|
|
India, US need each other
It’s SAD |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arundhati’s call to arms
Much ado about nothing
Real unreal
Paid news during elections has become a big threat to democracy. Even as politicians are guilty of subverting democracy, media houses are entering into clandestine deals with candidates and political parties. A close look by two experts on electoral reforms.
Press Council report hides more than it reveals
Corrections and clarifications
|
India, US need each other
The Centre for New American Security, a US think tank, has rightly assessed that the relations between India and the US need a fresh infusion of life. The Obama administration has been less forthcoming in supporting India’s aspirations than the erstwhile Bush administration did. President Bush gave India its deserved placed in the emerging global order. He realied that the US would not be able to play the desired role on the global stage, particularly in Asia, without India’s active cooperation. He agreed to enter into a civilian nuclear deal with India by acknowledging the fact that New Delhi had an unblemished record as a nuclear weapons state. India has contributed immensely to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation despite not being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, since the very beginning President Obama has been looking up to China, though India and the US as two great democracies have some common factors to strengthen their relations. The Obama administration is unnecessarily worried about the provisions of the Nuclear Liability Bill, passed by Parliament with a view to operationalising the Indo-US nuclear deal. The US President should not overlook the fact that no law can be enacted in a democracy without taking into view the concerns of the people. India is not unfair in having a law which fixes responsibility on the suppliers of nuclear reactors and other equipment in case of a nuclear disaster. President Obama’s talk of denying tax benefits to those US companies which outsourced their jobs also reflected his negative approach vis-à-vis India. American IT firms and other companies have been outsourcing jobs because this suits them economically. They have been doing no favour to India. If the development has benefited India it is because of the suitable skills acquired by Indians, who are satisfied with far less remuneration compared to what is demanded by US professionals. These facts must be made clear to President Obama during his coming visit to New Delhi. Besides the issues related to commerce and economics, what can bring Indo-US relations to a higher level is the Obama administration’s support for India’s case as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Let us hope the US President will utilise the opportunity of his India visit to make such a commitment. |
|
It’s SAD
It was tough for the Shiromani Akali Dal leadership to deal with Mr Manpreet Singh Badal when he was the Finance Minister. He had pushed for the acceptance of the Central conditions for availing the Rs 35,000-crore debt relief. However, the party and the government seem to find it tougher to tackle him after he has left the government. All the recent developments – the alleged bugging of his house and mobile phone, the ransacking of his erstwhile office, none-too-covert attempts to thwart his first public meeting in his constituency, Gidderbaha, and the locking up of the gurdwara at Kahnuwan in Gurdaspur district to stop his interaction with the gathering – show in poor light the functioning of the SAD-BJP government. In fact, by continuously targeting Mr Manpreet Badal soon after his departure from the government, the SAD leaders have raised his stature in the eyes of the people. There were some who had earlier believed it might be a battle of succession between the two cousins for the political legacy of Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal. But the recent obstructive tactics are bound to help him win more public sympathy. The impressive response to Mr Manpreet Badal’s first public meeting at Gidderbaha despite official hurdles, it seems, has unnerved the political leadership. Besides, the young rebel is sober in his speech, talks of the larger economic issues confronting the debt-ridden state and avoids personal attacks on his detractors. On the contrary, the government is gunning for him. It first ducked the loan waiver issue, then denied there was any offer (how can there be when the issue is at the discussion stage?) and now the use of official machinery and party apparatus to stop him from exercising his democratic right to address public meetings. The Akali Dal government badly needs mature advisers to meet the challenge posed by the ousted Finance Minister. |
|
|
Arundhati’s call to arms
Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy’s deep concern over the plight of the poor and downtrodden people is understandable and unexceptionable. So is her revulsion for any form of state repression. But the way she has tried to justify violence by Maoists and Naxalites while she addressed functions organised by the Anti-Operation Green Hunt Democratic Front at Jalandhar and Ludhiana recently is hardly justifiable. In fact, such call to arms can be counterproductive, considering that it may encourage some hot-headed persons to massacre policemen — as has happened many times in the past — and may strengthen the state’s case for resolute action against those indulging in mayhem and violence. Ironically, she has at the same time pooh-poohed the “satyagraha”, the non-violent Gandhian form of protest, calling it “political theatre”. If she has her way, the State will have to surrender before terrorists, extremists or separatists, be it in Manipur, Nagaland, Punjab, Kashmir or any other part of the country. In her scheme of things, the entire blame lies with the Army and the police which have been used to suppress armed struggles. According to her, the state agencies are always wrong; the Maoists and other such groups are always right. Her voice would have carried more weight if she had steered clear of endorsing extreme measures. The ideal remedy lies in adequate socio-economic development of the neglected areas and adequate firmness by the government so that the poverty-stricken people do not fall a prey to any form of extortion, be it at the hands of the corporate houses or the administration itself. These two goals should form the core of the wish list of people like her who have their hearts at the right places and have the intense desire to do something for the have-nots. |
|
|
The only living life is in the past and future ... the present is an interlude ... strange interlude in which we call on the past and future to bear witness we are living.
