique distinction of starting his journalistic career with a banishment from his home and ending it with deportation from his homeland by the government.

The first decade of the 20th century in the erstwhile princely state of Travancore saw Ramakrishna Pillai as a young man with unabating missionary zeal. He believed that he was born to be a journalist. His urge to expose anti-people acts of authorities could never be suppressed. He could not help intensifying his crusade against the mal-administration of the government and the misdeeds of the officials, despite the danger of retaliation looming large before him. Why? "He did not have the patience to sit idle seeing the gross injustices; nor did he have the courage to act against his conscience", as Tharavath Ammalu Amma, his adopted mother and writer, quipped. He is said to have published a letter in a newspaper while he was only 14, criticising the magistrate of Neyyattinkara, his hometown, for his omissions and commissions detrimental to the interests of the people.

Ramakrishna Pillai had been flirting with journalism in his early student days, writing social, political and literary pieces in various papers. (He was formally a student throughout his life, dying of TB while he was about to appear for his final law degree examination.) He had earned a name as a writer by the time he entered college. His passion for journalism often disrupted his studies, which angered his uncle, who was his guardian, a practising lawayer in his hometown who was still smarting under the blow dealt by his nephew with his ‘magistrate piece’. Ramakrishna Pillai was appointed editor of Keraladarpanam in 1899 while he was an intermediate (pre-degree) student. On hearing this, his uncle rushed to Thiruvananthapuram, where he had put Ramakrishnan and other nephews under the charge of his sister for their studies. The uncle had great hopes of Ramakrishnan becoming a government officer after graduation. Now he saw his hopes crumbling down. He asked Ramakrishnan to decline the editorship and continue his studies, or to get out of the house. Ramakrishna Pillai took his bag of books and went out. From then on, he stood on his own legs. It was the beginning of a hectic life of intermittently interrupted college education, financial difficulties of maintaining a family, and hard and long hours on his paper, which was telling upon his health.

Like Bolt, Ramakrishna Pillai was, by compulsion, a non-starter at first. The proprietor of Keraladarpanam published a note on the working arrangements in his paper, which partially ran counter to the understanding between him and the editor. Ramakrishna Pillai resigned in protest even before joining the paper. After two years, in 1901, Keraladarpanam merged with another paper Vanchibhoopanchika. A new management emerged and the title of the joint venture became Kerala Panchika. Ramakrishna Pillai was appointed editor again.

But the scathing political criticism in his editorials and articles infuriated the dewan and other officials. They brought pressure on the proprietor, who in turn, asked the editor to stop the onslaught. Ramakrishna Pillai did not oblige. He resigned in 1903.

Then he became the political correspondent of the Malayali. Pillai’s political reports and articles under the non de plume of ‘Keralan’ enhanced the prestige and increased the circulation of the paper immensely. After a few months, the post of editor fell vacant and Pillai was naturally elevated to it.

But history repeated itself. His political criticism was getting sharper and sharper. Even his editorials had the aura of investigative journalism. His arguments were fully substantiated by newly unearthed facts and his conclusions were convincing. The authorities were at a loss, not knowing how to tackle him. Finally they turned to the only recourse they knew. They coerced the proprietor into putting the editor under restraint, which he tried to do. The uncompromising editor promptly resigned, in 1904.

Ramakrishna Pillai was only 26 then. But that young man who ventured to trek the formidable terrains of adventurous journalism, fired by idealism and a sense of mission, had learned a lot during his short period of editorship, and his idea of press freedom soon got crystallised. He put it in his book on journalism in 1912, the first of its kind by an Indian. And it was also the first time that such a thought ever had struck an Indian editor. He wrote:

"What should be the position of the proprietor of a newspaper? What should be the behaviour pattern between him and the editor? Is it the editor’s place to obey the orders of the proprietor to the letter? Should the paper reflect the editor’s opinion, or that of the proprietor? Editor’s duty is to work always in accordance with the wishes of the people. It is incumbent upon him to reflect the feeling of the people on what is bad and what is good for them. Whatever the proprietor thinks on this matter, his opinion is to be totally ignored, if it is not worth considering. But, if the editor’s wish goes against the wishes and opinion of the people, he should not act in a selfish and dictatorial way. That will make the people dissatisfied with the paper; and the paper’s standing will go down. So, the editor is bound to work in the best interests of his paper. While following the wishes and opinion of the people, he should also be able to guide and mould public opinion suitable for the times to come. It is like a far-sighted man that he should advise people on public affairs. As such, the editor should not be an obedient servant of the proprietor. And, what competence do the proprietors have to order the editor? There are people who pose as proprietors simply because they have invested some money to start a newspaper or they run the press. When such persons think only of making money somehow, how is it possible for newspapers to have freedom?" (Vrithanthapa trapravarthanam, Kerala Press Academy, Kochi)

And the thunder resounds through the years, as the relevance of this concept will never die out as long as newspapers are here.

