Editor's Guild | SabrangIndia News Related to Human Rights Tue, 02 Jul 2024 12:43:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.2 https://sabrangindia.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Favicon_0.png Editor's Guild | SabrangIndia 32 32 Editors’ Guild urges government to remove COVID-19 era restrictions on journalists covering parliamentary proceedings https://sabrangindia.in/editors-guild-urges-government-to-remove-covid-19-era-restrictions-on-journalists-covering-parliamentary-proceedings/ Tue, 02 Jul 2024 12:43:13 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=36496 The Editors Guild of India has written to the speaker and has urged for the restoration of ‘complete’ access to the journalists to the parliamentary proceedings that had earlier been removed due to COVID-19 related protocols.

The post Editors’ Guild urges government to remove COVID-19 era restrictions on journalists covering parliamentary proceedings appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
The Editors Guild of India has written to the newly elected Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, and Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar to urge them to lift restrictions on journalists covering House proceedings.

These letters were also shared with the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and leaders of all parties in both houses.

These restrictions on media were placed when the Covid-19 protocols were enforced which gave limited access for media personnel, including those with permanent accreditation. With the pandemic under control, the Guild has asked for restoring full access to ensure transparent reporting of the parliamentary proceedings.

The letter also states that the Press Advisory Committee has not been formed again in the last few years. The Press Advisory Committee’s is a body that has responsibilities which include recommending the grant of permanent passes to representatives from newspapers, news agencies, and media who wish to cover House proceedings from the Gallery or any other parliamentary events. The body was founded in 1929 under the president of the Central Legislative Assembly Vithalbhai Patel. It is appointed by the Speaker and is made up of 25 journalists. It also makes recommendations on various matters.

As per the letter, around a thousand journalists have been thus far permitted to cover the proceedings. However, only a small number of them are allowed and given permission.

“The country has fought the scourge and moved on and we hope limiting access is also done away with”, the letter reads, “The decision to provide unfettered access to journalists was in practice since the Constituent Assembly and continued by the first Parliament. The objective was to keep the people abreast with the work of their representatives, developments inside the House and dynamics outside, through media, which is vital in a parliamentary democracy.”

 

Related:

 Kerala: BJP activists attack MediaOne TV headquarters during victory celebrations

Calcutta High Court slams ECI for inaction, restrains BJP from publishing ads in any form of media

How free is free and can there be freedom without responsibility: Courts on media coverage of trials, erring conduct of anchors

Secularism under siege: post-election realities for Indian Muslims

The post Editors’ Guild urges government to remove COVID-19 era restrictions on journalists covering parliamentary proceedings appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Grave concerns on DPDP Act, 2023 as journalistic activities threatened: Editor’s Guild to MEITY https://sabrangindia.in/grave-concerns-on-dpdp-act-2023-as-journalistic-activities-threatened-editors-guild-to-meity/ Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:26:52 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=33298 In a detailed representation to Ashwini Vaishnaw, the Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology, the Editor’s Guild of India (EGI) has pointed out how the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protect Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) –possibly inadvertently--violate privacy principles enunciated by the Supreme Court-appointed Justice BN Srikrishna Commission report as also threaten the very existence of journalistic activities in India

The post Grave concerns on DPDP Act, 2023 as journalistic activities threatened: Editor’s Guild to MEITY appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
In a representation to Ashwini Vaishnaw, the Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology, the Editor’s Guild of India (EGI) has pointed out how the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protect Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) violate principles enunciated by the Supreme Court-appointed Justice BN Srikrishna Commission report as also threaten the very existence of journalistic activities in India.

Expressing grave concerns at the impact of the recently enacted law on journalistic activities, the EGI, established post-Emergency in 1978[1], The detailed representation explains how this law, ostensibly brought in to “protect data privacy” will, in fact bring journalistic activity to a standstill.

The representation points out that while the DPDPA does not address journalists or their activities, it regulates the underlying processing (e.g., collection, use, storage) of personal data that is inevitable in almost every instance of journalism.

The EGI statement states, “ The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 inadvertently endangers the freedom of the press 1.1 The DPDPA, while a laudable initiative towards protecting the personal data of individuals, if applied indiscriminately to the processing of personal data in a journalistic context, will bring journalism in the country to a standstill. This will have a long-standing impact on the freedom of the press, and the dissemination of information not just in reporting in print, TV, and the internet, but also the mere issuance of press releases by all parties including political parties. 1.2 The continued existence of the press – the fourth pillar of democracy – enables the dissemination of news, thoughts, and opinions and ensures a free and fair democracy. It informs public opinion, promotes civic engagement, and empowers individuals to make informed decisions including political choices. Its centrality is recognised by the Constitution of India (Constitution), which only permits reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

As the statement points out, the Srikrishna Committee Report also recognised these consequences in noting that the untrammelled dissemination of news, current affairs, and documentaries, especially when they inform, criticise, and analyse issues of public importance, is in the public interest.

Journalistic Conduct regulated by Press Council of India (PCI) norms

The protection of personal data in the course of journalistic activities is built into journalistic conduct, such as those issued by the Press Council of India (PCI), established under the Press Council Act, 1978, Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards released by the News Broadcasters and Digital Association. 6.2 Notably, the PCI prescribes safeguards in the context of communalism in the press and cautions against defamatory writings and objectionable investigative reporting, obscenity, and vulgarity in, for example, news stories, or feature reports.

Through this, journalists are barred from (i) intruding upon or invading the privacy of an individual unless outweighed by the genuine overriding public interest; (ii) tape-recording a conversation without that person’s knowledge or consent, except where the recording is necessary to protect the journalist in a legal action, or for other compelling good reason. Journalists are also required to (i) obtain the prior consent of a minor’s parent, if “public interest” overrides the minor’s right to privacy; (iii) to apply due care by not disclosing the real names of persons involved in incidents affecting personal lives; and (iv) refrain from publishing inaccurate, baseless, graceless, misleading or distorted material. 6.3 Given that these codes of conduct, which apply to all journalists, achieve a balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy applying a second framework to the same processing activities, concerning the same personal data will only create duplicate compliance requirements, impose an unwarranted burden on journalists, and more importantly, impair free speech and expression. This is particularly true since these applicable codes of conduct for journalism provide a more tailored compliance regime in balancing the competing rights at hand.

Concerns over DPDP Act

The newly enacted DPDP Act requires individuals or entities that determine the purpose and means of processing such personal data outside a personal or domestic context, i.e., data fiduciaries, to meet various requirements (e.g., provision of notice and obtaining consent, erasure, etc.). These requirements are undeniably onerous in the context of processing for journalistic purposes. Given the nature of the profession and the implications for fundamental rights involved processing personal data for journalistic purposes is an ideal case and must be an exemption from the provisions of the DPDPA. The DPDPA requires all processing of personal data to proceed on the basis of either consent or certain legitimate uses (e.g., for employment purposes or in the case of a medical emergency) under Section 7 of the DPDPA, which is narrow and specific in nature. Processing personal data for journalistic activities will invariably fall outside these narrow buckets.

While certain journalistic activities involving interviews, collecting responses to questionnaires, etc., may be covered under Section 7(a) of the DPDPA, which recognises voluntary provision of personal data by the data principal, most other forms of journalism, such as investigative journalism, general news reporting, opinion pieces, analyses, etc., are still largely dependent on private research and investigative study by journalists, which is remarkably absent in the current list of legitimate uses.

