The Union minister for information and broadcasting, Mr. Vasant Sathe, has given the lamest possible excuse for accepting the resignations of the members of the press commission. He has said that while he appreciates the work the commission has done, he proposes to set up another with wider terms of reference. But even a casual perusal of the terms of the now defunct commission will show that these were wide enough. So his explanation will not wash. Apparently he has accepted the resignations because the commission was set up by the Janata government. But that consideration would have justified his action only if he had reason to fear that it would produce a report which his party might find unacceptable. And there could have been some ground for entertaining this apprehension only if the Janata had a philosophy regarding the press which was contrary to that of the Congress (I) and if it had selected the commission’s members accordingly. The Janata, however, had no such philosophy and it cannot in all fairness be said that it nominated only its partisans on the commission. The resignations themselves were a formality. The members did not hold executive jobs and no criterion of propriety required them to resign on account of the change of government in New Delhi which, incidentally, cannot be said about public men who were appointed governors by the Janata government. Mr. Sathe should, therefore, have treated the resignations as a mere formality and requested the commission to complete its report.
The report could have served some useful purpose. The commission was, for example, seized of the problem of the libel laws which, as every editor must know, are archaic and tend to inhibit honest reporting and comment. Under these laws anyone can drag any editor to court anywhere in the country on the flimsiest possible pretext. The commission could have made some worthwhile recommendations in this regard. But it will be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that we needed or need a commission to look into such practical problems. The pertinent question thus is whether the commission could have tackled the larger issues referred to it. In all conscience, we doubt it, not because we had reservations about the qualifications of the members but because we are convinced that these questions cannot be resolved by legislation. How can anyone, for example, promote the growth of language newspapers without subsidizing them and thereby indirectly curbing their autonomy? Or inculcate in the press “a sense of social responsibility” when it is virtually impossible to define “social responsibility” and reconcile it with the concept of freedom of expression? Is it possible to devise a “pattern of ownership” which can ensure “editorial independence and professional integrity and the readers’ right to objective news”? Are all these concepts themselves not too vague to be precisely defined and legislated upon? One has only to pose these and other relevant questions to know that the enterprise is hopeless. Though unwittingly, Mr. Sathe may have done the right thing – abort a report which, like the first commission’s recommendations, could have been quoted endlessly to embarrass the so-called big newspapers as much as the government. But it follows that he must not think of setting up another press commission.
It should be evident to anyone who is interested in national integration that the country should have national newspapers. By definition a national newspaper is one that is read by a substantial number of people all over the country. In a land of our size this calls for several editions. The first press commission frowned on this proposition and subsequent governments, with the exception of the Janata, unthinkingly accepted its view in the matter. Professional standards and financial viability are not necessarily interlinked in that a good newspaper or a magazine can fail and well-off ones disregard ethical and professional standards. But by and large the two are connected. And yet there is a strong prejudice against successful newspapers. They are called monopolies which they are not. All in all, the best thing that this or any other government can do to the press is to leave it alone. It need not be too solicitous about the freedom of the editors either. It should let them fight for it if they care for it enough to be willing to pay the price. Freedom is never conferred and the fight for it must involve certain risks.