Ramakrishna Pillai decided not to work again in another’s newspaper. And he started his own journal Keralan, a monthly, in 1905. Keralan has a unique place in the history of Indian journalism. It was through the columns of this journal that he propounded and enunciated some fundamental progressive political theories, exposing the decadent culture that the old systems and theories vainly tried to uphold. This he did with particular reference to the affairs of the then princely state of Travancore. Thus the theoretical discussions turned out to be timely pungent political criticism and held the public in rapt attention . Keralan had the limitations of a monthly. But the offer of the editorship of Swadeshabhimani by its illustrious proprietor, Vakkom Moulavi, gave him freedom and opportunity to write without any shackles. Even while commenting on foreign incidents, his editorials were notable for their veiled thrust towards the Maharaja, his palace favourites, the dewan or the officials. For instance, this is what he wrote on the murder of the King of Portugal:

"That the fate which overtook the King of Portugal should not occur again to kings in this world, is what all peace-lovers devoutly wish for; but it should also be noted that it teaches kings and government officers another memorable lesson on their duties to the people. We should bear in mind that the sovereign who rules over a state is bound to promote the interests of the subjects, and that the kings’s will and pleasure shall not over-ride popular interests. It is an undisputed fact that the feeling which promoted the people of Servia to mercilessly hack their king to pieces, because he gave himself up to his mistress much against the interests of the poeple, was their aversion to his acts of self-aggrandizement. When more parties than one exist among the people in a state, and the king or head of the administration goes on favouring one of them to an extent as to rouse ill-feeling and spite among the rest, he, the king or the administrative head, should ever keep in mind that his is not a bed of roses, but one of thorns."

Ramakrishna Pillai questioned the propriety of the establishment of Travancore as a caste Hindu state surrendered to Sri Padmanabha, a Hindu god, when the land was actually run with the money of Christians and Muslims too. He exploded the myth of the Divine Right theory of Kingship. He propounded the theories of freedom for citizens, democracy, socialism and secularism. He argued that the king was the servant of his subjects and not vice versa. He questioned the king on his squandering away of public money for his extravagant personal comforts and the upkeep of his vily palace favourites who were looting the exchequer. He prophesied that the future of any country depended on a secular, democratic, socialistic setup.

Along with this kind of political preaching, he continued his onslaught on the administration. Not even the Maharaja was spared. He wrote many editorials on press freedom too. Finally, the government found that they could do only one thing: deport Ramakrishna Pillai. This they did in September, 1910. This created an uproar in the Indian press -- both English and vernacular. Ramaskrihna Pillai died of TB in 1916 at Kannur in exile.

[GO TOP]

K.N.Ramachandran

Let Thousand Flowers Bloom

The Indian media cannot be seen in isolation from class structure and class rule. It consists of the dominant mainstream media monopolised by the ruling classes, and the numerous small publications many of which attack the ruling system and try to expose its real character. The mainstream media serves the ruling classes and the global imperialist system. For the elite, it is a free press. But for the toiling classes, it distorts news and features in favour of their enemies and deviates from cardinal issues. Still the media plays an important role in social life.

The consequences of the IMF-World Bank-WTO policies and the privatisation-liberalisation-globalisation regime are not difficult to unravel. They are establishing the hegemony of imperialist capital and the market system. For the country, the consequences are devastating -- ecologically, socially and culturally. The media, however, refuses to bring out these facts.

The Indian media is unfree as far as the masses are concerned. It fails to play a positive role in the protection of democracy and freedom of expression. At the same time, within the limited boundaries of existing bourgeois democracy, there exists in the media some scope to ventilate the feelings and sufferings of the masses. What matters is how best this opportunity can be utilised. Alternatives can be tried by bringing out parallel ventures. These can serve the real cause only when they challenge the ruling system which is getting more and more autocratic and fascist.

The mainstream media has even imposed a self-censorship. As the fascist tendencies intensify, formal censorship will be imposed. As far as democratic forces are concerned they have to fight against censorship. The democratic forces should uphold: "Let thousand flowers bloom, let thousand thoughts contend".

However, the new developments in information technology can be utilised for social progress. But to observe them as above-class is contrary to facts. The dominant or ruling classes add their value systems to these achievements and make them serve their class interests. As youth are more sensitive and possess vast revolutionary potential, maximum effort is made to make them addictive to the neo-techno-visual culture. Here culture is made an industry, and informatics plus culture plus sports ultimately serve the MNCs. Thus the monopoly media, especially the electronic one, try to create an environment of hostility towards the interests of the masses.

In this media atmosphere, the toiling masses get only limited coverage, that too in a post-modernist deconstructed form. Their problems are dealt not as part of the complex social problems in a class society. A comprehensive vision is consciously eschewed.

What is required is a democratic media serving the people’s cause, helping them to advance towards democracy and socialism.

[GO TOP]

B.R.P.Bhaskar, M.K.Das, Paul Zachariah

Media and Freedom: a Debate

The Media Focus brings to you a discussion on media and freedom of expression in the Indian social and political context. How far is our media free? When monopoly ownership/ crossmedia control patterns result in a virtual stranglehold on media and its practitioners, a matter which received critical attention from even official agencies like the Press Commission, can we say our media enjoys freedom? Also, the Indian Press Council, though one of the oldest and enjoying wide powers, is being threatened by ownership interests like the Indian Newspaper Society. Meanwhile, demands for disciplining the media in the name of yellow journalism by governments are getting strident. In this environment of hostility, the media, unfortunately, is showing a tendency to resign itself to being complacent. Apart from governmental and business interference, our media seems to be swayed by social and ideological prejudices. All these problems deserve critical attention and objective analysis. Eminent mediapersons B. R. P. Bhaskar, M. K. Das and Paul Zachariah discuss some of the questions haunting the media.