The repeal of the obnoxious Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matters Act has provided an occasion to some MPs and others to revive their old demand for delinking newspapers from business houses and to raise related issues regarding the role of the press in a democracy. This is as it should be. For, debate is the life breath of all democracies. But interested persons and parties will have to present a more coherent case than they have ever done so far if they expect to be heeded by the new government and the people.
There is, of course, a case of a sort for delinking newspapers from business houses. It is that a business house in control of a newspaper is likely to try to use it to further its other business interests. Indeed, it is not difficult to cite instances of newspapers linked to business houses having been rather soft in their criticism of finance, industry and commerce ministers at the Centre and of the chief ministers of certain states. Similarly, it is well known that certain proprietors placed their newspapers at the service of certain individuals during the emergency because they regarded that as a small price to pay for the favours they received or expected in their other business activities.
COERCED
But what about other newspapers or magazines not linked with business houses? Can anyone say in all conscience that some of them have not behaved in a far worse manner than the worst among the other category? During the emergency some of them were doubtless coerced into doing what they did because the government not only withdrew its own advertisements but also forced public sector undertakings and even private firms to withdraw theirs. But what about those who voluntarily placed the services of their newspapers at the disposal of what has come to be known as the extra-constitutional authority? It will be invidious to name names. But any perceptive student of recent affairs can identify them.
The emergency clearly created an extraordinary situation for newspapers. It may, therefore, not be quite fair to judge proprietors and editors solely by their behaviour during this period. But a careful scrutiny of their behaviour earlier is not likely to produce a very different picture.
It can easily be ascertained that some newspaper proprietors who do not have other business interests have sat more heavily on their editors than some of those with business interests. And this is wholly understandable. The former are in the business of journalism precisely because they hold certain opinions rather strongly and are determined to influence the course of political developments in the country. Some of them have or have had political ambitions of their own. Some of them have held or have aspired to political offices primarily on the strength of the newspapers under their control.
All this is not to denigrate one group of proprietors or exonerate another. This is only to point out that from the point of view of promoting either editorial independence or what may be called objective journalism, a sound case for delinking has yet to be made.
It was perhaps Mr. Krishna Menon who coined the phrase “the jute press.” But whoever its author, the intention behind its use has been to malign a certain category of newspapers by making it appear that their principal objective is to promote certain business interests. The charge is by and large unfounded. No industrialist has in reality been dependent on newspapers. Even newspaper proprietors have had other far more effective means of protecting their interests, as anyone with slightest acquaintance with the country’s political system will know. But assuming for the sake of argument that the charge is justified, is a journal which promotes certain business interests more dangerous from the point of view of the larger public good than the one which sets out deliberately to influence, for instance, the country’s foreign policy or spread calumnies against certain individuals who may hold a different opinion from its own?
This is not a purely theoretical question. There have existed or exist in this country so-called independent newspapers and journals which have actively worked against normal relations with the United States and China, to give only two examples, and which have not hesitated to spread the calumny that some political figures opposed to Mrs. Indira Gandhi have been in the pay of some external agencies.
Again, the intention is not to suggest that these newspapers and journals do not have the right to exist, though it is only reasonable to expect them to be less reckless in making wild charges against persons who may differ with them. The point is simply that they are not entitled to feel self-righteous. They should have the humility to recognise that to put out the party line day after day, which may include defence of Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia at one point and the suppression of dissident intellectuals in communist countries at another, is not quite objective journalism.
ESSENTIAL
But surprising though it may appear, the existence of such journals and their right to dish out this kind of stuff is essential for a healthy and a free press. Indeed, the concept of a free press cannot make sense without them.
This point has seldom been fully grasped in our country partly because the allegedly non-partisan British daily, The Times, London, has been regarded as a model even by those who have grown up on the highly partisan New Statesman, London, and partly because the bias among the country’s ruling elite against businessmen has led to too much attention being focussed on the so-called proper relationship between the editor and the proprietor. It is necessary to emphasise therefore that a free press must include units which are partisan as well as units which choose to, or tend to, take up middle positions.
A journal taking up a middle position is not necessarily nonpartisan and it is certainly not more virtuous than the others. It has its role and its readership just as partisan papers have theirs. And by the same logic, it is as legitimate for a journal to be linked to a business house as it is for its rival to be the mouthpiece of a particular party.
Journalism in a democracy is also a highly competitive business. It may be unfortunate that while some well-edited newspapers and journals do not succeed for want of competent management or resources, some others do well primarily on the strength of their financial and managerial resources. But that just cannot be helped. The press is not merely another industry in which the government can rush to the rescue of sick units without in the process undermining their credibility and bringing into question their right to survive.
It is difficult to say whether the previous government was being soft-headed or whether it was guided by some other consideration when it toyed with the proposal to establish a finance corporation to help small newspapers tide over financial difficulties or divert advertisements to them. But it is not desirable for the government to subsidise a newspaper or a journal, however distinguished its record in the service of the country, because that goes against the very concept of a free press.
PATRONAGE
Some journals which have lived on the patronage of those in power till recently will find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept this view. They have had no difficulty in accepting this patronage for decades and yet pretending to be independent. Indeed, they have not stopped at that. They have read lectures to others as if they have held the monopoly of both independence and integrity. But no fair-minded person can disagree that while it is legitimate for a party to finance a journal or a newspaper out of its funds which, too, should be audited, it is wholly wrong for the state to subsidise such an activity in any way. Its own journals are, of course, another matter, though their utility is open to question and needs to be looked into.
All this is not to say that the status of editors does not need to be raised but that this cannot be done by the state through some legislative enactment. Such a remedy will in fact be worse than the malady. Indeed, it can be said that it is precisely because journalists as a community have since the days of Mr. Nehru looked to the government for protection of their interests that they have failed to develop the capacity to look after themselves.
Be that as it may, the present government will do well to leave newspapers alone. The statement by the new minister for information and broadcasting, Mr LK Advani, in Parliament last week suggests that it intends to do so.
The Times of India, 12 April 1977