Editorial: Press under attack

Intolerance accompanied by violence has never been far from the surface of the Indian skin. Until recently, however, the Fourth Estate, as the media is rather grandiosely called, was mostly spared. Not any longer. In the last few weeks there has been a sudden rash of attacks on the media, either through physical assault or, as is more becoming more common, via the use of state power. Thus, we have seen the company that publishes Eenadu, the largest Telugu newspaper, being financially squeezed by the government at the Centre, under pressure from the state chief minister whom the newspaper had criticised. In Gujarat a sedition case, no less, has been lodged against The Times of India for reports criticising a police official. In Kerala, three journalists from the Malayala Manorama were beaten up by CPI(M) cadres the other day, even though they were under police protection. In Maharashtra, the home of the Loksatta editor was ransacked by people belonging to a regional party. The editor of Andhra Jyothi has been arrested for being in the vicinity when the effigy of a Dalit leader was beaten with chappals by the newpaper's staff "" who were protesting against its offices being attacked by the Dalit organisation. The offices of at least three TV news channels in different cities have been vandalised. And a well-known public intellectual, Ashis Nandy, has had to rush to the Supreme Court in order prevent arrest by the Gujarat police because he wrote about the communalisation of the middle class, in The Times of India.

 

If one overlooks the defamation bill that Rajiv Gandhi tried to legislate in 1988 before backing down, not since the infamous Emergency has the media come under such concerted attack. What's more, unlike in the past when the minister for information and broadcasting would make at least some pro forma placatory noises, there is no indication of any comment about the government honouring the freedom of the press. Why, even the public doesn't seem particularly concerned. Clearly, something has changed for the worse, not only in that the state appears not just indifferent but also, in an increasing number of cases, complicit; and that the public doesn't care. This should worry the media and persuade it to do some serious soul searching as to how much it is responsible for the way things are turning out.

Possibly, at the heart of the problem lies the altered public perception of the media. Gone are the days when it was viewed as being a profession with an element of public service in it. Today it is seen more often than not as just another business, and not a very ethical business at that. The fact that several media groups use the public purpose as a cloak for hiding the pursuit of profit by less than honourable means (like selling news columns for money) has not helped matters, nor have the stories about exaggerated salaries in the media business. The adversarial role that the print media played was never universal; but with the advent of TV, and the utter degradation of what is presented as TV news, even that mitigation has ceased to exist. All in all, therefore, the somewhat special status that the media enjoyed "" as the fourth pillar of democracy "" has been considerably diluted. Ignorant reporting and comment have also taken their toll. It is up to the media to introspect on its own failures. But it is for the country as a whole and especially for the political system to ponder on the future of the country and its democratic system if the media comes under repeated attack, and finds that it has no defenders.