Explains the representation, given this, journalists will invariably have to rely upon consent to process any personal data in the course of their journalistic activities.

In fact, the onerous nature of this requirement was critiqued in the Report published by the Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Justice B.N. Srikrishna (Srikrishna Committee) titled ‘A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians’ (Srikrishna Committee Report)/ The Committee, which prepared the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, noted that mandating consent for processing such personal data would be unfavourable, as the data principal could simply refuse to consent forestalling all such publishing. The fundamental role of the press and its ability to ensure transparency and accountability would thus be severely undermined by the data principal’s ability to simply refuse consent to the processing of their data.

As the EGI’s representation to MEITY points out, the Srikrishna Committee Report that accompanied the 2018 Bill, too, recognised that exempting journalistic activity from compliance with the 2018 Bill was necessary for greater public interest. Accordingly, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 (2018 Bill), prepared by the Srikrishna Committee, exempted processing for a ‘journalistic purpose’ from complying with all provisions of the 2018 Bill, except for the duty to process personal data in a fair and reasonable manner that respects the privacy of the data principal, and the obligation to implement reasonable security safeguards.3 The 2018 Bill defined ‘journalistic purpose’ as any activity intended towards the dissemination through print, electronic, or any other media of factual reports, analysis, opinions, views, or documentaries regarding:

  • news, recent or current events; or
  • any other information that the data fiduciary believes the public, or any significantly discernible class of the public, to have an interest in, which would be absolved from obtaining consent from data principals.4

 The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (introduced in the Parliament) and the Data Protection Bill, 2021 (prepared by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on data protection), contained similar provisions to exempt processing for journalistic purposes.

This position is notably consistent with other jurisdictions with data protection regimes that provide for exemptions from processing for journalistic purposes. For instance, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enables Member States to provide for exemptions or derogations from certain provisions (e.g., have a lawful reason or basis for using data, provide privacy information, comply with individual rights that people have about their data, etc.) of the GDPR for journalistic purposes and freedom of expression.5 Similarly, Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act, 2012 provides an exception for news organisations to collect, use, and disclose personal data without consent solely for its news activity to collect, use, and disclose personal data without consent solely for its news activity.

Despite this, processing for journalistic purposes is not exempt from the obligations under the DPDPA.

It may be possible to argue that Section 17(1)(c) of the DPDPA, which permits processing in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any offence or contravention of any law, would exempt processing for a specific kind of journalism: investigative journalism. However, the lack of a broad exemption that applies to all journalistic activity (as envisaged under prior iterations of this law and international statutory frameworks) and the absence of any clear guidance for this exemption severely hampers the ability of journalists to investigate, report, and publish any articles or reports of journalistic import. It is, therefore, crucial that an exemption be made available to cover processing related to journalistic purposes.

Unfortunately, India will be the sole modern democracy without an exemption for journalistic activities, which could severely impair the fourth pillar of democracy. Moreover, India is currently ranked 161 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index maintained by Reporters Without Borders below other Asian countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia, and risks falling further down in the ranking if the DPDPA is enacted in its present form states the representation.

The detailed representation may be read here:


[1] Editors Guild of India [“EGI”] is an organisation established in 1978 to protect freedom of the press and to raise the standards of editorial leadership of newspapers and magazines. Since it’s establishment, EGI have consistently defended the freedom of speech and expression of publishers and the right to information of the citizens of India.

Related:

Concerned over arrest of TV journalist working for Republic Bangla: Editor’s Guild

FIR against editors, Prabhat Khabar, Editor’s Guild voices concern

Press Club of India condemns FIR against Editor’s Guild of India (EGI), criminalising journalism

The post Grave concerns on DPDP Act, 2023 as journalistic activities threatened: Editor’s Guild to MEITY appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Concerned over arrest of TV journalist working for Republic Bangla: Editor’s Guild https://sabrangindia.in/concerned-over-arrest-of-tv-journalist-working-for-republic-bangla-editors-guild/ Tue, 20 Feb 2024 07:18:02 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=33287 The Editors Guild of India has expressed concern at the arrest of a TV journalist working with Republic Bangla from Sandeskhali of West Bengal on Monday. Mr Santu Pan was reporting live on television when he was whisked away by policemen says the statement issued by the Guild. His arrest while on duty is worrisome. The statement […]

The post Concerned over arrest of TV journalist working for Republic Bangla: Editor’s Guild appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
The Editors Guild of India has expressed concern at the arrest of a TV journalist working with Republic Bangla from Sandeskhali of West Bengal on Monday. Mr Santu Pan was reporting live on television when he was whisked away by policemen says the statement issued by the Guild. His arrest while on duty is worrisome.

The statement says that while the police should certainly investigate if allegations have been levelled against the journalist, but to take him away while he is reporting is indeed a cause for concern.

The Editors Guild calls on the administration in West Bengal to conduct a speedy inquiry and ensure that no injustice is done to Mr Pan. The government must also do everything it can to protect freedom of the press says the statement issued by Anant Nath, President, Ruben Banerjee, General Secretary and K Ve Prasad, Treasurer.


Related:

FIR against editors, Prabhat Khabar, Editor’s Guild voices concern

Press Club of India condemns FIR against Editor’s Guild of India (EGI), criminalising journalism

The post Concerned over arrest of TV journalist working for Republic Bangla: Editor’s Guild appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023 draconian & dangerous: Editor’s Guild (EGI) https://sabrangindia.in/press-and-registration-of-periodicals-bill-2023-draconian-dangerous-editors-guild-egi/ Mon, 07 Aug 2023 03:56:01 +0000 https://sabrangindia.in/?p=29034 The Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023, recently introduced in the Rajya Sabha provides for draconian powers and intrusive powers of seize and search, seriously threatening press and freedom of expression says EGI

The post Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023 draconian & dangerous: Editor’s Guild (EGI) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
The Editors Guild of India (EGI) has strongly condemned and expressed deep concern with some of the draconian provisions in the Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023, which was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Union Minister for Information & Broadcasting, Anurag Thakur, and is meant to replace the existing Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (PRB).

Though the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” mentions that the “proposed legislation is based on the spirit of upholding media freedom and ease of doing business”, in effect the new bill in fact widens the powers of the State to have more intrusive and arbitrary checks into the functioning of newspapers and magazines than the existing law had.

The EGI, through a statement released by Seema Mustafa, its President, Anant Nath, the General Secretary and Shriram Pawar, Treasurer has said that it is concerned about the expansion of powers of the Press Registrar, the new restrictions on citizens to bring out periodicals, the continuation of power to enter premises of news publications, the vagueness inherent in many of the provisions, and the ambiguity surrounding power to frame rules that can have adverse implications on press freedom.

Some of the primary concerns:

  1.  Expansion of power beyond Press Registrar

In the definitions section of the Bill, the term “specified authority” gives power to government agencies beyond the Press Registrar, to conduct the functions of the registrar, which could even include police and other law enforcement agencies.

Given the intrusive, expansive, and vague nature of powers that the bill in any case allows to the Press Registrar, the power to further delegate this power to other government agencies including law enforcement agencies is deeply distressing. The Guild has strongly urged that only the Press Registrar should be the relevant authority for the purpose of this act and no other government agency should be given any powers with respect to registration of periodicals.