— Eugene O’Neill |
Much ado about nothing
The frenzy that followed Omar Abdullah’s statement in the J&K Assembly on October 6 was much ado about nothing, based on a poor understanding of the facts and process of the post-Independence integration of the princely states. The Assembly was in turmoil and BJP and Panthers Party MLAs had to be ejected from the Chamber for unruly behaviour. The chief minister was accused of challenging Kashmir’s accession and its status as an integral part of India. He did nothing of the kind. Outraged Pandits accused him of fostering separatism. Syed Ali Shah Geelani hailed Omar’s statement as a belated admission of the bitter truth of a “dispute” that required a “political settlement” and hailed it as a great separatist “victory”. Poor man! His delusions grow by the day. What are the facts? Article 1(2) of the Constitution read alongside the First Schedule (and the corresponding provisions of the J&K constitution) names J&K as a constituent unit of the Union and as much an integral part of India as Bihar or Gujarat. Omar did not question this. The BJP has consistently misinterpreted and misunderstood Article 370. This falls under the chapter governing “temporary, transitional and special provisions”. It defines the special relationship between the Union and J&K and the mechanism for modifying it. Much anger was aroused by Omar’s statement that J&K acceded conditionally in 1947 but did not merge with India like other princely states. He is perfectly correct. Accession, in the case of all states, was limited to the three heads of defence, foreign affairs and communications. This was followed in one or more steps by merger agreements that were concluded individually with larger states and collectively with smaller states brought together to form coherent units like Kathiawar, PEPSU, Matsya, Chhattisgarh and the Eastern (Orissa) and Deccan states union. V.P. Menon explains (“The Integration of the Indian States”) that the peremptory merger of any state after accession would have been contrary to Sardar Patel’s assurances to the Princes on July 5, 1947, and the subsequent commitment formally made by the Viceroy in the Chamber of Princes on July 25, 1947. He comments, “it was true that at that time we were anxious by the policy of accession on three subjects to preserve the integrity of the country, thus preventing the states from becoming so many ‘Ulsters’ in the body-politic”. The rulers of the Eastern States Union and of Chhattisgarh signed the merger agreement on December 15, 1947. On January 26, 1948, at its very first meeting, the Constituent Assembly of the United Deccan States resolved that it merge with Bombay province. Kohlapur, a stand-out, merged some weeks later. Saurashtra, Matsya and Vindhya Pradesh followed In the case of the Rajasthan Union, Menon notes it was made obligatory on the Rajpramukh “to accept all the subjects in the Federal and Concurrent Lists for legislation by the Dominion Legislature, excepting entries relating to taxation and duties”. Financial integration followed. This was repeated in regard to Travancore-Cochin and Mysore. J&K remained the only exception. It acceded but did not merge. Article 370 survives. Omar Abdullah merely reaffirmed the special status of J&K. If Geelani takes comfort in this it means he accepts that the state is an integral part of India. Critics took umbrage at Omar’s referring to the “dispute” over J&K. Nothing wrong there. It is not the fact but the nature of the dispute that is in contention. From the Indian point of view, the dispute revolves around Pakistan’s failure to vacate its aggression which India took to the UN Security Council in 1948. If Omar called for a political resolution of the matter, he merely stated the obvious. Pakistan has now fired its annual broadside in the UN, going back on the Manmohan-Musharraf formula that General Musharraf has again insisted was fairly close to becoming a done deal — when he backed off after messing things up at home. His statement that Islamabad had sponsored terror groups in Pakistan to operate against Kashmir (read India), later crudely retracted (but recently confirmed by the UN Commission that inquired into Benazir Bhutto’s killing), merely conforms to the familiar pattern of Pakistan’s rulers living a lie since 1947. His justification of the Kargil war and jihad — to make India talk on Kashmir — further confirms Pakistan’s reliance on aggression and terror as legitimate instruments of state policy! Meanwhile, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind and the Darul Ulema Deoband have described J&K as an integral part of India and that Kashmiri demands must be addressed within the framework of the Indian Constitution. This apostasy has drawn fire from Kashmir separatists who would deny Muslim Indians any locus standi in J&K. A commentary on some of Geelani’s collected writings, “Kashmir: Nava-e-Hurriyat”, originally published in Pakistan, by Yoginder Sikand in the October 2, 2010, issue of the Economic and Political Weekly, reveals the totally warped thinking of the man. His thesis is that Partition was based on religion and Muslim-majority J&K and the Indus waters therefore rightfully belong to Pakistan and not to “Hindu India”. He does not explain the referendum in the NWFP to determine its future and why Pakistan claimed several Hindu-majority principalities, invaded J&K when it was independent between