The second Press Commission, which the Janata Government has set up with remarkable speed, would have been widely welcomed if the first had helped promote in some way the health and independence of the press. But however regrettable, the fact has to be faced that that august body only added to the confusion which prevailed before it began its work and has persisted since. For almost 25 years its report has been quoted, as if it was the last word on the subject, by all manner of people to support proposals which, if implemented, would have led to the decimation of most leading newspapers to the benefit of some which have precious little to commend them by way of standards of integrity, objectivity and professionalism. It is one of the fortunate results of the lackadaisical manner of the working of the government first under Mr. Nehru and then under Mrs. Indira Gandhi that the recommendations of the commission and other radical proposals for curbing the so-called monopoly press did not get translated into law. Else we would have had by now a press remarkable by and large for its provincialism, lack of standards and indeed, the means to think in terms of providing anything like an adequate coverage of events at home and abroad and fair and reasonably informed comment on these developments. The danger came fairly close when Mrs. Nandini Satpathy, then minister of state for information and broadcasting, prepared a draft legislation which called for dispersal of shares of most major newspapers with the clear objective of investing almost proprietorial power in public trustees, a euphemism for government appointees, and election of editors. But Mrs. Gandhi not only stayed her hand but also did not revive that proposed piece of legislation even during the emergency.
It will be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that the Janata Government has any malevolent intentions – Mr. Nehru had no such intentions either – or that the commission it has set up is dominated by men of such persuasion, ideological or otherwise, as is likely to incline them to make recommendations intended, as in the previous case, to seriously weaken the position of major newspapers. Most Janata ministers genuinely believe in the freedom of the press even if they are a little patronizing in their statements on the subject and one hopes that they do not propose to extend the “small is beautiful” concept to this sphere where the ideal of village or district or provincial self-sufficiency can be implemented only at the risk of undermining what they wish to promote. But, to repeat a well-worn cliche with due apology, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. There is a genuine possibility that once again the country will be presented with recommendations which, if implemented, can hurt newspapers pretty badly and which, if fortunately not implemented, will be quoted for years to put pressure on the Government to do something, the net result of which can only be the denial of the freedom of the press.
It is possible that the Government got a serious study prepared to find out if it was necessary and desirable to set up a second press commission and that this study has elucidated the reasons for such a decision. In that case that study should be made public. The chances, however, are that no such study has been undertaken and that the present decision is the result either of the prodding of some busybodies out to reform others or of vague sentimentalism that has been characteristic of all governments in this country or of the mistaken belief that similar commissions have yielded some positive results in other democracies. But be that as it may, some of the terms of reference are far from happy, the most important of these being number three – pattern of ownership and the financial structure of organs (whatever this might mean) of the press with a view to ensuring editorial independence and professional integrity and readers right to objective news.
Implicit in this formulation are the propositions that the pattern of ownership and editorial independence on the one hand and editorial independence and professional integrity on the other are inextricably interlinked and that editorial independence as distinct from the freedom of the press is something that we must cherish and promote. But none of these propositions can stand scrutiny. It will, for example, be equally absurd to suggest that all owners of “big” newspapers interfere more than those of small papers or vice-versa. The point cannot be made forcefully enough that the position differs from case to case. And what happens when a proprietor, small and big, names himself or his son or nephew as the editor? Equally pertinently, what precisely does “editorial-independence” mean? Freedom of the editor to ignore or defy only the proprietor or his colleagues as well? If the answer is yes in the first case, how can one be sure that the editor is a responsible gentleman who will not abuse his independence to preach communalism, regionalism, secession and so on? And if it is no in the second as well, how are policy issues to be decided? By marathon discussions? Between whom? Assistant editors? Why not the news editors, chief sub-editors and so on down the line? What happens when the staff is so sharply divided as it is these days between those wanting Mrs. Gandhi’s head and those wanting her back as prime minister? The list of these questions can be extended ad infinitum.
When Mrs. Gandhi was the prime minister, she and her cohorts wanted to make the press “socially responsible” which almost came to be interpreted as being responsible to the Government. Since the Government consisted of elected representatives of the people, it could claim to speak for them. How could individuals, whether journalists or professors or judges, feel entitled to tell it what was in the best interests of the nation? The Janata Government has reverted to this dangerous theory. The seventh term of reference reads: “Measures necessary to inculcate in the press a sense of social responsibility and public accountability” – a strange combination of the language which has been made familiar by Mr. V.C. Shukla and General Zia-ul-Huq of Pakistan. In addition it has introduced an equally dangerous concept of its own – the readers right to objective news. Pray, how is this right to be exercised? By people’s committees holding people’s courts, known as kangaroo courts? And what percentage of readers prefers “objective” news to distorted and partisan news, total falsehoods and fabrications?
Prime Minister, Mr. Morarji Desai, should have something to say on this subject. This is not to suggest that there is nothing like objective reporting, but that even in so well established a democracy as Britain this is not a matter of the right of the readers but of the conscience, aptitude and training of men who run a particular newspaper. The latter behave in the way they do not because they are under pressure from their readers or because it pays but because they are made that way and they are convinced that this is the best way for them to serve their society.
It is possible that men who influenced the Government’s approach to newspapers during Mrs. Gandhi’s regime are busy again and that these tired men can do no better than repeat shop-worn clichés. But it is equally possible that a new group of men with well-defined ideas on how newspapers should be run, by whom and for whose advantage, is at work and has successfully imposed its views on the Janata Government. In the long run they may also fail as Mrs. Satpathy and her friend failed. But if such a group exists, it will not fail before it has inflicted a lot of damage on the press, as Mrs. Satpathy certainly did, doubtless with Mrs. Gandhi’s active encouragement. This calls for serious reflection on the part of men who sincerely want the press to prosper and make such contribution as it, with its variety and differences of outlook, can to the strengthening of democracy.