Speech is innate to all human beings and a precious gift from God to mankind, which a human being acquires at birth. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organizations. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits the Information Society offers. Human beings covey their thoughts by sentiments or expressions, right of expression, therefore, is their basic human right. However, many attempts have been made to restrict freedom of expression by imposing laws or censoring free speech or by asking press to toe government's line even in thriving democracies like India. Then does article 19 (1) (a) exist in India in its nascent form or with some shades of grey?
Surprisingly, the Constitution of India does not mention "freedom of the Press" specifically in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. Dr. Ambedkar however clarified later that it was not necessary to stipulate it specifically as it is implicit in the guarantees of Freedom of Speech and Expression in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Despite the constitutional guarantee, press in India has been inhibited by barriers caused by religious, social, linguistic differences and government restrictions off and on throughout its 64 years of existence.
The first curtailment of press came in India when Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed emergency. She, in the emergency era muzzled press to greater levels. And his son, Rajiv Gandhi also took various measures to curb the freedom of press. Rajiv administration, injured by the revelations on the Bofors affair and other corrupt practices introduced a defamation bill in July 1988, sought to create new offenses of 'criminal imputation' and 'scurrilous writings.' Later it was due to successful nationwide strike by the newspaper industry and increasing popular protests that forced Rajiv Gandhi to withdraw the bill.
On the same Bofors controversy another Stockholm-based journalist of Indian origin, P.L Lakhanpal was denied a visa to visit India in January 1989 in view of his reporting on Bofors issue from Sweden. Since northeast was reeling under conflict, many a foreign journalists were denied visas and were restricted to enter seven Indian states called seven sisters. Though Rajiv administration failed to enforce defamatory bill in 1988 but years later, his government tightly controlled the production, importation and distribution of newsprint and in the succeeding year (1989), government as its tactic muzzled press by raising the prices of the domestic and imported newsprint so sharply that the survival of many newspapers was threatened.
Nevertheless, freedom of expression is essential for the political liberty and proper functioning of democracy but in reality article 19 (1) (a) has lost its meaning and significance over the years due to government's monopoly. After independence, freedom of expression has been transgressed by those in power for their own self interests. And in recent years, there has been marked increase in the number of attacks on journalists by police and unidentified gunmen, operating at the behest of state or local officials or politicians. Further, many states and local governments in India have seriously chilled genuine exercise of freedom of expression by detaining a number of people on scarce suspicion of co-operating with militants and the best example is Kashmir, where due to government restrictions press is in a sorry state, unable to expose truth. Many journalists in Kashmir received serious injuries and dead threats if they exposed government's own terror machinery.
From time to time governments have been harassing press through lawsuits, exploiting restrictive laws governing criminal defamation. To illustrate government's apathy, one of the best example is the treatment of a news weekly magazine Tehelka. In 2001, Tehelka exposed the political corruption behind India's defence contracts. Soon after the revelations, government started bullying Tehelka. The worst that came after this episode was that none of the India's mediat rallied in support of Tehelka, fearing punishment from the government.
In another incident, the government of Tamil Nadu (a state in south of India) filed cases against the Hindu newspaper for 'breach of privilege,' in a move widely seen as another assault on freedom of press. The government of Tamil Nadu sentenced five journalists and the publishers to 15 days in prison for breach of privilege articles without any serious debate or prior notice.
Not only governments but political parties and religious groups also engage themselves in media bashing whenever their own interests are endangered or threatened. In the year 2003, hard-line members of Shive sena (a wing of Bharatiya Janata Party, a leading opposition party in India) attacked the offices of Outlook magazine in Mumbai over the article describing their leader's comments about the Muslim community. So, this was another example of vandalism were article 19 (1) (a) appeared insignificant. On the basis of these above examples it is apparent that 'right to expression' enshrined in article 19 (1) (a) has also faced wrath of those in power or political goons throughout its 64 years of journey.
Besides government monopoly, press is confronting many threats while performing its duties.
Journalist are attacked, killed and intimidated. So far the states of Chhattisgarh and Orissa have been the most difficult states for the journalists to report from. A Nai Dunia (A New World) reporter was killed in Chhattisgarh as the area falls in Maoist control (Rebellion group operating in various states in India). Likewise in Orissa, four attacks and two cases of intimidation have been reported so far. In another example of media intimidation, New Delhi Television (NDTV) team was allegedly harassed by the Adani Group (a Corporate group) while filming a story on mangrove destruction due to the company's port in Gujarat.
According to a veteran Indian journalist, Kuldip Nayyar, the press to some extent is independent in India but not free because the corporate sector has more influence on its content and quality. However in conflict areas like the northeast and Kashmir, the freedom of press in only for name's sake, he said to Indo Asian News Service (IANS).
Also Reporters Without Border, an international organization which works to ensure freedom of press and protect journalists, has put India at the 122th position in terms of freedom of press compared to 2009 when it ranked India at 109th position.
Thus, it is evident that 'freedom to expression' and article 19 (1) (a) is not without pitfalls and doesn't guarantee complete freedom either to press or an individual or a group to express themselves freely in fresh air of freedom. Right of Expression and article 19 (1) (a) has definitely some shades of grey, which makes it weak to perform independently. It is also true in a healthy democracy; the public could rely on free media to step in to expose the countless examples of corruption and abuses of power, provided freedom of expression is allowed to stay in its native form.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment