Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on context? (2)

Part (2) of the Post. Part 1 Covers the issue freedom of expression restricted due to religious intolerance

It is my belief that in India intolerance of political expression is a bigger problem than anything which hurts religious sentiments. This also undermines the role of the media and weakens the democratic set-up. As I mentioned in the part (1) of this post, we have lived with what is written about Lord Ram in Kanchi. Arun Shourie’s commentaries about Islam and prophet (which include references to the age of his wives at marriage and consummation) have also survived. It can be argued, though, that many people do not even know about it. Then politicians should be credited for not having used these to create a wedge.

But compare this political intolerance in the two instances I have listed earlier:
1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress

The exhibition on Aurangzeb was based on facts, albeit a parochial view of facts. The intervention was by the government was not based on a public outcry but based on political expediency. DMK government was pandering to a influential supporter (Nawab of Arcot) and a votebank (muslims). Same attitude was evident when the UPA government at the center blamed the Ram Sethu affidavit by ASI on a official making it almost sound like a clerical error. It failed to stand by the affidavit which is based at least on partial evidence. This also happened when UPA felt the heat from the BJP, was afraid of being branded anti-hindu. Both these instances have nothing to do with religion but with politics. Moral of the story being that you can say anything about any religion, hurt anyone’s sentiments but the government would act only if it has electoral implications. So within the same state, no freedom of expression if it is politically convenient (Francois Gautier exhibition) and unlimited freedom with use of whatever language if it is politically convenient (Periyar statue). Intellectual dishonesty on these issues makes it even easier for the Government’s because even a layman like me knows whose freedom Praful Bidwai and Arundhati Roy will fight for (Hussain), and whose freedom BJP idealogues will fight for (Taslima Nasreen). So it leaves us with intellectuals with political agendas, but none with ‘responsible freedom of expression’ as their agenda.

This political intolerance becomes worse in more political matters. MJ Akbar’s dismissal is a case in point. It seems the UPA government was unhappy with his newspaper’s consistent stand against the government on foreign and economic policy. And Deccan Chronicle owner, Mr. Reddy’s attempts to get a Congress Rajya Sabha ticket was being hampered. So the solution was to fire the founder-editor (of Asian Age which merged with Deccan Chronicle). Counter-allegation include MJ Akbar’s attempt to get NDA backing for a Bihar Rajya Sabha seat. Even if this is true, it is immaterial. As is the fact that MJ Akbar participated in a UNPA rally a couple of days back or was Congress MP two decades back. Everyone, including all the editors, have political viewpoints – some are explicit about it others are not. This is not simply a termination of an employment contract as it is a blatantly political act of intolerance of a viewpoint. In a hypothetical situation, if we had BJP government and The Hindu had new owners who decided to fire N Ram for being left leaning, would it not amount muzzling a viewpoint? This happened during emergency and was considered an aberration. It happened with Tehelka, and we forgot about it. It has happened with another newspaper and media has not even raised the issue. Don’t LK Advani’s words about media during emergency ‘began to crawl when they were only asked to bend’ ring true at a time when no such draconian law is in place.

The situation is even worse towns and villages. The local reporters have turned into PR Agencies forwarding to their bureau’s what was dictated to them. Only the really pugnacious one’s are able to risk their lives to publish any news against powerful local politicians. Many have been bought over, in some cases in an institutional way e.g. Patrakarpuram (Journalists Colony) in Lucknow is one such exercise. This is the reason that no issues related to corruption are being fought at a local level, and only cases getting reported these days is when national media runs a ‘sting’. This is making grassroots democracy effete, when vigilance at village, tehsil and district level would have saved so much grief for so many including the Government. UPA’s guarantee card to poll success, its Employment Guarantee Scheme has failed due to corruption and Prime Minister is calling for strengthening an independent audit mechanism. Wasn’t media supposed to play this role at the local level?

Media’s reasons, though unfortunate, are understandable. With lessons from Emergency and Tehelka, they want to play safe. With the objective of ‘maximizing shareholder value’, it is not surprising that public good is compromised. That is the nature of the beast. But political parties have no compulsions – positive media coverage may boost a politician’s ego but doesn’t change electoral fortunes. Had the case been otherwise, Mayawati would not have won in UP or NDA would not have lost in 2004. The evidence from other democracies is also in line. Except for Fox News, every single news channel in the US is left leaning, but all the media together could not prevent George Bush from reelection. So the politicians have an easier solution – let media have a free run. The media, meanwhile, considering political and business reality will have to find an answer to a tougher question – how to run free?

To appreciate what freedom of political expression means, and how a politician, however powerful, needs to grin and bear an uncomfortable commentary, watch this video
Steven Colbert at White House Correspondent’s Dinner