August 15 and October 22, and refused to vacate its established aggression as required by the UN in 1948 preparatory to a plebiscite. Geelani, like many Pakistanis, has not read Jinnah’s repudiation of the two-nation theory in his August 11, 1947, address to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, discounting any commonality between Muslims even within Pakistan. Geelani is like an unabashed Pakistani for whom the Kashmir jihad is a duty imposed by Islam on the worldwide Muslim ummah. These are the rantings of a sick mind. Let us all get our facts and history right. The new J&K non-political interlocutors, Dileep Padgaonkar, M.M. Ansari and Radha Kumar, and the two task forces for Jammu and Ladakh, just appointed, have knowledgte, balance and experience and must now be given a chance to get a quiet dialogue going. Political endorsement will necessarily have to follow. If anyone wishes to stay out of the dialogue, let them not think they command a veto. The caravan must move
on. |
||
Real unreal
Shortlisted from among lakhs of enthusiastic applicants, I entered the last interview board with swollen chest and my head held high. But the frown on the face of the interviewer wasn’t encouraging, to say the least. “I think there has been some mistake in shortlisting you,” he began. “Why, sir, I think I am a fit candidate for your reality show,” I exuded confidence thinking they must be checking my nerves and making me uncomfortable. After all, that is what they do in reality shows, putting one in an uncomfortable situation. “No, my dear gentleman. You just don’t fit the bill,” he said firmly, “and I will just prove it now.” I was shaken but readied myself for the onslaught. “Please do, sir,” I said hoping it was all a trap for me and I will not fall in it. “Have you ever been caught driving rashly, or running over a cop or sleeping labourers?” “No, sir, I follow all the traffic rules,” I said, proud at myself. “Did you ever beat a colleague or a senior?” The answer was again a proud no. “Are you in an abusive relationship? I mean do you beat your wife?” “No, absolutely not. Only a coward uses his might on a woman,” I said, again with pride. “Oh, then does your wife beat you?” he retorted. “God forbid, sir, what are you saying. We have a healthy relationship.” I said much to his disappointment. “Were you caught in an immoral activity? Were you ever involved in any national or international controversy? Were you ever caught stealing, were you a master swindler or something, or were you or any of your forefathers dacoits in the Chambal ravines? He asked all those in one breath. I again replied in the negative, adding: “Sir, I am a journalist. Can’t I fit in?” “Oh, you are a journalist? So were you part of any international / national scandal,” he asked hoping to get some celebrity status out of me. “Sir, I did some investigative stories,” I said hoping to make a mark now but he cut me short. “No, no, were you part of a scandal, means were you involved in it and blew it off when you were chucked out of the elite group?” “Sir…..” “Did you pose naked ever or were you ever involved in a sleazy MMS, drug scandal?” he fired more salvos. “No,” he answered himself, “then why would people see you?” “Sir, I have tried to follow a straight line in life.” “Ha ha ha ha…then, my dear commoner, just turn back and follow the straight line back to your house. And when you do so, think of doing something exciting in life.” His words echoed for long.n |
||
Paid news during elections has become a big threat to democracy. Even as politicians are guilty of subverting democracy, media houses are entering into clandestine deals with candidates and political parties. A close look by two experts on electoral reforms. There is also a natural reluctance to take on the rich and powerful. For instance, Professors from a leading Business School in the US say in private that it is not advisable to expose the dealings of some of the big corporations in India. Here we look at only one aspect of it — paid news during elections. The phenomenon existed for at least a decade, but recent exposures by the media and the PCI’s detailed report show the extent to which it has spread. We ask three simple questions. What are the roots of this problem? How does this affect good governance? What if anything can be done about it? The roots of the problem are clear. Both the media and the political system need money. On the one hand, there is intense competition in the media with hundreds of newspapers, magazines and TV channels. They are under pressure to earn profits. Some of the reporters, journalists and editors are also exposed to temptation when money is offered. Beyond individual corruption, media houses are entering into clandestine deals with candidates and political parties. On the other hand, elections have become a very high stakes game as candidates and parties pour in huge sums of money to ensure a win. There is a proliferation of political parties, spending more and more money to woo smaller and smaller vote banks. For a fraction of what they spend on wooing voters, they can buy some sections of the media. The roots are, therefore, in the intense competition and complete commercialisation of media and politics. This was inevitable, and the trend was clear for several years. We as a society did not sufficiently anticipate how big the problem would become. The impact of paid news