P. Sainath

Watch | India’s Collapse in Press Freedom Index ‘Extremely Embarrassing but Only for Those With Shame’

P. Sainath and Karan Thapar discuss the steady decline of press freedom in India for almost 20 years.

P. Sainath, one of India’s outstanding journalists and a winner of the Magsaysay Award, says India’s collapse in the Reporters Sans Frontiers World Press Freedom Index to 161 out of 180 countries is “extremely embarrassing but only for those possessed of a sense of shame”. In the index released last week, India is 11 places below Pakistan (which is at 150) and 26 places below Sri Lanka (which is at 135). Worse, India is just 19 places above North Korea, arguably the world’s worst dictatorship.

However, the sad truth is that India’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index has been steadily falling since 2005. It was 106 in that year. By the time the UPA regime ended, it was already down to 140. Now, under Narendra Modi, not only has India’s position fallen for four consecutive years but its sunk a further 21 places to 161. So, clearly, press freedom in India has been steadily declining for almost 20 years. This is the big issue discussed with Sainath in a 39-minute interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire.

The Well That Thelu Mahato Built: Remembering a Freedom Fighter

One of the last fighters from that fast vanishing generation of those who fought for India’s freedom has passed away at his home in Purulia district, West Bengal.

Thelu Mahato, perhaps the oldest of the living freedom fighters who figure in my book The Last Heroes, died at his home in Pirra village of Purulia district, West Bengal, on the evening of Thursday, April 6, 2023. He is the first of those still living when the book was published, to pass on. He was the last survivor of the historic – though now forgotten – protest march on 12 police stations in Purulia in 1942. He was somewhere between 103 and 105 years of age.

With his passing, we move a step closer to losing our Golden Generation, those who fought for our freedom and helped make India an independent nation. In five or six years, there will be not a single person alive who fought for this country’s freedom. Newer generations of Indians will never get to see, speak or listen to India’s freedom fighters. Never be told directly who they were, what they fought for – and why they fought for freedom.

And Thelu Mahato and his lifelong comrade Lokkhi Mahato were so keen to tell their stories. Anxious that the young and newer generations should know that they stood up for their country and were proud of having done so. Thelu can tell his own story no more. Neither will, in the next five-six years, the remaining survivors of his generation be able to tell theirs.

And what a loss that will be for young Indians of the future. What a loss it already is, to our present generations that know so little and are unlikely to learn of the Thelus of our time, their sacrifices, or why their stories are so important to the shaping of our own.

Especially in an era where the history of India’s freedom struggle is not being so much rewritten as fabricated, invented and forcibly imposed. In public discourse, in the content of significant sections of media, and frighteningly, in our school textbooks where key truths like those surrounding the assassination of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi are steadily being erased.

Thelu Mahato never called himself a Gandhian but lived like one – for over a century. In simplicity, even austerity. In the freedom struggle, he was one of those who marched on 12 police stations in Purulia on September 29 and 30, 1942. He saw himself as a leftist and revolutionary, one pledged to non-violence unless absolutely forced to act otherwise in defence of innocent people and in self-defence.

Thelu Mahato’s tin-roofed, single-roomhome in Pirra village of Purulia district. Photo: P. Sainath

But you did participate in the attack on the police station that saw quite some violence, I asked him at his home in Pirra village in 2022. The violence came from the British, he retorted. “Their police fired recklessly into the crowd” which had gone there to raise the Indian flag on the stations. “Of course, people would retaliate when they saw their friends, family or comrades shot by police before their eyes.”

It was our conversations with Thelu Mahato and his lifelong comrade Lokkhi Mahato, that made us understand how open to ideas and influences their generation was, yet how complex were the characters moulded by those multiple influences. Thelu was – Lokkhi still is – unswervingly leftist by passion and politics; Gandhian by moral code and lifestyle. Leftist by commitment and persuasion, Gandhian by personality. Both were for decades members of the Communist Party.

Their hero at the level of the region they had always lived in, was – and surely had to be – Netaji Subash Chandra Bose. He meant the world to Thelu and Lokkhi. Gandhi, whom they would never set eyes on, was a distant but towering, awe-inspiring figure. Their local heroes included three Robin Hood-type bandits – Bipin, Digambar and Pitambar Sardar. Bandits who could be terrifyingly violent, but also outlaws to whom little people turned to for justice against feudal landlords and other oppressors. Whose banditry was of a kind described by historian Eric Hobsbawm as one which, while brutal, “simultaneously challenges the economic and social political order.”

