Arbitrary rule has its basis, not in the strength of the state or the chief, but in the moral weakness of the individual, who submits almost without resistance to the domineering power.Friedrich Hatzel
* * * * *
The worst fears have come true. The Union Government is all set to amend Cable Television Networks (regulation) Rules to rein in media in the name of coverage of anti-terror operations, sex, crimes, narco-analysis footage”. Our self-regulation attempts did not dissuade an adamant Govt itching to shackle the TV media into submission on obtrusively invented pretext. We all know the reason—public abhorrence to the meta-stasized political class shown by us in post-Mumbai reaction stories.
The proposed amendment lays down some dos and don’ts. Once the notification to this effect is through --although it has to be cleared by Parliament under section 22(1) of the Cable Networks (Regulation ) Act,1995 (as amended in 2003), the District Magistrates and Sub-divisional Magistrates besides Commissioners of police will have the power to block live transmission by any channel and confiscate transmission equipment.
What can be termed as the severest assault on democracy is the proposal to provide feed to the media by a nodal agency in such `exigency’ situation meaning thereby that media will not be allowed to cover any such event –like communal riots, Gujjar Andolan and police firing at unarmed demonstrators. It is the Government that will tell us what to cover. Not to say that by implication no channel will now be able to cover Gujarat riots if Modi so decides (in the national interest ?). The State’s power will match that of any dictator in the matters of socalled “national interest”. Perhaps in independent India this is the first time such a draconian law is being proposed, albeit in the national interest.
attempts did not dissuade an adamant Govt itching to shackle the TV media into submission on obtrusively invented pretext. We all know the reason—public abhorrence to the meta-stasized political class shown by us in post-Mumbai reaction stories.
The proposed amendment lays down some dos and don’ts. Once the notification to this effect is through --although it has to be cleared by Parliament under section 22(1) of the Cable Networks (Regulation ) Act,1995 (as amended in 2003), the District Magistrates and Sub-divisional Magistrates besides Commissioners of police will have the power to block live transmission by any channel and confiscate transmission equipment.
What can be termed as the severest assault on democracy is the proposal to provide feed to the media by a nodal agency in such `exigency’ situation meaning thereby that media will not be allowed to cover any such event –like communal riots, Gujjar Andolan and police firing at unarmed demonstrators. It is the Government that will tell us what to cover. Not to say that by implication no channel will now be able to cover Gujarat riots if Modi so decides (in the national interest ?). The State’s power will match that of any dictator in the matters of socalled “national interest”. Perhaps in independent India this is the first time such a draconian law is being proposed, albeit in the national interest.
Under the amendment these officers will have the power to decide whether repeat telecast of a footage is necessary (and thereby in the national interest ) or not; whether any information is unauthenticated and therefore be blocked. These authorities will also decide whether any phone-in of a reporter and victim or their interviews disturbs public order or is against national interest.
Students of democratic system know that educating masses on issues so that public order and national interest remain intact is the intrinsic duty of political class. As this class has failed in this primary duty, it is trying to seek solution through gagging of media.
One can easily realize how anti-democracy these amendments are going to be particularly in the upcountry areas where vindictive political class and bureaucracy can shackle an ordinary reporter into submission on the pain of this draconian provisions law.
Now look at the genesis of this amendment and faulty Government argument:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In Mumbai operation (or in other similar situations), the terrorists were in their fiercest ferocity and the State might was in its aggressive best. No mature democracy can afford to keep mediaway from the scene for more than one reason. Ironically, it is general nature of state to restrict media on such occasions seeking justification on the grounds of national interest.
Two reasons why Media has a role:
When Gandhi was assassinated, the first announcement from none other than Prime Minister Nehru through AIR was: the killer was a Hindu named Nathu Ram Godse. Had this announcement not been made, the ensuing riots would have taken unimaginable toll.
Imagine the cases of police excesses in Pilibhit pilgrims encounter and Maliana massacre in the absence of media. The then DGP of UP in case of Pilibhit encounter (a case of mistaken identity by overenthusiastic police) sought to hush up the matter saying although some children (they were also part of pilgrims) were killed in `cross-fire’, the other killed were hardened terrorists. One newspaper exposed the case by giving minutest details of the pilgrims, many of whom were 80-year-old.
I would not say the same in war situations where two entities –our forces and that of enemy are clearly identified and their roles well carved out. Media can stay away from war front, and present to the public what is dished out by our forces. But not when state power is in its aggressive form and when there are three entities –state agencies, suspected terrorists and common men. Our concern is for the last entity.
Why media should be present on the spot `recording’ every happening
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take situation 1 in Mumbai.
Remember Indian Navy attack on Thia fishing trawler recently. It was a clear case of mistaken identity. Suppose the same happens in Taj hotel on 27/11. Over-enthusiasm, casual approach to identify the enemy, inaptitude, pre-conceived notion about terrorist and his religion ---any or all of them together carry the potential to create the greatest havoc in human history. And to top it all, the State apparatus can make criminal attempt to camouflage the misdeed by branding hapless bearded man as terrorist by placing an AK-47 by the side of his body.
So we should have been there at the scene of occurrence.
Situation 2: Terrorists having seen the news on TV sets or were informed by their handlers from Karachi (that is what the allegation against the electronic media is) that they have been hemmed in and are being attacked both vitically and horizontally with weapons which have more killing range then their assault rifles may surrender finding their escape difficult. Many wars in the world history were won just on propaganda.
So we should have been there to support state machinery if it chooses to make strategic use of media in national interest.
The problem lies not with media airing situations live but with lack of rational thinking on the part of the state machinery.
