When the Press shackles...

Turn the pages of a newspaper, surf television channels, visit news websites. What you get to see is plenty of freedom. Everybody is free to say what they wish, in a language they choose to, for a motivation only they might know about.

Together with freedom comes responsibility is not just a cliché. When you celebrate World Press Freedom Day at least understand what is expected of you:

Every year, May 3rd is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

2014 Theme is: Media Freedom for a Better Future: Shaping the post-2015 Development Agenda.

How many are bothered about this? Editors who censor pieces and kowtow to masters of varied stripes are talking about press freedom? Even reports are cut to make space for ads, or if they go contrary to what the sponsors might like. Opinion pieces are censored because, again, they will cause problems.

But, whose freedom is this?

The regional press that has a much wider reach and better understanding of people in the villages and small towns, and certainly has an urban audience as well, is largely ignored.

A few months ago, two well-known TV anchors were said to be planning to quit their jobs. The immediate reaction was that they were under pressure. Op-eds in the international press too gave their example even though both had clarified that no such thing had happened.

More recently, a young lawyer collated some Modi myths to be busted; it was published in DNA. A few hours later it was not there. The immediate reaction was that the fascists had started working.

Let us get this clear: the fascists will. There are several examples. Yet, had anybody bothered to call out the newspaper, ask for an explanation? Had anybody bothered to raise questions other than the one that suited the current anti-wave? This is surprising, for nothing in that piece was new or more damning than some that have preceded it. There was no sharp opinion.

Would it not be more proactive to get the newspaper to respond instead of just riding a, well, wave?

We are already on to other stories, other minor ripples.

Is this about censorship?

The media that seeks the right to write has crossed the line several times. Have you noticed that while film stars and politicians are soft targets, industrialists are treated with deference? And what about the media houses themselves? It is rare that a Tarun Tejpal case comes to light, but even here it became a matter of professional rivalry.

I will only be repeating myself when I say that the deals the media strikes with politicians, with corporate houses (if they are not owned by them), with the underworld too will not be outed. Even in the Tejpal case, two factors were important.

1) After the media had given the Delhi gangrape primetime, sexual abuse has become an issue that cannot be ignored. I won't go into the dynamics of how it twists the victim's situation to suit TRPs and advertising.

2) Without in any way taking away from the crime, there was the political-corporate aspect that oversaw how justice was to be delivered.

In the FoE overdrive, there is rarely any discussion about the reporters on the field, especially in sensitive areas.

It is disgusting to read about how some in the press cling onto their peers who might be unfortunate victims of violence. It is time to wake up. Such incidents take place not because the media houses are outspoken and free, but because the perpetrators of violence won't have it any other way. They have targeted even those who are silent and have no media access. If the press wants to act as though it is upholding democracy, then it better learn to practice the freedom across the board within the organisation, and not be selective.

Or they should make their position/agenda clear. To the readers, their sponsors, and their staff and contributors.

Do they have the courage? No. They keep their options open because they want to curry favours. They do not know who will come to power, which industry will have its projects passed, which celebrity will be feted. So, we have a mélange of people of dubious worth featured consistently until such time that they become redundant for the 'free' media.

Pakistan's Conversion Circus: Missing the woods for the tree

Sunil on his way to Abdullah

Pakistani society has one more reason to get agitated. A Hindu boy has converted to Islam in front of a live television audience. Sunil became Muhammad Abdullah.

I’d like to take up the editorial in Dawn to show just how this limited concern works.

"In yet another example of how the industry's commercial goals trump ethics, open-mindedness and common sense, on Tuesday a television show broadcast an imam leading a Hindu boy through a live conversion to Islam carried out in the studio as part of the show, complete with the audience joining in to suggest Muslim names for the new convert.

"There is no reason to think the boy was not converting of his own free will, but the whole event had the distinct air of being carried out to give viewers something new and different to watch, even if that meant dragging an intensely personal and spiritual experience into public view.”

