The myth of Freedom of Press

- Bharat Lakhtariya -

Freedom of the press, gagging of the press are some of the expressions we hear quite often. With the TOI issue hitting headlines globally, these expressions are being heard daily from many people ranging from journalists to social activities. Is there any Freedom of Press ? The question is not a sarcastic one. Just a question in all sincereity. The answer is big NO.
The Constitution of India has freedom of Expression and Speech as Fundamental Rights. But there is no mention of press. It does not give a special right to the press but lets it draw its freedom from within the Article 19, which provides all citizens with the right to freedom of speech and expression.

On the other hand, the US Constitution has an explicit concept of Freedom of Press.very first amendment of its Constitution - First Amendment to the US Constitutions - lays down specifically that the freedom of press be in no way abridged by the laws. Even when it concerns the very security of the Nation, Federal Courts in the USA have invoked the First Amendments to secure the freedom of the press.

In the cases of New York Times and The Washington Post, when the USA Government sought to prevent the publication of highly sensitive "History of Decision making Process on Vietnam Policy", through injunctions from the Courts, the District Courts of Southern District of New York in case of NYT and the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Washington Post, on the ground of National Security, both the courts ruled against the Government. Eventually, when the case came up before the US Supreme Court, it also ruled against the Government.
In India, even the Freedom of speech and Expression is not absolute. There are certain conditions in which a citizen cannot use this freedom. This is about the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to offence.

This is not that framers of the Constitution did not think about the Freedom of Press. Infact they debated the issue at length. Nehru wanted Freedom of Press like the US.It is not that the Indian leaders were not aware of the US First Amendment or of the famous declaration of President Jefferson. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru shareed the views of Jefferson when he said, "I would rather have a completely free press, with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of the freedom, than suppress or regulated Press".

However, Dr. B R Ambedkar and others had different views. Speaking on behalf of the Drafting Committee, its Chairman Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that the Press was merely another way of denoting an individual or a citizen. He said: "The Press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editor of a press or the manager of a press are all citizens and therefore when they choose to write in newspapers they are merely exercising their right of expression and in my judgment therefore, no special mention is necessary of the Freedom of the Press at all. The word expression that is used in Article 19(1) is comprehensive enough to cover the Press.
In such a situation talk of Freedom of Press does not mean anything.How can we talk about a thing which does not exist in the Constitution.

(Bharat Lakhtariya is a senior journalist representing the leading daily Gujarat Samachar. He is a very popular crime reporter. Bharat is post graduate in Law and is a visiting faculty in different journalism colleges and police Academy)

साभारः www.GujratGlobal.com

TOI campaign against police: logic of illogic

-Yogesh Sharma-

The controversy over the reports of Times of India against Ahmedabad Police Commissioner O P Mathur has thrown up many issues relating to the basics of journalism. I am not going into the legal merit of the case. Let the Court decide it. The issue here is purely from the point of view of media without any bias against TOI or its reporter.

The idea is basically to discuss the need for observing certain basic rules while reporting, whether matter is casual or as sensitive as the TOI issue.
In this case TOI has written half a dozen articles against Mathur. Some of these articles have also made sweeping statements against entire police force. All this is on the basis of the statement of one person, an accused Khurdush. TOI itself admits in one report that the statement of Kurdush has not been investigated by any agency.
Interestingly, word alleged or allegation has not been used even once! At the same time none of these statements is a quote from the CBI record. Copy on May 27 says "most of the police force of Ahmedabad on his payroll" while the copy on May 28 says "entire police force was on the payroll of the Latif gang". The inverted commas have been added by me .

It is very clear that in the absence of the word allegation, the statement give the impression that they are true. My observation may sound trivial. But when a copy is examined legally, this is a great basis to judge the intent of the writer. And that's why in our good old days great care was taken about sensitive matters and the word allegation was used quite frequently.