during elections and its long-term implications also need to be clearly understood. Debates on paid news seem confined to the English media. The majority of voters in the country are exposed to the Indian language media. Selected candidates or political parties are built up by the media. Political parties or their leaders own newspapers and TV channels. In this situation, there is a good chance that voters are influenced. While we can debate the extent of money involved and its influence on the eventual outcome, the real question is: what kind of governance can we expect from someone who wins using dubious means? They are either the rich and powerful, or people who will stop at nothing to further their ends. Once in power, they will use it to recover their investments, and to manipulate the system in the interests of those who support them. High stakes, high investment elections have become the norm. Big money was perhaps always ready to accommodate those in power, a few honourable exceptions apart. But now they find that the balance has tipped — they need not humour those in power. Those in power are now eager to humour them. Big money is also flirting with directly entering politics instead of merely manipulating it from behind. This is a dangerous tipping point in the life of a nation, and we have reached it. In a two-part nation like ours, with India and Bharat on different sides, the implications are not difficult to see. On the one hand, politics will increasingly become populist, with more subsidies and concessions to vote blocks. That is because we have a very fragmented political system with small vote banks, and those in power often do not have the stamina or political strength to tackle the real problems of the country. They find it easier to build vote banks. On the other hand, there will be further sell out to corporate interests. This is not to paint the entire corporate sector as greedy and manipulative. But sections of it are definitely putting pressure on governments to bend rules, get tax concessions and get new laws passed. We will also see bigger and bigger mega projects coming up (that is already happening) involving huge sums of money. If the government cannot pay for it, we will use the PPP (Public Private Partnership) model, with some deals clearly favouring the investor over the consumer. Large-scale scams periodically hit the headlines. And the recent Commonwealth Games is only a case in point. Behind all this, the problem of black money will further spiral upwards. The real danger ahead is whether we will end up tarring the moral fabric of our society itself. In short, paid news contributes significantly to bad governance. Tackling the problem of paid news is not easy, and even if we succeed, the nexus between money and power will not entirely go away. One radical solution is to change the structure of media from a profit-making one, to a not-for-profit model, either as a society or trust, much like educational and religious organisations. There is also a crying need for more credible, honest media houses that are independent of big money and power. The Press Council of India’s detailed report also has some excellent suggestions, and we need to consider them seriously. It includes an enforceable code of conduct, complete and transparent disclosure of paid news, inclusion of the electronic media under the PCI’s jurisdiction, disclosure of all interests and share holdings of the media house and its owners, and strengthening the Election Commission to tackle this issue during elections. With the political system and the judiciary under a cloud, we cannot afford to soft-peddle the issue of media reforms. The writer is Dean, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore |
|
Press Council report hides more than it reveals PAID news amounts to a media outlet such as a newspaper, news magazine, or a TV channel printing or telecasting something purported to be news not because it is or is considered to be newsworthy but because someone pays them to do so. The 2009 elections to the Lok Sabha and some State Assemblies brought it to full glory. Since paid news has the clear potential to vitiate the electoral process and thus undermining the very basis of democracy, the first agency to take action is considered to be the Election Commission of India (ECI). While it is true that the ECI does have the overall responsibility of “the superintendence, direction and control” of the conduct of elections to Parliament and State Assemblies, under Article 324 of the Constitution, the ECI has to function within the limits laid down in the Constitution and its interpretation by the judiciary, specially the Supreme Court. The ECI’s powers are not completely unfettered and that is the way it should be in a democracy with no one institution being above any other or the law. The main, statutory media-related institution is the Press Council of India (PCI), set up under the Press Council Act, 1978. The PCI did take up the matter of paid news and appointed a two-member committee to study the phenomenon. An extract from the PCI’s final report of July 30, 2010, reads as follows: “Having realised the dangers of ‘paid news’ to democracy as well as the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, on June 9, 2009, the Press Council of India appointed a Sub-Committee comprising Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Kalimekolam Sreenivas