Perilous times, a true test for media, somewhat like Emergency

Rahul Singh

Unless you inherit a business or farming land, most of us have to hunt for a job to earn a livelihood. For those who got degrees from well-known universities, the most favoured employment was in the corporate sector or in government service, with some choosing a profession such as law, medicine or teaching. A few, like me, chose the media. In those days, the 1960s, the media meant only the radio or a newspaper. Television only came later. Since broadcasting was controlled by the government, unless you were happy to work in an officially controlled media, radio was out. For those enamoured by the big screen, there was, of course, Bollywood, or the Films Division documentaries, but these, too, were run by the government.

At the cost of sounding self-righteous, print journalism became my vocation because there was a strong element of idealism attached to it, especially since India was a democracy with freedom of expression. One could tell foreigners with pride that India was one of the few developing “third world” countries with an independent Press, which could take on the high and mighty in the government and corporate world. Those were the days when a Chief Minister or a Union Minister could be brought down because of investigative reports on their wrongdoing. The Indian Press was respected and had credibility — and it was feared. A journalist who was true to his or her profession exposed corrupt dealings and injustice, thereby strengthening the nation’s democracy. They were the conscience-keepers. But during Indira Gandhi’s notorious Emergency rule in the mid-1970s, the Press disgraced itself. In LK Advani’s memorable phrase, “It crawled when it was asked merely to bend.”

Let’s fast-forward to today. In those 45 years, much has changed in the media. TV has come in a big way. In India, from being entirely government-run in the form of Doordarshan, there are now literally hundreds of private channels, many with 24/7 news. Finally, with Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter leading the way, a key addition has been the social media. It has become a major influencer all over the globe, whether for good or bad is being hotly debated.

So, has the Indian media been as free and independent in the past two or three decades as it was in the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s? I would say no, even though we remain a vibrant democracy. That is admittedly something of a paradox. What has changed? Mainly, the fact that the ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, is all-powerful, with a leader, Narendra Modi, that the hopelessly outnumbered Opposition cannot match or effectively rival. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi were also just as dominant in their prime. Yet, there was a telling difference. They were not as intolerant of dissent, except during the Emergency, as the BJP and Modi have been. Dissent was not considered “anti-national” or seditious. Nehru and Indira also did not have a grain of communalism in them. There was no talk of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ in which the minorities would be marginalised. India was then still an inclusive society, and “unity in diversity” was more than just a cliché; it was a reality. Most of us were proud to be part of a country with so many faiths, communities and languages. To be sure, there have been threats to that unity, in the South over the language issue, in Punjab, and in the North-east. But the healing power of democracy saved us. Pakistan was not so fortunate, and even the glue of faith could not keep it united.

What should be the duty of an Indian journalist these days? In brief, to crusade against injustice and expose corruption and wrongdoing. But even more crucial is the need to speak out boldly and loudly against intolerance and communalism. Last winter, I was holidaying in Goa. Apart from the lovely beaches and cheap, fresh seafood, there is a healthy air of tolerance and goodwill in the state. Though around 60 per cent of Goans are Hindus, the rest being mainly Roman Catholics, all types of food are easily available. Bars are everywhere. And a BJP-led coalition has been largely in power during the past few years. Goa has some of the best social parameters in the country. It is truly a model for India.

In Ponda, a large Hindu-dominated town, I picked up one of Goa’s main newspapers, ‘Herald’. A three-column item was headlined, “Muslims will be threat to Hindus in 2060”. It was a report on a “keynote” speech by one Deepak Gaikwad, a leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad: “Imagine that if there are no Muslims, there would be no terrorism, no love jihad in the country. If the Prime Minister does not remain in power, the Hindus would be insecure… Pakistan is meant for Muslims, and India for Hindus … Muslim population is growing exponentially and in 40 years, they would be 51 per cent of the population. At that time, the PM, President and even the Chief Justice of India would be Muslims”.

To me, that is toxic “hate speech”, and “anti-national”. In fact, there is a law regarding the fomenting of communal hatred and endangering peace. Why wasn’t this person booked? Did his own outfit or the BJP take any action against him? These are perilous times, a true test for the media, somewhat like in the Emergency. Then, there was a dictatorship that was being confronted. Today, it is majoritarian rule that covers itself in the garb of patriotism, with a larger-than-life leader who can do no wrong in the eyes of his worshipping followers. A journalist has to fight against the tide, opposing the sinister polarisation that is taking place, and risk being called unpatriotic. But it’s a good fight, the fight for decency, compassion and communal harmony in public life, against the toxicity of communal hate speech. It’s also a battle for all that makes our nation so great, diverse and inclusive.

— The writer is a veteran journalist

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.