Draco would be pleased. For those who are wont to mistake this gentleman with Count Dracula, Draco was the first law scribe of ancient Athens. The laws he transcribed were particularly harsh: the death penalty was the punishment for even minor offenses. Any debtor whose status was lower than that of his creditor was forced into slavery. The punishment was more lenient for those who owed their debt to a member of a lower class. The stringency of these laws gave rise to expressions such as ‘draconian punishment’, ‘draconian laws’, and more generally, the far reaching ‘draconian measures’.
Today I read of a plan to be discussed by the Indian Government that could qualify to be termed draconian. This measure aims to give sweeping powers to the bureaucracy to inspect, search and seize equipment, and even prosecute media companies on a mere complaint from an individual, all this without the customary recourse to the judicial appeal process. It also seeks to create a Content Code, and to enforce this Code by prohibiting the transmission of any programme should it not be in conformity with it. Should the media company be deemed to be in violation of the norms, there is a risk of incurring a fine of at most Rs. 50 lakhs, or even suspension or even revocation of the transmission license.
The Indian measure is thankfully still in the draft stage, and may never be tabled in the legislature, considering the sensitivity of the political class to any measure aimed at the suppression of fundamental rights, a sort of reminder of the dark days of the Emergency (1975 – 1977). But, this is hardly the behaviour of a society dedicated to liberty and freedom, and brings back painful memories of a docile Fourth Estate, reluctant to expose the Truth for fear of being trampled underneath the feet of an omnipotent State. Maybe the truth can be inconvenient at times, but it is necessary always. After all, a truth, even an iota away from perfection, is an untruth. That the State even thought it possible that such a proviso could be introduced and that it would become law speaks volumes about their ostrich-headed mentality. Perhaps, the government has lost its touch, its contact with the aam aadmi. The people need a responsible Fourth Estate to expose the flaws in the system, to applaud all that is being good, even if the State should view it to be inconvenient for its interests. Therefore, I hope and pray that those who matter will rally around and defeat this measure in the bud.
There are those who are wont to say that the media needs to be reined in, that it is often seen to take its liberties for granted. I agree, but this isn’t the solution. And it isn’t that the media doesn’t heed the words of the State. One recalls the case of the Tehelka portal, which even in the absence of such a repressive proviso, was ground to dust by the then-incumbent NDA government for having alleged the complicity of the then-Defence Minister in defence scandals. Imagine what could happen if such a proviso had existed then? I agree that the media needs to control its desire to rake up inane issues, merely to raise their viewership figures.
But then don’t push the control part too far. The operative word should be ‘the media’ and not just ‘control’. Let the media establish its own code of conduct, its own norms on how news should be covered, and what news should be focussed on, and what should be just given cursory attention. Let them come together and formulate as to how the media will respond to the needs of society in times of crisis and natural calamities. If in the aftermath of the World Trade Centre bombings, on the mere suggestion (or so they say) of the White House that the bodies not be shown, the media agencies in the States desisted from showing such pictures, then surely the ‘responsive’ and ‘responsible’ Fourth Estate in India can do better.
Today I read of a plan to be discussed by the Indian Government that could qualify to be termed draconian. This measure aims to give sweeping powers to the bureaucracy to inspect, search and seize equipment, and even prosecute media companies on a mere complaint from an individual, all this without the customary recourse to the judicial appeal process. It also seeks to create a Content Code, and to enforce this Code by prohibiting the transmission of any programme should it not be in conformity with it. Should the media company be deemed to be in violation of the norms, there is a risk of incurring a fine of at most Rs. 50 lakhs, or even suspension or even revocation of the transmission license.
The Indian measure is thankfully still in the draft stage, and may never be tabled in the legislature, considering the sensitivity of the political class to any measure aimed at the suppression of fundamental rights, a sort of reminder of the dark days of the Emergency (1975 – 1977). But, this is hardly the behaviour of a society dedicated to liberty and freedom, and brings back painful memories of a docile Fourth Estate, reluctant to expose the Truth for fear of being trampled underneath the feet of an omnipotent State. Maybe the truth can be inconvenient at times, but it is necessary always. After all, a truth, even an iota away from perfection, is an untruth. That the State even thought it possible that such a proviso could be introduced and that it would become law speaks volumes about their ostrich-headed mentality. Perhaps, the government has lost its touch, its contact with the aam aadmi. The people need a responsible Fourth Estate to expose the flaws in the system, to applaud all that is being good, even if the State should view it to be inconvenient for its interests. Therefore, I hope and pray that those who matter will rally around and defeat this measure in the bud.
There are those who are wont to say that the media needs to be reined in, that it is often seen to take its liberties for granted. I agree, but this isn’t the solution. And it isn’t that the media doesn’t heed the words of the State. One recalls the case of the Tehelka portal, which even in the absence of such a repressive proviso, was ground to dust by the then-incumbent NDA government for having alleged the complicity of the then-Defence Minister in defence scandals. Imagine what could happen if such a proviso had existed then? I agree that the media needs to control its desire to rake up inane issues, merely to raise their viewership figures.
But then don’t push the control part too far. The operative word should be ‘the media’ and not just ‘control’. Let the media establish its own code of conduct, its own norms on how news should be covered, and what news should be focussed on, and what should be just given cursory attention. Let them come together and formulate as to how the media will respond to the needs of society in times of crisis and natural calamities. If in the aftermath of the World Trade Centre bombings, on the mere suggestion (or so they say) of the White House that the bodies not be shown, the media agencies in the States desisted from showing such pictures, then surely the ‘responsive’ and ‘responsible’ Fourth Estate in India can do better.
What say, Dr. Singh?
No comments:
Post a Comment