Govt seeks to gag media
------------------------------
The I & B Advisory dated December 3 had sought to project electronic media as working against `national interest’ four times, directly or indirectly, in its five-point note. Now 48 hours later, we have newspaper stories `quoting sources’ that say NSG too has claimed media got in its way causing operational hazard leading to death of a Havildar”. The Government advisory does not carry `desired’ credibility but NSG rue does-- even if it may be a bureaucratic `plant’. Very subtly the powers-that-be have sought to divert post-Mumbai public anger against political class, mainly the ruling coalition, to media –bashing through its advisories and now through amendments in the Cable Act.
Riding the crest of engineered anti-media wave the Government is all set to issue “discipline channels” order in “national interest”. Media has to fight in the larger interest of “operational” democracy. Engineered though it is, the Government has succeeded in creating a palpable murmuring in the public with respect to our coverage.
We will have to effectively say that what we had done was in the best national interest. We will also have to demolish the basic premise that coverage led to death of Havildar.
The allegation that the Pakistan –based handlers got to know the strength of security forces deployed at Taj through Indian media’s live coverage is extremely puerile effort to pass the buck. Does it require a TV coverage to know that hundreds (if required thousands and lakhs) of NSG/Army jawans would be deployed? Does it require TV coverage to know that the operation of security forces would be both, vertical and horizontal? Does it require TV coverage to know that choppers would be pressed into service as a form of vertical operation? In any case the sound of rotor can be heard from a distance from than half a kilometer—vertically too. But the Government alleges that it was the live coverage that gave the terrorists a cue about operation. Ironically some editors who had scant experience of field reporting too buy this and take a defensive “on-the-one-hand” kind of position.
Were we privy to any operational details other than what was there in public view? The handlers from Pakistan could have or might have easily deployed one or two persons to report the minute-to-minute details as was being done by the media. Was it not the responsibility of the security forces to jam the mobiles immediately before the operation? They do it when a VIP with just Z plus security status moves around but not when Mumbai operation takes place. And finally choose to blame it on the media.
N K Singh
Political Editor, ETV,
a
सदस्यता लें
टिप्पणियाँ भेजें (Atom)
संदेश
2 टिप्पणियां:
मैंने स्कूल के दिनों में पढ़ा था...लोकतंत्र के तीन खंभे होते हैं...विधायिका, कार्यपालिका और न्यायपालिका..बाद के दिनों में इस जानकारी में संशोधन हुआ और हमें पता चला कि मीडिया लोकतंत्र का चौथा खंभा है और इत्तेफाक से बाद में मैं खुद भी मीडिया से जुड़कर लोकतंत्र के चौथे खंभे का हिस्सा बन गया। लोकतंत्र की जड़ों को मजबूत करने में इन सभी खंभों का बराबर का योगदान है...लेकिन पिछले कुछ समय से लोकतंत्र के पहले खंभे ने एक बार फिर से खुद को लोकतंत्र का सबसे बड़ा पहरुआ घोषित करने की कोशिशें तेज कर दी है.. ये पहला मौका नहीं जब ऐसी कोशिश हो रही है...इससे पहले भी सात-आठ के दशक में बिहार के तब के मुख्यमंत्री जगन्नाथ मिश्र ने अखबारों पर अंकुश लगाने की इसी तरह ऐसी कोशिश की थी और इतिहास जानता है उन्हें मुंह की खानी पड़ी थी। उन्हें जब तक मीडिया और अखबारों की ताकत का अहसास हुआ तब तक काफी देर हो चुकी थी और इस लड़ाई में हार के बाद उन्होंने अपने राजनीतिक जीवन में कभी भी अच्छे दिन नहीं देखे। मीडिया ने ही नहीं लोगों ने भी उन्हें अपनी नजरों से उतार दिया.. हालांकि बाद के दिनों में उन्होंने एक अखबार के प्रकाशन को में पिछले दरवाजे से सहयोग कर अपनी पुरानी ताकत वापस पाने की कोशिश की लेकिन ना तो वो अखबार जनता का हमदर्द बन पाया और ना ही जगन्नाथ मिश्र को जनता ने अपना हमदर्द बनाया ।
जगन्नाथ मिश्र के राजनीतिक और सामाजिक जीवन के पतन की इस कहानी को याद करना मौजूदा सत्ताधीशों के लिए बेहद जरूरी है...कहने की जरूरत नहीं कि मौजूदा सरकार जन जन तक अपनी पहचान बना चुकी और लोकतंत्र की ताकत बन चुकी टीवी पत्रकारिता पर अंकुश लगाने की ऐतिहासिक भूल की और बढ़ रही है....मीडिया को काबू करने की ताजा कोशिश का हस्र भी तय है...बात हल्के ढंग से कह रहा हूं पर ह्ल्की बात नहीं.....जब जब प्यार पर पहरा हुआ है प्यार और भी गहरा हुआ है....मौजूदा शासन को ये गाना गुनगुनाना पड़ सकता है...
नेताओं का चरित्र बदलने की बात न करना...
यह सियासी सभा है, सदभावना की बात न करना...
यह दफ्तर है, किसी काम की बात न करना।
सिलकर रखना मुंह जितना हो सके महोदय...
यह अंधेर नगरी है, सर उठाकर बात न करना।
कितने भी कोई जूते मारे, सब चुपचाप सहेंगे...
यह मुर्दों की बस्ती है, बगावत की बात न करना।
लोकतंत्र में सबकुछ बदल सकता है लेकिन...
नेताओं का चरित्र बदलने की बात न करना।
अमिताभ बुधौलिया 'फरोग'
एक टिप्पणी भेजें