Thelu and Lokkhi saw no contradiction in these layers. Their attitude towards the bandits was an odd mix of revulsion and reverence. They respected them but did not follow in their violent footsteps. And for decades after Independence, remained politically active in various land and other struggles – as independent Leftists leading Gandhian lives.

Thelu Mahato was a Kurmi – a community involved in many struggles in the rebellious region of Jangalmahal. The Kurmis were punished by the British, who robbed them of their tribal status in 1931. Restoration of that Adivasi status remains their greatest goal and the very day Thelu died was marked by a new phase of action in the ongoing agitation raising that demand in Jangalmahal.

Thelu never received a freedom fighter’s pension, nor recognition of his role in the freedom struggle. He was living on an old-age pension of Rs 1,000 when we last met him. In a home that was a dilapidated, tin-roofed single room. Not far from it, stands a well he created with his own hands that he was most proud of and wanted to be photographed beside.

Thelu (foreground) stands in front of the well he created with his own hands. Besides him (right) is Lokkhi Mahata, his lifelong comrade. Photo: P. Sainath

The well that Thelu dug remains. The well of memories of those who fought for India’s freedom sinks ever lower.

You can read the full story of Thelu, Lokkhi and those 14 other freedom fighters in P. Sainath’s book The Last Heroes: Foot Soldiers of Indian Freedom. Their photo albums and videos are available at The Freedom Fighters Gallery on the People’s Archive of Rural India (PARI).

P. Sainath is founder and editor of the People’s Archive of Rural India.

This article, first published at 7.19 pm on April 7, 2023, was republished at 10 am on April 8, 2023.

Eminent Citizens Write to MPs on ‘Undemocratic Manner’ of Consultation on Data Protection Bill

Among the signatories are former Supreme Court judge Justice A.P. Shah, social activist Medha Patkar and veteran journalist P. Sainath.

New Delhi: More than 70 eminent citizens have written to members of parliament expressing concern over the “undemocratic manner” in which public consultation on the proposed Data Protection Bill, 2022, has been invited.

Among the signatories are former Supreme Court judge Justice A.P. Shah, social activist Medha Patkar and veteran journalist P. Sainath.

The letter says, “The process to submit comments is only through the MyGov website which is convoluted and difficult to navigate – allowing only submissions and feedback that are made chapter-wise. Additionally, the notice issued by MeitY further states that the submissions invited from the public will not be disclosed in the public domain and ‘held in fiduciary capacity, to enable persons submitting feedback to provide the same freely’.”

“The non-disclosure of comments received from the public and the status of its consideration by the government, goes against the basic tenets of a public consultation process,” it adds.

“The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill is a legislation that will impact all citizens of India, and any consultative process must remain transparent, open and inclusive and in line with the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014,” the letter reads.

In the letter, they have also objected to the proposed amendments to Section 8 (i) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The Wire had reported that several information commissioners on December 13 had also expressed their concern on how the proposed Bill is seeking to clip the wings of the RTI Act.

Section (i) (j) of the Act – the most commonly misused exemption – says that “information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information – provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

The proposed Bill aims to amend this section of the Act.

Read the full text and list of signatories below.

Respected Member of Parliament,

We write to you to express our concern regarding the proposed Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDPB), 2022 and the undemocratic manner in which public consultation on the bill has been invited, in violation of procedural requirements as per the Pre- Legislative Consultative Policy (PLCP), 2014.

On 18th November 2022, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) published the draft DPDPB, 2022 and explanatory note3 on their website along with a notice4inviting feedback on the bill from the public within 30 days. While the PLCP clearly stipulates that any Department/ Ministry must take proactive steps necessary to ensure that the draft legislation has wide reach and publicity – the draft DPDPB, 2022 has only been made available in the English language on the MeitY website. To ensure a transparent and robust consultative process as envisaged by the PLCP, 2014 – the time period for the consultation must be extended and MeitY ought to release the draft Bill in multiple Indian languages, and facilitate physical platforms other than their website to provide wider publicity and engagement with the consultative process.
The process to submit comments is only through the MyGov website which is convoluted and difficult to navigate – allowing only submissions and feedback that are made chapter wise. Additionally, the notice issued by MeitY further states that the submissions invited from the public will not be disclosed in the public domain and ‘held in fiduciary capacity, to enable persons submitting feedback to provide the same freely’. The non-disclosure of comments received from the public and the status of its consideration by the Government, goes against the basic tenets of a public consultation process.