2.  Denial and cancellation of registration to persons convicted for “unlawful activity”

Sections 4(1) and 11(4), allow the Registrar to deny the right to bring out a periodical, and to cancel the certificate of registration of a periodical, to persons convicted of “terrorist act or unlawful activity”, or “for having done anything against the security of the State”. Interestingly, the PRB Act, 1867, had no such provisions.

Given the liberal and arbitrary use of UAPA (which is the basis for defining “terrorist act” and “unlawful activity”), as well as other criminal laws, including Sedition, against journalists and media organisations to suppress freedom of speech, the Guild has stated that it is deeply concerned by the introduction of these new provisions, and the way they can be misused to deny the right to bring out news publications to persons who are critical of governments

3. Power to enter premises of Press organisations

Under section 6(b), the Bill also gives power to the Press Registrar, (as well as any other “specified authority”) to enter the premises of a periodical to “inspect or take copies of the relevant records or documents or ask any questions necessary for obtaining any information required to be furnished”. This authority to enter a press organisation is excessively intrusive and it is deeply concerning that while on one hand, in the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” it is claimed that the intention is to make the process less cumbersome for press organisations, but yet such powers are continued from the earlier act, states the EGI.

4. Concerns regarding power to frame rules

Section 19 gives the Central Government powers to frame rules and guidelines under which news publishing is to be done in India. It has been seen time again that the power to frame rules under various acts has been used in arbitrary as well as excessively intrusive manner.

The recent IT Rules 2021, and the latest amendments made to it regarding setting up of a ‘fact checking unit’ with sweeping powers to order content take down is an illustrative example. Therefore, for the sake of preserving freedom of press, it is submitted that all such rules be clearly defined within the act, and there be no provisions be left to the discretion of a future government or a government authority.

The Editors Guild of India (EGI) has stated that the proposed bill to ensure that publishing of news in India remains free of encumbrances and intrusive checks on publishers by the registrar, and that the primary emphasis of the registrar and the PRP remains ‘registration’ and not ‘regulation’, as the latter has the potential of restricting freedom of press.

The law on this issue should be more respectful of freedom of the press and should avoid granting vast powers to regulatory authorities to either interfere or shut down the press at their whims and fancies.

Since the Bill has already been passed in the Rajya Sabha, the Guild has urged the Speaker of the Lok Sabha to refer it to a Parliamentary Select Committee, to allow a deep discussion on the issues that are crucial for press freedom.

The Guild has already written to the Prime Minister, the speaker of the Lok Sabha, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, leaders of political parties in both the houses, as well as the Minister of Information & Broadcasting, highlighting our concerns.

 

Related:

Guess where India stands on the World Press Freedom Index?

SC for freedom of expression: Strikes down ban on Media One

Replace toothless Press Council with Media Council: NAJ, DUJ

Saharanpur: Who were the ‘media men’ whose questions created tension during Friday prayers?

A fair media can defang intolerance

Jahangirpuri: Navika Kumar, Anjana Om Kashyap demolish media credibility further

Social media platforms finally compel extremist groups to shun hate speech, fake news

Khargone: Why is the administration ignoring the proliferation of hate on social media?

The post Press and Registration of Periodicals Bill, 2023 draconian & dangerous: Editor’s Guild (EGI) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
No democracy is fighting the pandemic by gagging its media https://sabrangindia.in/no-democracy-fighting-pandemic-gagging-its-media/ Fri, 03 Apr 2020 13:04:13 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2020/04/03/no-democracy-fighting-pandemic-gagging-its-media/ Editors Guild, Press Club of India express concern on media being blamed and intimidated, for reporting Covid-19 facts

The post No democracy is fighting the pandemic by gagging its media appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Editors GuildImage Courtesy: moneycontrol.com

The Editors Guild of India has expressed concerns that the media is being blamed for the migrant worker exodus and panic that was seen on national highways across the country recently. The guild was reacting to the statement made to the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Government of India that blamed the media for the migrant workers’ mass movement in the wake of the Covid-19 lockdown.

While the SC had observed that it does “not intend to interfere with the free discussion about the pandemic,” it did direct “the media refer to and publish the official version about the developments.” 

The Editors’ Guild has responded to this saying that while it held the SC in high respect it found such this advice “gratuitous and unnecessary.” It added that the government’s statement blaming the news media for the migrant workers’ mass movement were ‘deeply perturbing’. 

The government in a recent statement had said media outlets were causing panic among migrant workers leading to their mass movement after the sudden announcement of  the wake of the Covid-19 lockdown.

“Blaming the media at this juncture can only undermine the current work being done by it under trying circumstances. Such charges can also obstruct in the process of dissemination of news during an unprecedented crisis facing the country. No democracy anywhere in the world is fighting the pandemic by gagging its media,” read the Editors’ Guild statement.

The  Press Club of India has also reacted strongly to the Union government’s plea in the SC. The PCI stated that this, “borders on censorship and we forcefully reject such an approach and express our sharp criticism of it.” 

The PCI stated that evidently, the Supreme Court was also not convinced, and had asked the government to make its version available to  the media. “This thankfully makes facts disseminated by the government easily accessible. The top court was careful not to stop the media from doing its work,” it stated.

According to the PCI, the media had done its job well and taken personal risks to bring “facts to the notice of society.” 

The Editors Guild  also reacted sharply to charges being pressed against the web portal The Wire’s founder-editor Siddharth Vardarajan, and it said, “a police action in the form of an FIR under criminal laws at this stage is an overreaction and an act of intimidation.”

The details were posted by The Wire itself: “On Wednesday, April 1, the Uttar Pradesh Police in Faizabad registered an FIR against The Wire on the complaint of an individual under Sections 188 and 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. Section 188 refers to disobedience of an order issued by a public servant and 505 (2) to “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes”.”

Standing in solidarity with the portal, the Press Club also condemned the Uttar Pradesh Government’s FIR against The Wire and called it “reprehensible.” “This media outlet had merely reported that UP CM Adityanath had presided over a religious ceremony in Ayodhya recently with a large body of people in attendance after the national lockdown announced by the PM,” said the PCI statement. “It is not expected that they threaten the media,” the statement added.

The founding editors of The Wire had issued this statement in response to the FIR:

Statement by the Founding Editors of The Wire

We have come to know through social media that an FIR has been registered under Section 188 and 505(2) of the IPC against The Wire by the UP Police in Faizabad.

A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the offences invoked are not even remotely made out and that it is aimed at stifling legitimate expression and factual information. The UP police seems to think its job is to go after those who criticise the CM. The registration of an FIR is a blatant attack on the freedom of the press.

The government of Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh does not seem to have learnt anything despite the strictures passed against it by the Supreme Court in June 2019 when the court ordered the release of a journalist whom the state had illegally arrested for a tweet. The right to liberty is a fundamental right and non-negotiable, the court had said.

What the FIR says we have stated – that Chief Minister Adityanath attended a public religious event in Ayodhya on March 25 after the Prime Minister had announced a national lockdown to deal with the coronavirus challenge – is a matter of record.

