A report in a daily newspaper alleging that the Centre has decided to “go after” Time magazine correspondents in India by denying them official access seems an appropriate occasion to introspect on the nature of contemporary journalism and the merits of arguments raised in the controversy over FDI in the print media.
As a member of the Central Press Accreditation Committee (CPAC) who was present at last Friday’s meeting, I must say I am amazed at the story for a number of reasons (The Times of India, 13 July 2002). It appears that the newspaper learnt about the deliberations from the “buzz” generated in media circles as a result of the unexpected turn of events that day. Yet, for reasons best known to itself, it has taken gross liberties with the facts and presented them in a manner prejudicial to serving government officers who cannot defend themselves. Further, the story is sought to be validated through comments from the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs who was not present there, rather than clarified through CPAC members. Most astonishing, however, is the fact that the newspaper seems to regard honest nationalism as politically incorrect and unacceptable, and has been unable to conceal its distaste for it.
As the matter is extremely sensitive and involves journalistic ethics, among other issues, besides impacting upon India’s standing abroad, I feel duty-bound to put some of the discussions on record, so that readers may draw their own conclusions. I am particularly keen to dispel the canard that Mr. Perry is being hounded as revenge for his tasteless article on the Prime Minister. In fact, several CPAC members pointedly endorsed the concept of freedom of the press and asserted Mr. Perry’s right to criticize the Prime Minister or any other minister in any language that his magazine sees fit to publish. At the same time, members felt the issue of nationhood cannot be treated lightly.
This was the second meeting of the CPAC, and matters were proceeding smoothly till a certain Indian publication attracted adverse comment and was put on hold. This made members alert, and a few cases later it was the turn of Mr. Perry and his colleague, Ms. Tessa Laughton. His name sent a twitter around the room. At this stage the issue rose whether there are any guidelines governing the conduct of foreign journalists on the issue of the country’s territorial sovereignty, or if they have freedom to challenge the same.
Readers will be aware that it is not uncommon to come across offensive references to ‘India-held Kashmir’ or even ‘India-claimed Kashmir’ in foreign newspapers, magazines and news channels. However, the Time magazine has of late been depicting Kashmir as a separate country, in maps as well as articles. The magazine simply takes no cognizance of the fact that Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India. This is surely a new low.
I pointed out that the preparation of a map showing Jammu & Kashmir as independent territory would have been done in America, where the magazine is printed. This implies a mischievous editorial policy, which cannot be easily ignored. I asked how long an Indian correspondent could last in the United States if his newspaper published a map showing Texas as a separate country?
As members digested this, their anger grew as territorial sovereignty is intimately linked with nationalism. There was resentment at the “colonial arrogance” of foreign journals and journalists and felt need to pull them down a peg or two. Certainly, there was complete unanimity that the territorial boundaries of India cannot be a matter for foreign journalists to adjudicate upon. It was also felt that the magazine itself was responsible for the misdemeanour, and that this was far more serious than the wayward conduct of an individual correspondent.
When some members suggested denial of accreditation, the Principal Information Officer, Mrs. N.J. Krishna, became quite perturbed over the emerging hardline and sought to defuse matters. Perhaps she feared that the government would be accused of vendetta against Mr. Perry for his unflattering article against Mr. Vajpayee; the news story has certainly lived up to her expectations. Anyway, Mrs. Krishna explained that according to existing procedures, he had been provided accreditation facilities at the recommendation of the Foreign and Home Ministries till the end of the year, and the matter had only come to the CPAC for ratification.
This inflamed members who felt that while foreign journalists should certainly be helped with temporary accreditation cards to facilitate their work and free movement, they should not be given preferential treatment denied to Indian mediamen. What is more, the recommendations of the Foreign and Home Ministries have hitherto been of a routine nature, particularly in the case of such prestigious publications as Time. Hence, these need to be updated in the light of the CPAC’s deliberations.
It was felt that by refusing to validate Mr. Perry’s accreditation, the committee would send a strong message to all foreign mediamen that Indian journalists frown upon deliberate insults to their national sovereignty. It was reiterated that foreign mediamen are free to criticize the government and its policies, but they cannot humiliate the Indian nation. A representative of the Foreign Ministry agreed to refer the CPAC’s concerns to her Ministry and return with a view at the next meeting. The CPAC deferred the ratification of the accreditation of both the Time correspondents, and this is where the matter now rests.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that our concerted action was justified, and entirely in consonance with the spirit of the Indian constitution and the law of the land. I am quite unable to comprehend the servility of mainline publications when faced with white supremacist intellectual terrorism. Till a decade ago, the publication of a map depicting Jammu & Kashmir as independent territory would have sparked off a furore in leading newspapers, so much so that political parties would have been compelled to demonstrate against it. Today, the cosmopolitanism of some newspapers has reached such exalted heights that nationalism is a dirty word while territorial sovereignty is questionable and negotiable. This is particularly true of publications intimately associated with the political ambitions of a lady of foreign origin.
In this context, I am struck by the paradox that sections of the media most distinguished by the depths of their hostility to the civilizational ethos of India should be so virulently opposed to the introduction of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the print media. The most common argument touted – that this would dilute national sovereignty – stands rubbished in the light of the abject kowtowing to the Time magazine. Those who argue that foreign investors will necessarily be white owners of media houses who will arm-twist editorial policy to suit their needs, should throw some light on the near-compulsive hostility of leading publications towards the country’s Hindu majority and its legitimate concerns.
Of course, the most asinine argument against FDI is that it will pollute the country’s cultural values by gross depictions of sex and women. Newspapers that propagate the crass culture of mindless party-goers in place of developmental issues, and offer “how-to” advisories on physical intimacy, must refrain from calling the kettle black.
The Pioneer, 16 July 2002