All copies are based on the statement of Kurdush. No where, the views of others, particularly the person affected, have been taken. This can be right if we are reproducing something from a Court judgment or order. But certainly not in the case of a statement which has not been proved true by the Court of Law or any authority.
Only to avoid such situation, every journalist is taught to balance the copy with the views of others.
Now the question is of the value of the statement of Khurdush. He made a statement before the CBI on May 18, 1993. CBI is not a Court. It is like any other police station. Statement of an accused before police has no legal value. It can not be taken as evidence without other corroborating evidence. It has value if the accused is turned approver. But in this case, Kurdush is still only an accused.
Can we run a campaign and call a police commissioner a dubious person on the basis of a statement of a person who himself is not reliable in the eye of the law? Any journalist has to check these elementary facts before writing.
TOI may make any claim about the authenticity of its story. My idea is not to challenge the TOI's claim. The fact is that some basic elements of journalism have been blatantly ignored.

Story of Khurdush's statement ...

Let me disclose a great fact related to the entire episode. A day before the TOI ran the story, many newspapers of Ahmedabad received a fax. It had an anonymous letter which some vigilant citizen had written to the Chief Minister Narendra Modi. The letter was along with a copy of statement of the Khurdush which he had made before the CBI. The telephone number reveals that the fax was sent from the Shahpur area of the walled city.
In the letter, this vigilant citizen had drawn the attention of the CM to the statement of Kurdush with suggestion cum demand that action should be taken against Mathur. It is not known whether the vigilant citizen had really sent the letter to the CM or not. But he sent it to newspapers, is a fact.
This statement is quoted in TOI campaign as the sole basis for describing Mathur as the man of Latif.
Any student of journalism should make it a rule to check the facts before writing on the basis of anonymous letters, howsoever great the letter may appear. In this case, these facts had appeared in Gujarat Samachar in 1994. This led to an inquiry by the IB which found the allegations baseless.
We must always be aware of the fact that media is power and so it is a great instrument for many in their power play. Many times such stories appear in the name of investigative reporting. If we see majority of the investigative pieces, they are generally result of this power play of people. A journalist should also view such copies from this point of view.


Have A Happy Reading.


With love
Yogesh Sharma

साभारः www.GujaratGlobal.com

हिजड़े प्रेस में हैं या प्रेस वाले हिजड़े हैं ???

इस बार मथुरा वृंदावन की यात्रा अपनी कार से की। एक मित्र के साथ। सूंय सूंय करते हुए 120 की स्पीड में। रास्ते में रुकते, खाते, चबाते, गाल बजाते....पता ही नहीं चला कब पहुंच गए। दो दिन बाद वहां से आज दिल्ली पहुंचा तो नोएडा, सेक्टर 12-22 के पास रूका। यहां मेट्रो हर्ट हास्पिटल है, बगल में दारू शाप है, थोड़ी दूर पर आंटी की मशहूर नानवेज शाप है, बड़ा सा पार्क है, पराठे वाली की लजीज दुकान है....माने यह जगह मेरी प्रिय जगहों में से एक है। मयूर विहार फेज थ्री वाले अपने घर से निकलने के बाद दाएं बाएं कहीं निकलने का मन होता है तो इसी अड्डे पर पहले पहुंचता हूं। सुबह के वक्त पहुंचने पर लजीज पराठे खाने के बाद पार्क में देह सीधा कर लेटने में बड़ा आनंद आता है। यहां ढेर सारे लोग सोते व गपियाते मिल जाएंगे।

आज जब दिल्ली पहुंचे तो घऱ पहुंचने से पहले इसी अड्डे पर रुका। पराठे खाया। पान खाया। पार्क में थोड़ी देर के लिए बैठ लिया। गपियाने बतियाने के बाद जब चलने को हुए तो फिर पान खाने के लिए दुकान पर रुके। बगल में हिजड़े साथियों की हलचल दिखाई दी। कोई आ रहा है तो कोई जा रहा है। मेरी उत्सुकता बढ़ी। दाएं बाएं नजर दौड़ाने पर पता चला कि दो गाड़ियां फुल हैं इन साथियों से। दोनों गाड़ियों में एक एक ढोलक। साड़ी और सलवार सूट पहने इन हिजड़ा साथियों को देखते हुए पहले तो डा. रूपेश श्रीवास्तव की शिष्या मनीषा याद आईं जिन्हें आजकल डाक्टर साहब ब्लागिंग सिखा रहे हैं। फिर मुझे वो शब्द याद आया जिसे डा. रूपेश इन लोगों के लिए यूज करते हैं, लैंगिक विकलांग। यह शब्द वाकई सही शब्द है जो इनकी स्थिति को हू ब हू अभिव्यक्त करता है।