Related:

There are no wrong answers when you ask no questions
nalysis: SC order on plight of migrants and related media reportage

The post No democracy is fighting the pandemic by gagging its media appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
Emergency-like Gag on NDTV India: Who in the Media Cares? https://sabrangindia.in/emergency-gag-ndtv-india-who-media-cares/ Sat, 05 Nov 2016 07:39:49 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2016/11/05/emergency-gag-ndtv-india-who-media-cares/ The media should be an effective tool in the “sharpening of democracy,” said Prime Minister Narendra Modi after giving away awards for excellence in journalism in Delhi on Wednesday. He also said there was a need to reflect on Emergency so that no leader dares to repeat it. Only a day later, came his government’s […]

The post Emergency-like Gag on NDTV India: Who in the Media Cares? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
The media should be an effective tool in the “sharpening of democracy,” said Prime Minister Narendra Modi after giving away awards for excellence in journalism in Delhi on Wednesday. He also said there was a need to reflect on Emergency so that no leader dares to repeat it. Only a day later, came his government’s order directing a 24-hour shutdown of NDTV India on November 9.

Telegraph

The Editor’s Guild of India reacted promptly and sharply to the Modi government’s gag order, calling it "a direct violation of the freedom of the media and, therefore, the citizens of India, and amounts to harsh censorship imposed by the government reminiscent of the Emergency".  

But if the print editions of prominent national dailies dated November 4 and November 5 published from Mumbai are anything to go by, none except The Indian Express seems to think this unprecedented attack on press freedom is of much significance. As the news broke late on the evening of Thursday, November 3, news and views published on November 5 deserve a closer look. Take a look at the reportage and edits/comment pieces, in the various dailies on both dates. The front page of The Telegraph, Kolkata dated November 5 stands out in sharp contrast.

The Indian Express:
November 4:
Page 1: Single column on page 1, headline, "I&B panel: Take NDTV India off air on Nov 9 for Pathankkot", continued in 3 columns on page 2.

November 5:
Page 1: Lead story headline, “Ban recalls Emergency, withdraw it: Editors Guild on NDTV India".
Edit page: Lead editorial. Headline, “November 9 must not be blackout day. Government must take back NDTV ban order or court should step in, read it the Constitution".
Also, lead comment piece on edit page by Pratap Bhanu Mehta: “There is no Emergency: Let’s find another name for cult of the leader, tyranny of nationalism, use of state power to suffocate opposition”.

The Times of India:
November 4:
Page 1: Single column on page 1, headline, “1-day blackout penalty for TV channel over terror coverage”; continued in 3 columns on page 3.

November 5:
Page1: No news of the gag on NDTV India.
Page 14: Two columns under headline, “Ban on NDTV: Govt draws flak from Opposition”.
 Edit page: No edit/comment piece on the ban.

The Economic Times:
November 4: Page 2, single column, “Pathankot attack: Hindi News Channel to be off air for a day.”

November 5:
News: No reportage
Edit: Second editorial, “Don’t mock PM, Don’t Black Out channel.”

The Hindu:
November 4:
Page 13: A two-column report, “NDTV India ordered to go off air for a day”.

November 5:
Page12: Two-column news, bottom of page 12; headline, “NDTV ban sparks outrage”.
Edit page: Second editorial under headline, “Ominous curb on media freedom”.

The Hindustan Times: 
November 4:
Page 11: Two column story, “NDTV India off air for a day for flouting norms”.

November 5:
Page 8:  Four columns, “Media bodies, Opposition slam Centre over channel ban".
Edit page: Nothing on the ban.

The Asian Age:

November 4:
Page 1: Small box item: “TV channel taken off for 1 day”; continued in 4 columns of page 7.

November 5:
Page 7: News channel ban sparks furore; Opp. refers to Emergency days; BJP hits back, says nation comes first”.
Edit/Op-ed pages: Nothing on the ban.

DNA:
November 4: No report on ban.

November 5:
Page 5: “Govt on NDTV one-day ban: Nation comes first.” As the headline itself suggests the report is clearly slanted towards the government’s justification of the gag.
Opinion Page: No edit/comment.
 

The post Emergency-like Gag on NDTV India: Who in the Media Cares? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
‘Not a single journalist working without fear or pressure’: Editors Guild on Bastar https://sabrangindia.in/not-single-journalist-working-without-fear-or-pressure-editors-guild-bastar/ Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:32:28 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2016/03/29/not-single-journalist-working-without-fear-or-pressure-editors-guild-bastar/   A team of editors visited Chhattisgarh and was told that 'every single journalist is under the government scanner'. A team of the Editors Guild of India travelled to Chhattisgarh and found that journalists in the state were "working under tremendous pressure". There was a "sense of fear" among journalists in the conflict-affected region of […]

The post ‘Not a single journalist working without fear or pressure’: Editors Guild on Bastar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
 

A team of editors visited Chhattisgarh and was told that 'every single journalist is under the government scanner'.

A team of the Editors Guild of India travelled to Chhattisgarh and found that journalists in the state were "working under tremendous pressure". There was a "sense of fear" among journalists in the conflict-affected region of Bastar and even those working in the state capital Raipur complained of their phones being tapped.

"The state government wants the media to see its fight with the Maoists as a fight for the nation and expects the media to treat it as a national security issue, and not raise any questions about it," the team said in a report released on Tuesday.

It added that there was pressure from the state administration, especially the police, on journalists to write what they want or not to publish reports that the administration sees as hostile. "There is pressure from Maoists as well on the journalists working in the area," it said. "There is a general perception that every single journalist is under the government scanner and all their activities are under surveillance. They hesitate to discuss anything over the phone because, as they say, 'The police is listening to every word we speak.'"

The Editors Guild of team is an independent body of editors with more than 200 members from national, regional and local newspapers, magazines and the electronic media.

It formed a three-member team to investigate reports of threats to journalists in Chhattisgarh. In 2015, two journalists were arrested by Bastar police for purported links to Maoists. In February, Scroll.in contributor Malini Subramaniam was forced to leave Jagdalpur in the face of intimidation by the police and a vigilante group called Samajik Ekta Manch. Soon after, Alok Putul, a contributor of BBC Hindi, had to abandon his assignment in Bastar mid-way after receiving threats. The Inspector General of police in Bastar, SRP Kalluri, had refused to meet him, questioning his nationalism.

In mid-March, two members of the Editors Guild team travelled to Raipur and Jagdalpur and met journalists, members of the police and administration, and the chief minister.

They could not find "a single journalist who could claim with confidence that he/she was working without fear or pressure". Senior editors told them that their phones were being tapped. Journalists in Bastar said they had stopped travelling to the conflict areas. Journalists confirmed that the Samajik Ekta Manch was supported and financed by the police, with the direct involvement of IG SRP Kalluri.

On the case of Subramaniam, the team found, "It is clear from the on record statements made by the authorities that the administration was not comfortable with the reports Malini Subramaniam was sending to Scroll.in. And instead of putting their side of the story, the so called citizen’s forum ‘Samajik Ekta Munch’ was incited to attack Malini’s house and compelled her to leave the city and even the state."

In Raipur, Chief Minister Raman Singh met the team and expressed concern over the incidents. When the team brought up the complaints against Kalluri, Singh "instructed the officials that the behavior of one officer should not take away all the credits of the good job the government is doing in Maoist area". He instructed the administration to ensure better coordination and co-operation.

The report, however, notes that a journalist was arrested shortly after the team met the chief minister, suggesting that "there is no shift in policy".

Here is the full text of the report.

Challenges to Journalism in Bastar: A report by the Fact Finding Team of the Editors Guild of India

The Team:
Prakash Dubey, General Secretary
Seema Chishti, Executive Committee member
Vinod Verma,Executive Committee member

Places of Travel: Jagdalpur, Bastar and Raipur

Dates of Travel: 13th to 15th of March, 2016

Terms of reference:

To verify and assess:

Recent reports of the arrests of journalists in Chhattisgarh
The threats and challenges faced by journalists in the state
The challenges to the profession of journalism

Summary
Bastar division of Chhattisgarh state is fast becoming a conflict zone. There is a constant battle on between the security forces and the Maoists. Journalists, caught in the middle, are under attack by both the state and non-state actors.

Several incidents have been reported over the past few months of attacks on journalists. At least two, according to the reports, were arrested and imprisoned and others threatened and intimidated to a point where they had to leave Bastar for fear of their lives. The residence of at least one journalist, according to the information, was also attacked.

The Editors Guild of India constituted a three member Fact Finding Team to look into these reported incidents. Since Seema Chishti was unable to travel, Prakash Dubey and Vinod Verma travelled to Raipur/Jagdalpur on 13th, 14th and 15th of March, 2016.

A team of the Editors Guild of India travelled to Chhattisgarh and found that journalists in the state were "working under tremendous pressure". There was a "sense of fear" among journalists in the conflict-affected region of Bastar and even those working in the state capital Raipur complained of their phones being tapped.

The fact finding committee members met a number of journalists and government officials in Jagdalpur. In Raipur the team met Chief Minister Dr. Raman Singh and all top officials of the state, several Editors and some senior journalists.

The team recorded the statements of journalists Malini Subramaniam and Alok Putul. It also visited the central jail to meet journalist Santosh Yadav.

The fact finding team came to the conclusion that the media reports of threats to journalists are true. The media in Chhattisgarh is working under tremendous pressure. In Jagdalpur and the remote tribal areas the journalists find it even more difficult to gather and disseminate news. There is pressure from the state administration, especially the police, on journalists to write what they want or not to publish reports that the administration sees as hostile. There is pressure from Maoists as well on the journalists working in the area. There is a general perception that every single journalist is under the government scanner and all their activities are under surveillance. They hesitate to discuss anything over the phone because, as they say, “the police is listening to every word we speak.”

Several senior journalists confirmed that a controversial citizen group Samajik Ekta Manch’ is funded and run by the police headquarters in Bastar. According to them it is a reincarnation of Salwa Judum.

Challenges to Journalists: Some Cases

Challenges of writing for the newspapers are not new in Bastar division of Chhattisgarh. A journalist Premraj, who was representing the Deshbandhu newspaper in Kanker, was booked under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activity (Prevention) Act (TADA) in the year 1991-92 when the undivided Madhya Pradesh state was ruled by the BJP. He was charged with being close to the Maoists. He was later acquitted by the courts for want of evidence.

In December, 2013 a rural journalist Sai Reddy was killed by the rebels in a village near Bijapur. According to the police, a group of Maoists attacked him with sharp edged weapons near the market and fled from the spot.

Bastar Journalist Association President S Karimuddin told the fact finding team that in the year 2008, Sai Reddy was arrested by the police and kept in jail under the controversial Chhattisgarh Special Security Act, accusing him of having links with the Maoists. On the other hand, the Maoists suspected him to be loyal to the security forces and set his house ablaze and killed him later.

In February, 2013 one more rural journalist Nemi Chand Jain was also killed by the rebels in Sukma. Rebels were under the impression that he was passing messages to the security forces. 45 days after his murder, the Maoists apologised for his killing.

Last year, in 2015, police arrested two news persons under the same controversial law for allegedly having connections with the Maoists. One of them, Santosh Yadav was arrested in September. He was a stringer for at least two Raipur based newspapers Nav Bharat and Dainik Chhattisgarh. The editors of both the news papers have owned the journalist. The fact finding team met Santosh Yadav in the Jagdalpur Central Jail, where he said that he is also suspected by both the sides of being close to the other side.

A second journalist, Somaru Nag was arrested in July, 2015. He was also a stringer and news agent for a Raipur based newspaper, but that newspaper never came forward to own him as their employee.

Charge sheets in both the cases have been filed and the matter is pending in the courts.

On February 8, 2016, the residence of Malini Subramaniam was attacked by some unidentified people. She is a contributor for Scroll.in and former head of International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC). As Malini told the fact finding team, her house was attacked in the early hours of the morning. Malini found stones scattered around her Jagdalpur residence and the window of her car shattered. According to her around 20 men gathered around her house a few hours before the attack, shouting slogans like "Naxali Samarthak Bastar Chhoro", "Malini Subramaniam Murdabad". She suspected that the same people must have been involved in the attack. According to the local administration, “her writing is one sided and she always sympathises with the Maoists.” The same allegation was made by the Samajik Ekta Manch. According to the local administration the Manch is being run by citizens opposed to the Maoists. However, the journalists in Jagdalpur and Raipur said that it was supported and financed by the police. A few of them said that the Inspector General of Police Mr. SRP Kalluri is directly involved in this.

The latest case was reported by BBC Hindi journalist, Alok Putul who was forced to leave Bastar after he received threats. According to his statement, recorded by the FFT (fact finding team), before these threats Alok received messages from the IG and SP who refused to meet him maintaining that they preferred to deal with “nationalist and patriotic journalists.”

Fear Factors

FFT could not find a single journalist who could claim with confidence that he/she was working without fear or pressure. The journalists posted in Bastar and the journalists working in Raipur, all of them spoke of pressure from both sides.

They said that the journalists have to work between the security forces and the Maoists, and both sides do not trust journalists at all.

All of them complained about their phone calls being tapped by the administration, and being kept under undeclared surveillance. The government officials categorically denied these charges. Principal Secretary (Home) BVK Sumbramiam said, “I have to sanction every single request for surveillance and I can say this with authority that no govt. department has been authorised to tap phone calls of any of the journalists.”

The journalists posted in Bastar said that they cannot dare to travel to the conflict zone to report because they cannot report the facts on the ground. Although collector Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria told the fact finding team that the whole of Bastar is now open for everyone, including journalists.

The President of Divisional Journalists Association of Bastar, S Karimuddin said, “I have not visited any place outside Jagdalpur for the last six years, simply because I am not supposed to write the truth and if one cannot write what one sees then there is no point going out to gather information.” He represents UNI in Bastar for more than three decades.

A similar claim was made by the Editor of a local newspaper Dilshad Niyazi who said that he had not visited the neighbouring district Bijapur for the last eight years out of fear. Another senior local journalist, Hemant Kashyap, well travelled in the area said he knew Bastar like the back of his hand but that now journalists had stopped travelling. “All the journalists have now stopped going inside the forests because of the fear of police as well as Maoists,” he said. “Now we ask Maoist organizations to send photographs and press releases. We publish them as we receive them because we don’t want to explain every single line we are writing to them. Similarly the police expect us to publish its version so most of the journalists print their press releases as well without asking any questions,” Kashyap said.

Malini Subramaniam told FFT that even if someone dares to go out to gather information, one is not supposed to talk to the people. She said, “Police officials expect journalists to believe and publish whatever they claim. They don’t like it if someone wants to walk an extra mile for finding the facts. In one case of surrender, when I tried talking to a couple of people, they asked me to identify the persons I wished to talk and then they briefed them before I could reach them.”