This is like suggesting that it is quite nice to carve your meat at a fine dining table, but don’t let us see the butcher’s shop. There is as much ethics in what the paper says as the bleeding rites of passage. I have always maintained my anti-conversion stand, and in this case I might be interested to know a couple of things if ethics is an issue:

1. This is reality TV. Participants on such shows are paid. Was the boy paid to appear on the show or to convert?
2. If he was doing it of his own free will, then the question is not about conversion but about the involvement of imams, who object to entertainment programmes. 
3. Is it not the job of the media to investigate about the motives of the boy – where is he from, what are his reasons, instead of replaying clips?

Sitting on a high horse has become part of the media culture. Editorials are passing judgments and trying to ‘convert’ people into thinking in ways they deem fit all the time, taking political sides, writing treacly pieces on leaders.

Maya Khan in an earlier stint

The host of the ARY show is Maya Khan, who is seen as an Islamist. It is interesting that actress Veena Malik was supposed to host a Ramzan programme and it was vetoed by the mullahs in Pakistan. Did anyone among the liberals question the ethics of someone like the controversial lady hosting such a show? Was it not to grab eyeballs? Would it not be as bad as mullahs looking beady-eyed over a conversion? What are the ethics about having such shows at all in a country that is constantly discussing religious resurgence and its ill-effects?

Who is to decide what form of religion should be portrayed? If you want a Veena Malik type show, then someone else might find a Maya Khan entertaining. Did not Ms. Malik become the hero of a section of the nation when she took on some mullahs on a channel a couple of years ago for her right to expose her body and perform live canoodle scenes? She suddenly became the ambassador of the nation, of liberal Islam, of a fight for modernity.

These are all circus acts, and one does not expect better from reality television and that includes news channels. Part of the hot air is possibly because this is a competitive game, where ethics are the flakes of pistachio on the phirni, not an ingredient. This is borne out by the fact that the editorial is worried about how just to spice things up “religion is now fair game too”.

Talat Hussain, who hosts a political show on private television channel Dawn News, said:

“Think about how Muslims would feel if Buddhists in Burma show a Muslim being converted on a live TV show.”

If this is not spicy and sensational, then what is?

Religion always has been fair game. Why get pedantic about it in a country that relays every religious detail, and “spiritualism” is sold at shrines, as CDs? And just for the information of those who do not know, conversion is not a private matter. The decision to convert might be, but the individual has to perform certain rituals to show that s/he belongs. The whole reason behind it is often social acceptability or pressure.

Question that. But it would not get as much attention, does not give those expressing anger a primetime slot.

It is surprising to read this:

"more disturbingly, what the channel obviously didn't stop to consider is the message this broadcast would send to the country's minorities…The joy with which the conversion was greeted, and the congratulations that followed, sent a clear signal that other religions don't enjoy the same status in Pakistan as Islam does. In a country where minorities are already treated as second-class citizens in many ways, this served to marginalise them even further”

Who has made a noise about this? Where are the minority groups? It is not about the message a television show sends out. Pakistanis do not live in and off studios. The country’s laws discriminate against minorities.

Can anyone file a petition against the channel? Will it change anything? How many Pakistanis have the courage to flaunt their agnosticism/atheism, if that is their proclivity?

In a moment of perfect coordination, it would appear – and that showcases the hypocrisy – President Asif Ali Zardari has formally invited PM Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan:

Zardari suggested that if Singh’s visit coincided with Guru Nanak's birth anniversary in November, it would be well received by the Pakistani people and reinforce the desire of both countries to promote inter-religious harmony.

Is this not misuse of religion? Do India and Pakistan need to promote inter-religious harmony? At least, India does not need Pakistan for that. And this is being hailed by the same media that has been frothing at the mouth over a conversion. Weren’t Sikhs beheaded in that country not too long ago?

India has enough of its own problems with different religions and sects and castes. But I dread to think what would happen if we had an Ahmadi Prime Minister. Would President Zardari extend an invitation to celebrate anything and promote inter-religious harmony, when the community is ostracised socially and politically?

Perhaps one of the ‘ethical’ people of Pakistan might like to convert to the Ahmadiya faith on public television and send out a strong message?

If you cannot do that, then a coat of varnish is not going to change the shakiness of the walls.

(c) Farzana Versey

Indian courts and forked tongues?

'Law and order' sounds like a curious term because the law does not seem to have any order.

