It is reasonably clear from the Prime Minister’s observations in Guwahati on Thursday that the government has decided not to drop the Defamation Bill under pressure from journalists and opposition parties. It does not necessarily follow that it has also decided to go ahead with the Bill and introduce it in the Rajya Sabha during the next session. On the face of it, it would appear that the government would mark time; it obviously expects that the present agitation by the journalists and their supporters would taper off and that it would be able to divide the journalists. As it is, the All-India Newspaper Editors Conference and the All-India Small and Medium Newspapers Federation have announced their willingness to open a dialogue with the government on the Bill. Though it is not possible to assess the kind of support the two bodies enjoy among the working journalists, a pro-government sentiment can arise, if the government decides to accept the Bachawat committee’s report on the wage structure for journalists and perhaps even improve upon the recommendations, as it did in the case of the committee’s proposal in respect of interim relief.
There is an irony in all this. The Bachawat committee’s recommendations will inconvenience the small and medium newspapers much more than the major ones. The record of the former in implementing the recommendations of the previous wage board, and otherwise improving the working conditions for journalists is also worse than that of the big papers. But these points are not going to worry either the government or the leaders of the AINEC and the AISMNF. For the former, the first priority is to destroy the impression that the national coordination committee, which has refused to open talks with it on the Bill, represents all journalists; and for the latter, it is a wonderful opportunity to press home the point that in a difficult situation like the present one, the government can depend on them and not on the big newspapers and that, therefore, they are entitled to greater patronage from the authorities by way of advertisement support and other concessions.
Assuming that our assessment is not too wide of the mark, it is unlikely that the government will modify its strategy in coming weeks. Similarly, it is equally unlikely that the national coordination committee will agree to accept the Prime Minister’s offer of unconditional talks unless it is assured in advance that he will withdraw the Bill following a meeting with him. So the prospect is one of confrontation. There is speculation that the hardliners in the cabinet prevailed over the moderates. But such speculation is not particularly meaningful. What is pertinent is whether or not the government has reconciled itself to a long-drawn battle on the Bill. And it does seem that it has.
Meanwhile, it must be said that the case for the Bill as presented by the Prime Minister and others on his behalf is extremely weak. Whatever he might say, the Bill was sprung as a surprise on the people. If it was debated for a year, as Mr Rajiv Gandhi is reported to have claimed in Guwahati, we would certainly like to know the names of individuals who participated in the discussions. For all we know, no journalist was involved. The Bill was definitely rushed through the Lok Sabha. Surely no one can possibly agree that a measure of such importance – it reverses the established practice whereby the accuser and not the accused is required to produce the necessary evidence – should be legislated without specifically eliciting public opinion and detailed examination by a select committee of Parliament. While Mr Rajiv Gandhi may be wholly sincere when he argues that citizens need to be protected against defamation by the press, he must surely know that defamation is amongst the smallest causes for concern regarding the laws on the statute book and the working of the legal system which is nothing short of a national shame. In case he is genuinely ignorant, we would like to tell him that no ordinary citizen can expect justice from Indian courts at a price he can afford within a reasonable time. No, the Prime Minister cannot justify the Bill in the name of the common citizen. There could be only one possible explanation for it, though, of course, extremely weak. Which is that politicians belonging to the ruling party need to be protected from unjust calumny. Mr Rajiv Gandhi has knocked down that possible explanation and quite rightly. Politicians, as he has said, cannot win their battle in courts. They have to win in elections. So what remains of the explanation? Precious little.