Reddy ‘to examine the phenomenon of paid news observed during the last Lok Sabha elections…’ The report of the Sub-Committee was discussed in detail by the Press Council in its two meetings … on March 31, 2010 and April 26, 2010. Members gave a number of suggestions and thereafter, the Press Council of India Chairman appointed a (12-member) Drafting Committee to prepare a final report for the consideration of the Council…The Drafting Committee considered the views expressed during various meetings of the Press Council and has drafted a report for the consideration of the Council.” While the above quote reads as a straightforward one, it hides more than it reveals, as is sometimes said of statistics. What it hides is that a 71-page document which describes in considerable detail how exactly the phenomenon of paid news operates, has been watered down to a 13-page non-controversial statement which gives four recommendations, all requiring action by the government by amend two existing laws, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Press Council Act, 1978, giving the Press Council more powers. There are two ironies in the PCI seeking more powers for itself. One is its exercise of its existing powers. This can be expressed no better than written by a journalist, P. Sainath, “Thus a body entrusted with ‘Preserving the freedom of the Press and improving the standards of Press in India’ has set an appalling standard. The guardian of Press freedom stands as an arbitrary censor of truthful journalism. It has acted less like the ‘watchdog of the Press’ that its ideals call for. And more like the lapdog of the powerful media owners who stood to be exposed by the report of its own sub-committee. (emphasis supplied).” The other irony is that this body the stated objective of which is “to preserve the freedom of the Press” is, itself, and in effect, asking for more governmental interference! The Press Council Act was enacted in 1978, in the afterglow of the lifting the infamous Emergency, and one of its stated functions is “to concern itself with development such as concentration of or other aspects of ownership of newspapers and news agencies which may affect the independence of the Press.” To what extent has it fulfilled this function is left to the judgment of the reader. A new strain of the same phenomenon has been reported from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar by Mrinal Pande. This took the form of some “of the most dreaded dons” of the area, and some “noted criminal of the area who has been on the run from the police for three years and carries a hefty reward on his head” inserting full and half-page advertisements in the leading newspapers of the area conveying their good wishes to the people at large on festival days. Being pretty much identical to hoardings one sees on street corners, at least in major cities, put up by so-called “political workers” wishing people on festivals, this is nothing but building up a public image which then can be cashed in on election times. The nexus between “buying” newspaper space either covertly as paid news or overtly as advertisements, to influence electoral outcomes is thus clear. No agency or institution seems to be willing to take it on. It will have to be done by those who stand to lose the most by desecration of the media, and those are people who really believe they belong to the profession of journalism. It finally has to be the professionalism, or the commitment to the integrity of their profession, that will have to carry the day. The writer is a former Dean, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad |
|
Corrections and clarifications n In the report “Manpreet rules out Congress as an option” (Page 5, October 18) the expression ‘ongoing speculations’ should instead have been ‘ongoing speculation’. Another expression ‘respond back’ is faulty. Instead of ‘doing principled politics’ it should have been ‘playing principled politics’. n In the headline deck “Rains may have caused more damage than apprehended” (Page 7, October 18), a more appropriate word for ‘apprehend’ would have been ‘anticipated’. n In the headline PM sets up panel to probe CWG ‘corruption’ (Page 1, October 16), it is an indisputable fact that the panel has been told to probe corruption so there was no need to have that word in single quote. n
The use of the word ‘Telcos’ for telecom companies in the headline “Telcos undertake users’ reverification” (Page 19, October 15) is inappropriate. Despite our earnest endeavour to keep The Tribune error-free, some errors do creep in at times. We are always eager to correct them. This column appears twice a week — every Tuesday and Friday. We request our readers to write or e-mail to us whenever they find any error. Readers in such cases can write to Mr Kamlendra Kanwar, Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh, with the word “Corrections” on the envelope. His e-mail ID is kanwar@tribunemail.com. Raj Chengappa,
Editor-in-Chief |
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
THE report of the Press Council of India’s (PCI) Committee on Paid News needs to be appreciated. The problem is not new. Anyone with money or power — high net worth individuals, corporations, powerful trusts in health, education and so on, and people in power — always had some degree of influence. They could control advertisement revenue flows to a particular media house.