The fact finding team found that this fear is not confined to the tribal areas only, but is there in the capital city Raipur too, 280 kilometres away from Jagdalpur. All the reporters working in Raipur also said that their telephones were tapped. Some of them shared incidents that confirmed this. A very senior journalist, who is considered to have a cordial relationship with the Raman Singh govt. said, “No one is spared, not even me. They have been tapping my phone calls too.” Government officials denied this charge as reported earlier and claimed that not a single journalist is under surveillance. They said that there was a perception gap and they would try to change this.

Chief Editor of an old and reputed newspaper Lalit Surjan said that it had become extremely difficult for a journalist to do his/her job. During his meeting with the FFT he said, “If you want to analyse anything independently, you cannot do it because they can question your intentions and can ask bluntly, ‘Are you with the government for with the Maoists?” He admitted that this problem was not only with the government, but also with the Maoists. He said, “Both sides feel that what you are writing is wrong.”

Surjan said that it was becoming increasingly difficult to work in areas like Bastar as the journalists cannot avoid meeting Maoists, and the government is not prepared to give them even the benefit of the doubt. “The government should respect democratic rights and should give benefit of doubt to the journalists,” he said. He questioned the arrest of the two journalists Santosh Yadav and Somaru Nag and remembers Sai Reddy, who was killed by the Naxals, as a fine reporter.

Challenges faced by Journalism

A journalist working in Bastar expects to be asked “Which side of journalism?” This question appears a bit odd but in Bastar it comes naturally. As the local journalists put it, there are three categories of journalists in Bastar. 1. Pro-government, 2. Not so pro government and 3.Pro Maoists or Maoist sympathisers.

The FFT found that there are nearly 125 journalists working in Jagdalpur alone. They can be divided in four categories:

Journalist by profession: There are only a few in this category. They are generally representatives of the Newspapers published from Raipur. Some newspapers have editions in Bastar, so heads of those editions can also be counted in this category. Journalists of this category are on the pay roll of the newspaper or news agency.

Part time journalists: Dozens of journalists belong to this category in Jagdalpur (or in other cities of tribal division of Bastar.) Journalism is not their main occupation. They have to take govt. contracts, work as builders or property dealers, traders, hoteliers or directors of NGOs etc. Apart from their business interests they have become printers and publishers of a newspaper or a periodical magazine, work as correspondent of some unknown or little known publication. Journalism is not their principal vocation. So called journalists of this category did not seem to be at all concerned about the salary they received from the publication they were working for, they don’t bother about circulation of the publication they own and least bothered about the reputation of the same. Their money comes from somewhere else. The fact finding team was told that many of them use journalistic influence for getting business, govt. contract, advertisements and some time extortion money from government officials and businessmen. Most of the time they are pro government for obvious reasons and senior journalists sitting in Raipur introduce/identify them as journalists on the ‘government pay roll’. Since corruption is rampant in Bastar, they are earning more money for not publishing a news item, than for publishing it. In a conflict zone like Bastar, they are the favorites of the local police and other officials.

Stringers and News agents: They are the backbone of journalism in Bastar. Posted in remote areas of the conflict zone known as stringers, newsagents or even hawkers. They collect news and send it to Jagdalpur bureau of to the head office directly. They don’t have any formal appointment with the newspaper nor do they get remuneration for their work. They get a letter from the newspapers or news agencies they represent, that authorises them to collect news and advertisements. Some might have been issued a press card, that the organisation rarely bothers to renew after it has expired. To the surprise of the FFT many of the stringers in the remote areas are carrying a press card issued by some national television channels too. Their money either comes from advertisement commission or from some other business they are involved in. In case of television sometimes they get paid if the video footage is used, but it happens very rarely and the payment is very low.

Visiting Journalists: They are the journalists representing national or international media. They come from either Raipur, where they are generally posted or from the head offices like Delhi and Mumbai. Police and local administration dislike them the most because they ask many questions, insist on getting the facts and try to visit the affected areas. They are generally seen as Maoist sympathizers or pro-Maoists. As one senior editor in Raipur puts it, “their reports seems pro Maoist because they go inside and talk to the people and anything coming from the people usually contradicts the government’s version and hence it is labeled as pro Maoists or anti government. ” The problem with this lot is, they cannot stay for a long time in Bastar so their reportage is not sustained. Secondly they came with an assignment and they end up looking for a particular story. Third, they cannot access most of Bastar because they are not allowed to visit many parts of the tribal areas, on the grounds that it is not ‘safe’. Four, they don’t understand the local language/dialact and hence are dependent on what the interpreter is telling them. It could be a local journalist from the above described category no. 2. There are some exceptions like Scroll contributor Malini Subramanian who was staying in Jagdalpur and visiting remote places for gathering news, but she could not stay there for a long time for obvious reasons.

Language and Class:

There are only a few journalists who can understand the language/dialect tribal people speak, whether it is Gondi or Halbi or some other dialect. There is not a single full time journalist who comes from one the tribes. Most of the journalists belong to a different class and speak some other language. Their mother tongue could be Chhattisgarhi, Marwari, Hindi, Telugu, Bangla or Hindi but not the one in which local villagers speak. Language constraints are a problem.

Difficult Terrain:

Major part of the conflict zone is in Abujhmarh, which means ‘unknown hills’. It is hilly forest area which is home for many tribes. The population in this area is very thin. According to the 2011 census India’s average population density is 382 persons per square kilometers but in this part of the country the population density is 10 persons only. Then it is one of those areas of the country where Malaria is common. Because it is also the so called liberated zone of the Maoists, it is very difficult to go inside the jungle to gather reports.

Government’s response

The FFT met Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh Dr. Raman Singh at his residence. All top bureaucrats of the state were also present in the meeting. Editors Guild’s executive committee member Ruchir Garg and editor of a local daily Sunil Kumar were also present in the meeting.

The Chief Minister said that he is aware of most of the incidents and he is concerned about it. He said that his government is in favor of free and fair media. He informed the fact finding team that after the controversy over the arrest of journalist Santosh Yadav he had called a meeting of top officials and some editors and formed a monitoring committee which will be consulted for any cases related to the media and journalists.

About the phone tapping and surveillance allegations, the principal secretary (home) assured the team that he is the authority for sanctioning surveillance and he could say that not a single journalist is under surveillance. The principal secretary to the CM admitted that there is a perception gap and said it was the government’s responsibility to change this perception.

The attitude of Bastar IG Mr. SRP Kalluri towards the press also came up in the meeting. The CM instructed the officials that the behavior of one officer should not take away all the credits of the good job the government is doing in Maoist area. Some senior police official with credibility should be authorized to talk to the press, he said. Principal Secretary (Home) should visit Jagdalpur and interact with the media, the Chief Minister instructed.

CM Dr Singh assured the FFT that his government has no prejudice against any one and he will personally take all necessary steps required to make media free of any kind of fear.

Samajik Ekta Manch

This is an informal but controversial organization in Jagdalpur. The administration calls it a citizen’s forum and claims that people from all walks of life are members of this organization. The collector of Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria said that many religious organizations are also part of it and they are against the Maoists. But many journalists call it the urban version of Salwa Judum. They, however, did not want to oppose it openly. They said off the record, that the Manch is sponsored by the police and it takes its orders from the police headquarters.

The FFT met one of the coordinators of this organization Subba Rao to understand the working of the Samajik Ekta Manch.

