The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech – a
right mostly abused by politicians who are better served a dose of silence and
online trolls who somehow don’t understand the difference between freedom and
abuse of freedom. Be that as it may, what’s shocking is the same trolls
attacking someone for having an opinion – probably unpalatable to some,
probably absurd to some, probably offending a few but damn right needs to be
said. How is the same freedom of speech which is used as a cloak of defense to
justify online abuse not granted to someone because his opinions are
“inconvenient”? The first amendment of the United States Constitution – grants
rights to hold an opinion and there is not a reason that we have to be unanimous
in our opinions but there is a reason that we have to make sure alternate
opinions is heard. What is the true of the US is also true of India. This post
is about why so many people want to shout down the PCI chair and very
distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court – Justice Markandey Katju because
they rather have someone mute, man the chair.
India has never seen so many changes all at once as it has
seen in the past decade. Call it the telecom revolution or long oppression of
the voiceless masses or whatever that seems a good explanation to this new zest
to be heard. Everyone wants to be heard and uses innovative as well as
provocative ways and means to be heard. This has changed a lot in the way we
function as a system and the sudden information overload or information revolution
or RTI has caused violent outbursts on the internet by people who seem to
probably make different meanings of same set information. Obviously, this
causes a lot of clash of opinions and it soon degenerates into petty name
calling and outright hounding of minority opinions. That’s a reason why I blog,
because these are my ideas and I don’t need validation from anyone. Coming back
to the topic at hand; during the good old days, the Government was the
disseminator of all information and it was their job to make things sound
palatable to general public. The politician was the only voice and the entire
machinery of Government (including Judiciary) was silent. The only way the
system propagated opinions was by file noting and judgments. These were again
vetted by the Government owned broadcasters and disseminated in palatable
manner to general public. The system was self-healing and self-preserving
because there was no alternative voice of dissent. It was expected the people
manning the Government machinery (minus the politicians) are silent minions whose
voice is the voice of the politician heading the Government. Their
deliberations were behind closed doors and one had to wait for an ex-officio
Police Chief or Judge or bureaucrat to come out with his biography to know
startling facts about various ways the system is subverted by politicians.
The RTI has meant that now every voice comes out into public
domain. File noting is openly discussed and judicial verdicts are openly
discussed. This coupled with a 24x7 media, hungry for “breaking news” brews a
dangerous cocktail, where many a time news is manufactured to feed this hungry
monster of news seeking public. All of sudden the cracks in the well-oiled
system start to show up. We now know which official objected to which
politician in what case and which judge made what adverse remark against which
Government official in which case. Once again, the media takes these innocuous
remarks and builds a story – many times backed by facts – but often times
backed by blowing hot air. Point being, every anchor on every media channel
wants to make his opinion on the story rather than report the facts. This was
unethical in good old days of print journalism. News was meant to report facts
of matter and not propagate personal opinions – except the editorials- which
were also balanced in their critique. So does this mean, what our media is
doing is unethical and we should muzzle them? NO. We have people working with the Government –
Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Navy, Chief of Air force, Chief Justice of India,
Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CBI chief, C&AG and the CEC address the media
or organize press conference to voice their opinions on events that are
currently under their consideration or matters of public importance. In the
good old days, this was considered as exceeding the brief, but now we have
learnt to expect voicing of different opinions within the Government machinery
as a sign of good times. We now feel that the democracy that our founding
fathers perceived will finally exist in letter and spirit in the times to come.
The other aspect of this is what we have come to understand
as media trolling (online and other wise). All this openness has made attacks
on opinions more prominent and vicious which degenerate to name calling and
questioning personal credentials. It is one thing when politicians do it for
marginal and short term benefits, it’s disgusting for the rest of us to follow
suit. This brings back the question to
where we began, when we have accepted so many changes in such a short period of
time, why not accept one minor thing – like I have an opinion there must be
someone who has a contrary opinion and it isn’t my job to make that person
change the opinion by shouting down the person with help from other like-minded
people. Media houses do this on a regular basis; internet users do it even
more. The case study being Justice Katju, the chair of Press Council of India. Justice
Katju was never known for meek insignificant statements. While he served as
Justice in the Supreme Court or Chief Justice to Madras or Allahabad High
court, he always made news for his stern remarks as well as his knowledge of
literature which became an integral part of most of the judgments passed by
him. I have always known him for calling a spade a spade. Many a times, he does
sound like an overbearing parent scolding an insolent child, but you could
never call him partisan or question his integrity. When he was appointed the
Chair to PCI, I must say it shocked me. How a person who never minced words
could be again appointed by the same Government to whom he must have felt like
a thorn in the flesh.
The moment he took up the task of making media accountable
and forcefully so, the outrage against him started pouring out. The various
editors started foul mouthing his impeccable credentials –while they themselves
had a shady past. People began questioning why he was selected to Chair the PCI
and started making innuendos that he was the man hired by Government to cut the
media to size. There were several voices of restrain too – N. Ram (The Hindu) and
Kumar Ketkar (Dainik Bharat) who advised the editors guild to look
dispassionately at the points raised by Justice Katju rather than merely trying
to shout him down. Reason and responsibility was never known to media who by
then had become this behemoth who could devour people’s reputations at blink of
an eyelid. Then several such instances came up which showed the dark underbelly
of the media – paid news, made up stories, seeking ransom to cover-up etc.
which justified the initial concerns raised
by Justice Katju. Meanwhile, Justice Katju took up cases where many State
Governments used to control media in their state by controlling the Government
advertisement funds. This deep nexus was uncovered – where media was forced to
give glorious coverage to Government and ignore its devious details for want of
the funds, which was majorly provided by Government. He made forceful arguments
against such corrupt practices employed and called for dismissal of Governments
which seek to control media. As a result, he stood out like a nail in the eyes
of politicians – a nail that has to be hammered but they all awaited a false
move.
Justice Katju also wrote columns from time to time in
various newspapers. Opinions which one may agree or disagree – like the case of
90% Indians being fools or idiots. I did not agree with this column but I
respected the opinion because it takes either a brave man or a fool to
criticize 90% population of our country. To me Justice Katju was never a
foolish person, he said things in a forceful manner –that being his mannerisms
or idiosyncrasy and left it to us if we want to accept it or reject it. Another
thing I always liked was his standard line – “this is my opinion. I would request
you to come up with arguments to change my opinion” – true democratic style of
functioning. Wonder how many politicians can claim being so democratic in
approach. He also wrote a critical piece about late Bal Thackrey when most of
us were still posting obituaries and most recently his post on the development
model of Narendra Modi. In each case, he has the courage of going against the
flow of wind – not just for foolish bravado but backing it up with solid points
that cannot be brushed aside. You can love Justice Katju or hate him, but you
simply cannot brush him off by calling him names or questioning his
credibility. I have special mention to politicians – who while still holding
constitutional posts themselves, regularly write columns – mostly propagating
their own political causes, standing up to say Justice Katju should not have a
voice because he holds a quasi-judicial post, just because his opinions have
become politically inconvenient to them. What hurts more is rest of us
following suit in condemning a man who for all I know should be preserved –
because they don’t make the likes of him anymore!
So long...
No comments:
Post a Comment