The Supreme Court gets a 7-month itch

On September 30, the Allahabad High Court pronounced its threesome verdict about Babri-Masjid/Ayodhya ‘dispute’. Now, the Supreme Court has decided it is all wrong.

The 50-year legal battle for control of the 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid will start from scratch, with the Supreme Court on Monday faulting and staying the Allahabad High Court order dividing the temple-mosque complex among Ram Lalla (the idol of Lord Rama), Hindus and Muslims.

“How can decree for partition be passed as the HC has done? Something very strange has been done by the HC on its own when no party had sought such a relief.”

What was it doing all these months? It is rather strange that both the Hindus and Muslims are satisfied with the stay order. They need not be because one really does not know when our courts start contradicting each other. As regards the farce of the early judgment, we got there before the SC in Ayodhya: Where 1=2

A few points from my piece reiterated here again:

1. My judiciary has instead taught me a new math. One is equal to two. The 2.77 acre land has been divided into three parts – one for the master, one for the slave and one for the little boy who cries down the lane.
2.  Has the judiciary defined what exactly it means by the term ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’?...
3. This secular democratic republic has copped out under the weight of its own mythology and given a verdict where religion IS the state…
4. This brings us to the third portion – the demolished mosque. It “belongs to Hindus”. Which Hindus? From an ancient era?

The court gets god

Back to the courts. This time to the Ahmedabad High Court. On May 1, Gujarat Day, the Governor and Chief Justice (CJ) of presided over the bhoomi pujan of a new building on the premises. Mumbai Mirror reported that Rajesh Solanki, who heads an Ambedkarite organisation called Council for Social Justice, wrote to the CJ and sent copies to the Union and State Home Secretaries. No one bothered, so he filed a PIL:

At the end of it, Justices Jayant Patel and J C Upadhyay called Solanki’s view ‘pervert’ [sic] and dismissed his petition with an ‘exemplary’ fine. Stating that the puja was for the successful completion of the proposed building, and for the larger interests of all those who would benefit from its construction, the order defined secularism as based on the principles of ‘Vasudev Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family). Differentiating between religion and ‘dharma’, the judges said dharma meant ‘sarva bhavantu sukinah’ (may everyone be happy).

Solanki took his plea to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it. He is persistent and says if it is about all religions then why are their rituals not included.

The CJ and Guv seeking 'happiness': captured by Solanki in a TV shot

Does the court have any right to call a person’s views perverted when he has said nothing of the nature? The bench should be sued for defamation.

I would like to ask a few further queries:

If constructed buildings benefit people, then what about those that are demolished or crash due to natural disasters? Since the Indian Constitution rules in law, what place do holy scriptures have? This ‘we are family’ cheesiness is best left for popcorn munching films or in social interactions. I find the distinction between religion and dharma rather facile. All religions in some form or the other wish everyone to be happy even if they kill each other in the name of some other happiness. Dharma is embedded within a certain religious idea and it is fair enough, but do not try and make a distinction to sneak out of a sense of responsibility.

I’d say this not only about Gujarat but any state in a non-theocratic country. You have absolutely no business to use government space to flash any kind of religious rituals. The true benefit of a new building would be better facilities for those who have to spend hours waiting for hearings and speedy justice delivered in a non-partisan fashion. This is what the courts are about. Please leave “I’m happy, you’re happy” to individuals.

The TOI pushes it

Is it proper for the Times of India to give its 'Times View' together with a report, as it has done in today’s edition in a piece on the Supreme Court and honour killings? Why are reports being editorialised? Although there is always a bias, this is just not done. There can be a separate editorial or opinion pieces, even if by the editor, and they already have a ‘pro’ and ‘con’ section. But to use a box item with a report goes against all journalistic ethics. There have been a few occasions when the Times View appeared on the front page, which is akin to shouting from the soap box.

What could be the compulsions behind pushing such ‘views’? Do they believe the readers are idiots and won’t know how to formulate their own opinions, if any, on the reports? Or is it insecurity? Or fake bravado – ‘See, we are standing up for the issue’? Spare us. We know what to look for where. And if you must show us how serious you are, then ask the hard questions and push the hard stories.