He introduced himself as editor of two dailies, one morning and the other published in the evening. When asked, whether his main occupation is journalism, Subba Rao was candid enough to explain that he is basically a civil contractor and he is working on some government contracts. The FFT met more than a dozen journalists in Jagdalpur, but he was the only (so called) journalist who claimed that he had never experienced any pressure from the administration.

His statements about the arrested journalists were the same as the administrations. He termed Santosh Yadav and Somaru Nag as informer for the Maoists. He said that what Malini Subramaniam was reporting was very biased. “Malini was glorifying Maoists and painting a picture of police like exploiter”, he said. He denied that Samajik Ekta Manch was behind the attack at Malini’s residence.

Cases and the findings

Santosh Yadav/ Somaru Nag

Santosh was arrested by the police on September 29, 2015. Police charged him for working as a courier for the Maoists and taking money from them.

Government officials claim that Santosh Yadav is not a journalist and they don’t know which newspaper he was working for. The FFT met Santosh Yadav in the Central Jail in Jagdalpur and discussed the case with him. He claimed that he had been working for at least two newspapers Navbharat and Chhattisgarh. (Editors of both the newspapers confirmed that Santosh Yadav was working for them and they own him as a journalist working for their newspapers).

Santosh Yadav admitted that he had been attending calls from the Maoist leaders because of the nature of his job but he had never passed any information to them. He also admitted that he had been occasionally dropping packets between Darbha and Jagdalpur. Sometimes it was bundle of newspapers or magazines and sometimes some other papers he did not know anything about. He said that anyone who lives in remote area of conflict zone cannot risk his life by refusing the Maoists to carry a bundle of papers from one place to another.

The Chief Editor of the newspaper group the Deshbandhu, Mr. Lalit Surjan said during his discussion with the fact finding team, “Santosh Yadav and many other journalists working in remote area of Bastar should be given the benefit of doubt because they have been talking to Maoists as part of their job. They don’t have any choice.” He said that journalists of those remote areas are also talking to the police as part of their jobs and become victims of Maoist anger.

Santosh Yadav told the FFT that he had been given money by a senior police officer and he was expected to pass information about the Maoists movements around the area, but did not do so. He claimed that after some news items published in the newspapers, he was called by the local police station and was tortured for three days.

Somaru Nag was also arrested last year. He was basically a newspaper agent for a newspaper and also gathering news for the same. But the newspaper doesn’t own him now. Charges are same for him too.

Malini Subramaniam

Malini is a contributor for the website the Scroll.in. She was living in Jagdalpur and collecting news for the website. She was working for the Scroll for nearly one year. Before that she was head of International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC). She was first threatened by a group of people then her house was attacked in the wee hours of February 8, 2016. Then she was compelled to vacate her rented accommodation in Jagdalpur.

When the team was in Jagdalpur she was in Hyderabad. The FFT discussed the case with her over the phone.

The local authorities claim that they were not aware that someone is contributing for the Scroll from Jagdalpur. As the collector of Jagdalpur put it, “which is not even mainstream media”

Local journalists say that even they were not aware that Malini Subramaniam was writing for Scroll before the whole controversy came up. Malini admitted that she never bothered to enroll herself as a journalist with the local govt. public relations department, as she was not covering day to day events.

The govt. officials admit that they are not happy with Malini’s writing because ‘it is always one sided and sympathises with the Maoists.’ The Collector of Jagdalpur, Amit Kataria told the FFT- “Even her questions in the press conferences used to be pro Maoist.” Malini in her testimony to the FFT, denied this and said, “Despite my limitations, I have been travelling to remote areas, meeting local people and writing about them. That is something the police don’t want any journalist to do. They want journalists to write what they say of what their press release say.”( Malini told the team that when she was trying to meet some tribal people, the police objected to it and they picked up a couple of tribal people briefed them first then only did the police allow her to interact with them.)

Malini said that objection on her writings came from a newly formed organisation ‘Samajik Ekta Manch’. Her impression is that this organization is supported by the local police and they take orders from the police only. She told the team that during the day a few dozen people gathered in front of her house and shouting slogan against her and then after mid night her house was attacked.

The fact finding team asked many government officials if they have issued any denial for contradiction notice against the Scroll report, the answer was negative.

Malini said that the local police is becoming intolerant and doesn’t want any voice of dissent to be present in Bastar.

Alok Putul

He is a contributor for BBC Hindi from Chhattisgarh. He was in Bastar for gathering news and was trying to meet the Bastar IG Mr. SRP Kalluri and SP Mr. Narayan Das. After many attempts he received this reply from the IG, “Your reporting is highly prejudiced and biased. There is no point in wasting my time in journalists like you. I have a nationalist and patriotic section of media with and press which staunchly supports me. I would rather spend time with them. Thanks.”

The SP sent a similar message, “Hi, Alok, I have lot of things to do for the cause of nation. I have no time for journalist like you who report in biased way. Do not wait for me.”

In his testimony before the team Alok Putul explained that this message was unexpected from the police officers from whom he was trying to take their quotes on the Naxal surrender and law and order situation story he was trying to do.

As Alok explains, “This message was the beginning. After these messages, one local person, known to me, came and advised me to leave the area as some people were looking for me. Initially I was taking it lightly and travelled to another area, there one more person came to me to give me same information. Then I had no other choice but to leave the area immediately.”

Alok told the FTT, “First thing I did was to inform the BBC office in Delhi and some journalist friends in Raipur and then I came back to Raipur.”

The Jagdalpur collector, Amit Kataria when asked about this by the team, laughed and then said, “There was some communication gap between Alok Putul and IG, nothing else.”

After several messages and phone calls, the team could not get a chance to meet IG SRP Kalluri. When the team left Delhi, he had assured that he would give an appointment, but stopped responding when the FTT reached there.

Conclusions

1. Santosh Yadav is a journalist and he has been writing for at least two news papers of Raipur. Both the newspapers have owned him. So the government’s claim that he is not a journalist is baseless.

2. Authorities claim that they have enough evidence about Yadav’s links with the Maoists. It is now for the court of law to decide where these evidences will be produced. But senior journalists in Raipur feel that he has been a victim of circumstances and he should be given benefit of doubt.

3. It is clear from the on record statements made by the authorities that the administration was not comfortable with the reports Malini Subramaniam was sending to Scroll.in. And instead of putting their side of the story, the so called citizen’s forum ‘Samajik Ekta Munch’ was incited to attack Malini’s house and compelled her to leave the city and even the state.

4. Alok Putul was in Bastar to gather some news about the law and order situation for the BBC. Instead of meeting him or talking to him, the two top officials of Bastar sent him messages questioning his nationalism and patriotism. Later he came to know that a few people were looking for him, so he had to leave the place to save himself. Police officials were not available to meet the FFT. The DM dismissed the threats to the journalist as a “communication gap.”

5. There is a sense of fear in Bastar. Every journalist who is working in Bastar feels that he/she is not safe. On one hand they have to deal with Maoists who are becoming more and more sensitive about the reports appearing in the media and on the other hand, the police wants the media to report as and what they want.

6. As one Senior Editor Mr. Lalit Surjan puts it, “If you wish to analyze anything independently then you can be judged whether you are with the government or with the Maoists. The democratic space for journalism is shrinking.”

7. There is a general feeling (in government) in Chhattisgarh that a large section of the national media is pro Maoist. One senior editor, who is perceived as close to the government, said this.

8. Newspapers and other media houses are appointing journalists as stringers in the remote areas without any formalities. These journalists gather news, collect advertisements and arrange the distribution of the newspapers too. They generally survive on the commission they get from advertisement collections or they rely on other professions for the same. A separate and detailed report on stringers is recommended.

9. There is no mechanism in place for accreditation of those journalists who are working beyond the district head quarters. So when the question of identity arises government conveniently denies that someone is/was a journalist. Media houses also disown them because they see them as liability beyond a point.

10. The state government wants the media to see its fight with the Maoists as a fight for the nation and expects the media to treat it as a national security issue, and not raise any questions about it.

11. Chief Minister instructed the administration for better coordination and co operation. A journalist was arrested shortly after the FFT meeting with him, suggesting that there is no shift in policy.

12. FFT is of the view that news paper organizations should take care while appointing stringers and give them adequate protection.

The post ‘Not a single journalist working without fear or pressure’: Editors Guild on Bastar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>
The Criticality of the Right to Dissent https://sabrangindia.in/criticality-right-dissent/ Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:55:55 +0000 http://localhost/sabrangv4/2016/02/13/criticality-right-dissent/ Text of the annual Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture organised by the Editors Guild of India in Delhi on February 12, 2016   I begin on a self-indulgent note. “How is Amartya?” asked my uncle Shidhu (Jyotirmoy Sengupta) — cousin of my father — in a letter written from Burdwan Jail, on August 22 of 1934, […]

The post The Criticality of the Right to Dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>

Text of the annual Rajendra Mathur Memorial Lecture organised by the Editors Guild of India in Delhi on February 12, 2016
 
I begin on a self-indulgent note. “How is Amartya?” asked my uncle Shidhu (Jyotirmoy Sengupta) — cousin of my father — in a letter written from Burdwan Jail, on August 22 of 1934, before I was one. He complained about the name “Amartya”, given to me by Rabindranath Tagore, and argued that the great Tagore had “completely lost his mind in his old age” to choose such a “tooth-breaking name” for a tiny child. Jyotirmoy was in jail for his efforts to end the British Raj. He was moved from prison to prison — Dhaka Jail, Alipur Central Jail, Burdwan Jail, Midnapur Central Jail. There were other uncles and cousins of mine who were going through similar experiences in other British Indian prisons.
 
Jyotirmoy himself came to a sad end, dying of tuberculosis, related to undernourishment in the prisons. As a young boy I was lucky to have a few conversations with him, and felt very inspired by what he said and wrote. He was committed to help remove “the unfreedoms heaped on us by our rulers.”
 
How happy would Jyotirmoy have been to be in today’s India, with the Raj dead and gone, and with no unfreedoms imposed on us by the colonial masters? But — and here is the rub — have these unfreedoms really ended? The penal codes legislated by the imperial rulers still govern important parts of our life. Of these, Section 377 of the code, which criminalises gay sex, is perhaps the most talked about, but happily a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court is re-examining it.
 
It is, however, often overlooked that the putting on a pedestal of the sentiments of any religious group — often very loosely defined — is another remnant of British law, primarily Section 295(A) of the penal code introduced in 1927. A person can be threatened with jail sentence for hurting the religious sentiments of another, however personal — and however bizarrely delicate — that portrayed sentiment might be.
 
The Indian Constitution, despite claims to the contrary, does not have any such imposition. In a judgment on March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court in fact gave priority to the fundamental right of the people to express themselves, as enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution’s insistence on “public order, decency or morality” is a far cry from what the organised political activists try to impose by hard-hitting kick-boxing, allegedly guided by delicate sentiments. The Constitution does not have anything against anyone eating beef, or storing it in a refrigerator, even if some cow-venerators are offended by other people’s food habits.
 
The realm of delicate sentiments seems to extend amazingly far. Murders have occurred on grounds of hurt sentiments from other people’s private eating. Children have been denied the nourishment of eggs in school meals in parts of India for the priority of vegetarian sentiments of powerful groups. And seriously researched works of leading international scholars have been forced to be pulped by scared publishers, threatened to be imprisoned for the offence of allegedly hurting religious sentiments.
 
Journalists often receive threats — or worse — for violating the imposed norms of vigilante groups. The Indian media has a good record of standing up against intimidation, but freedom of speech and reporting need more social support.
 
To see in all this the evidence of an “intolerant India” is just as serious a mistake as taking the harassment of people for particular social behaviour to be a constitutional mandate. Most Indians, including most people who are classified as Hindu (including this writer), have no difficulty in accepting variations in food habits among different groups (and even among Hindus). And they are ready to give their children the nourishment of eggs if they so choose (and if they can afford them).
 
And Hindus have been familiar with, and tolerant of, arguments about religious beliefs for more than 3,000 years (“Who knows then, whence it first came into being? … Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not,” Rigveda, Mandala X, Verse 129). It is a serious insult to Indians — and to Hindus in general — to attribute to them the strange claims of a small but well organised political group, who are ready to jump on others for violations of norms of behaviour that the group wants to propagate, armed with beliefs and sentiments that have to be protected from sunlight.
 
The silencing of dissent, and the generating of fear in the minds of people violate the demands of personal liberty, but also make it very much harder to have a dialogue-based democratic society. The problem is not that Indians have turned intolerant. In fact, quite the contrary. We have been too tolerant even of intolerance. When some people — often members of a minority (in religion or community or scholarship) — are attacked by organised detractors, they need our support. This is not happening adequately right now. And it did not happen adequately earlier as well.
 
In fact, this phenomenon of intolerance of dissent and of heterodox behaviour did not start with the present government, though it has added substantially to the restrictions already there. M.F. Husain, one of the leading painters of India, was hounded out of his country by relentless persecution led by a small organised group, and he did not get the kind of thundering support that he could have justly expected.
 
In that ghastly event at least the Indian government was not directly involved (though it certainly could — and should — have done much more to protect him). The government’s complicity was, however, much more direct when India became the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.
 
So what should we do, as citizens of India who support freedom and liberty? First, we should move away from blaming the Indian Constitution for what it does not say. Second, we should not allow colonial penal codes that impose unfreedoms to remain unchallenged. Third, we should not tolerate the intolerance that undermines our democracy, that impoverishes the lives of many Indians, and that facilitates a culture of impunity of tormentors. Fourth, the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have good reason to examine comprehensively whether India is not being led seriously astray by the continuation of the rules of the Raj, which we fought so hard to end.
 
In particular, there is need for judicial scrutiny of the use that organised tormentors make of an imagined entitlement of “not to be offended” (an alleged entitlement that does not seem to exist in this particular form in any other country). Fifth, if some states, under the influence of sectarian groups want to extend these unfreedoms through local legislation (for example, banning particular food), the courts surely have to examine the compatibility of these legislation with the fundamental rights of people, including the right to speech and to personal liberties.
 
As Indians, we have reason to be proud of our tradition of tolerance and plurality, but we have to work hard to preserve it. The courts have to do their duty (as they are doing — but more is needed), and we have to do ours (indeed much more is surely needed). Vigilance has been long recognised to be the price of freedom.
 
(Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Thomas W. Lamont University Professor and professor of economics and philosophy at Harvard University)

The post The Criticality of the Right to Dissent appeared first on SabrangIndia.

]]>