पर यह क्या? इन दोनों गाड़ियों पर तो प्रेस लिखा है !! कहीं ये हिजड़े प्रेस वाले तो नहीं....?? या कहीं प्रेस वाले हिजड़े तो नहीं हो गए ?? माजरा क्या है ?? मैंने अपनी उत्सुकता अपने साथी को बताई तो उन्होंने मेरी बात पर हंस दिया। बोले, बड़ा जोरदार है यह वाक्य....कहीं प्रेस वाले हिजड़े तो नहीं, कहीं हिजड़े प्रेस वाले तो नहीं ??

कुछ यूं भी कहा जा सकता है....प्रेस की जो हालत है भइया, उसमें तो अब हिजड़े भी प्रेस वाले बन गए हैं...या प्रेस की हालत ये है कि प्रेस के काम के लिए हिजड़े भर्ती किए जा रहे हैं....या प्रेस इतना आसान है कि अब हिजड़े भी प्रेस में घुस जा रहे हैं....

ढेर सारे कुतर्क गढ़े जा सकते हैं लेकिन एक बात तो सच है कि प्रेस शब्द का गाड़ियों पर जिस कदर गैर प्रेस वाले लोग इस्तेमाल करते हैं, वो सरासर गलत है। सिर्फ इसलिए कि पुलिस वाले रोकेंगे नहीं, ट्रैफिक वाले टोकेंगे नहीं, चोर-उचक्के झांकेंगे नहीं, इस कारण हर कोई प्रेस लिखा लेता है गाड़ी पर।

मेरे साथ थोड़ा उलटा रहा है। 12 वर्ष के पत्रकारीय जीवन में कभी अपनी गाड़ी पर प्रेस नहीं लिखवाया। कभी एकाध बार स्टीकर चिपकवा लिया हो, चुनाव या दंगे के समय तो अलग बात है वरना पता नहीं क्यों प्रेस लिखवाना कभी पसंद नहीं आया। इसके पीछे एकमात्र वजह शायद यही है कि असली प्रेस कर्मी को कभी अपनी पहचान बताने के लिए प्रेस कार्ड नहीं दिखाना पड़ता और प्रेस शब्द नहीं लिखाना पड़ता। पत्रकारिता अगर आपकी आत्मा और देह में हैं तो वो आपके चेहरे व शब्दों व बोली से भी टपकती है, दिखती है।

खैर, माफ करना, अगर किसी को हिजड़े व प्रेस में तुलना करने पर बुरा लगा हो क्योंकि ये तुलना करने का मामला नहीं बल्कि प्रेस शब्द के दुरुपयोग का मामला है।

वैसे मेरे दिल से पूछेगे तो यही कहूंगा कि हिजड़े जितने इमानदार व साहसी होते हैं, प्रेस में 90 फीसदी से ज्यादा लोग उस लेवल के नहीं होंगे। बोले तो अगर प्रेस वाले हिजड़ों जितना मिशनरी, साहसी व इमानदार व दमदार हो जाएं तो प्रेस का कल्याण हो जाए। पर यहां तो तेलुओं, चमचों, क्लर्कों, चारणों, भाटों, बलात्कारियों, व्यभिचारियों, बौद्धिक दिवालियों, दलालों, अशिक्षितों, छिछोरों, बेवकूफों... का ही जमावड़ा है जो प्रेस के नाम पर हर वो गलत काम कर रहे हैं जो प्रेस वाले को न करने के लिए कहा गया है, बताया गया है, समझाया गया है।

लगे रहो .....

जय भड़ास
यशवंत