The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill is a legislation that will impact all citizens of India, and any consultative process must remain transparent, open and inclusive and in line with the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014.

The Data Protection Board is the principal authority that has been set up to determine non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and for adjudicating compliance and redressing grievances. Section 19 of the DPDPB, 2022 confers discretionary powers to the Central Government which is responsible for determining the selection and compositions, terms of conditions, and removal of the Chairperson of the Data Protection Board. The lack of independence of the Data Protection Board is extremely worrying and it is imperative that such a board function without the interference of the Central Government to enable the protection of the interest of citizens, specifically qua violations of the DPDPB carried out by the Central Government. Additionally, the draft Bill stipulates that the functions of this Board will be digital in design, making the complaints and redress process exclusionary.

The draft Bill which seeks to create a legal framework for the governing of personal digital data in India contains several problematic formulations within it that fail to protect the right to privacy of individuals and seriously undermine transparency and accountability through the proposed amendments to Section 8 (i) (j) of the Right to Information in Section 30 of the draft Bill. Section 8(i)(j) of the RTI law contains within it privacy protections which have been settled positions of law while the proposed amendments render both the right to privacy and the RTI ineffective. Through this amendment, all personal information can be denied, even if disclosure of that information is relevant to the larger part of public activity or in public interest as provided for in Section 8 of the RTI Act. It unjustifiably removes the proviso to Section 8 that equates the citizens right to not be unjustifiably denied information with that of the elected representative and the legislature This gives legal sanction for government entities, government functionaries and political executives to remain opaque in their functioning. This will also result in regression of legal victories consolidated thus far that have ensured the declaration of information in the public domain in the public interest of entities enjoying power and privilege.
The proposed Bill has the potential to place restrictions on public disclosures mandated by various welfare laws and schemes like the National Food Security, 2013 ,National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2055, and the National Social Assistance Programme that are vital to maintaining transparency and accountability. These mandates of information disclosure have been hard won gains through decades of struggle and advocacy. However, disregard of this hard won right and principle, the non-obstante clause Section 29 (2) of the DPDPB, 2022 reads “In the event of any conflict between a provision of this Act and a provision of any other law for the time being in force, the provision of this Act shall prevail to the extent of such conflict.”

In the context of the above, we make the following demands:

Transparent and Inclusive Public Consultation Process:

1.1 The DPDPB has only been released on the MyGov website in English with the deadline for submissions being 17th December 2022. The time for the submission of feedback must be extended. The draft Bill must be released in multiple Indian languages and widely publicised through electronic and print media for wider engagement in the consultation process as it impacts the fundamental rights of all citizens. In a similar case regarding the consultation process of the draft EIA

notifications 2020, the Delhi High Court directed the MoEF&CC to publish the draft for public consultation in all languages mentioned in the 8th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, and take proactive steps for its dissemination.5

1.2 As per the notice released by MeitY, the summary of feedback/submissions will not be made available in the public domain. The summary of feedback/comments received from the public/other stakeholders must be made available on the Ministry’s website in line with the PCLP, 2014 to facilitate and support a robust, transparent, and democratic consultative process.

1.3 MeitY is currently accepting only chapter-wise feedback on the online portal. The process for submission of feedback must be made easy and accessible to all citizens, including provisions for offline submission.

1.4 The DPDPB, 2022 is likely to have ramifications for many welfare legislations and policies. As per the procedure laid down in PCLP, 2014, the Ministry should organise open consultations with all stakeholders, including people’s movements and civil society organisations, and campaigns working on these issues.

Objection to proposed amendments to the RTI Act: No amendments should be made to Section 8 (i) (j) of the RTI Act. The RTI law is a critical legislation that empowers ordinary citizens to demand information and maintain accountability and transparency in government function. Any attempt to amend this critical section will lead to the dismantling of the RTI structure and a reversal of the transparency and accountability that it introduced in governance. The right to information and the right to privacy of all Indian citizens must be protected.

We seek your support and appeal to you and your party to raise these concerns in the ongoing winter session of parliament and outside of parliament. The draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 poses a serious challenge to the processes of democratic engagement and threatens the very foundations of the transparency and accountability regime in the country.

Attached: Letter by National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information to Shri Rajeev Chandrashekar, Minister of State in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology regarding the lack of adherence to established principles of pre–legislative consultation for the proposed DPDPB, 2022.

Justice AP Shah (former judge, Supreme Court of India), Justice AK Patnaik (former judge, Supreme Court of India), Justice K Chandru (former judge, Madras High Court), Wajahat Habibullah(former Chief Information Commission, CIC), Shailesh Gandhi (former Information Commissioner, CIC), Sridhar Acharyulu (former Information Commissioner, CIC), Aruna Roy, Abha Bhaiya, Alok Perti, IAS (Retd.), Amitabha Pande, IAS (Retd.), Annie Raja, Arundathi Duru, Ashish Ranjan, Aurobindo Behera, IAS (Retd.), Beena Pallical, Bezwada Wilson, Chandrashekar Balakrishnan, IAS (Retd.), Deb Mukharji, IFS (Retd.), Dinesh Abrol, Dunu Roy, F.T.R. Colaso, IPS (Retd.), G.K. Pillai, IAS (Retd.), Gauhar Raza, Geetha Thoopal, IRAS (Retd.), Gopalan Balagopal, IAS (Retd.), Gurjit Singh Cheema, IAS (Retd.), H.S. Gujral, IFoS (Retd.), Hindal Tyabji, IAS (Retd.), Jagdeep Chhokar, Jayant Prasad, IFS (Retd.), Jean Dreze, Kathyayini Chamaraj, Kavita Srivastava, M.G. Devasahayam, IAS (Retd.), Madhu Bhaduri, IFS (Retd.), Mallika Sarabai, Martin Macwan, Maxwell Pereira, IPS (Retd.), Medha Patkar, (Narmada Bachao Andola), Meena Gupta, IAS (Retd.), Meera Sangamitra, MG Devasahayam, N.C. Saxena, IAS (Retd.), N.K. Raghupathy, IAS (Retd.), Navrekha Sharma, IFS (Retd.), Nikhil Dey, P. Joy Oommen, IAS (Retd.), P.R. Dasgupta, IAS (Retd.), P.S.S. Thomas, IAS (Retd.), P Sainath, Pamela Philipose, Pankti Jog, Paul Diwakar, Pradeep K. Deb, IAS (Retd.), Pradip Pradhan, Prashant Bhushan, R. Chandramohan, IAS (Retd.), Rajmohan Gandhi, Ravi Vira Gupta, IAS (Retd.), Sandeep Pandey, Shabnam Hashmi, Shekhar Singh, Siraj Hussain, IAS (Retd.), Subodh Lal, IPoS (Resigned), Sundar Burra, IAS (Retd.), Suresh K. Goel, IFS (Retd.), Surjit K. Das, IAS (Retd.), TM Krishna, V.P. Raja, IAS (Retd.),Vipul Mudgal and, Vrinda Grover.

In Sainath’s ‘Last Heroes’, Unsung Patriots Tell Their Stories of Fight for Freedom

Each of these women and men believed that even though India secured its independence in 1947, the fight for freedom still had to be won.

New Delhi: At a time when the Narendra Modi government is celebrating the 75th anniversary of India’s independence by attempting to rewrite the history of the freedom struggle, journalist and author P. Sainath said it was unfortunate that there had been no official recognition of India’s last surviving – and unsung – freedom fighters nor indeed any attempt to explain to the current generation the kind of destruction wrought on the country by two centuries of British colonial rule.

Speaking at the launch of his new book, The Last Heroes: Footsoldiers of India’s Freedom, before a packed audience at the India International Centre on Monday, the award-winning journalist gave a moving account of the interviews he had conducted over the past decade with women and men across India who took part in the struggle for independence but had received no official recognition for the sacrifices they had made because of the narrow manner in which the government chose to classify and honour freedom fighters.

Winner of the Magsaysay Award and author of Everybody Loves a Good Drought, Sainath is founder editor of the Peoples Archive of Rural India.

Clockwise from top left: Bhagat Singh Jhuggian, Mallu Swarajyam, Hausabai Patil, N. Sankariah, Bhabani Mahato and Ganpati Patil. Photos: ruralindiaonline.org

Among the ‘last heroes’ his book profiles are: Hausabai Patil, who was part of the revolutionary underground that carried out attacks on British offices, and looted armouries, buses and police stations in the Satara region in Maharashtra from 1943-46; Demathi Dei Sabar and her comrades who took on armed British officers with lathis in Nuapada, Odisha; the impoverished freedom fighter Laxmi Panda who served the soldiers of the Indian National Army of Subhas Chandra Bose as a cook and survived British bombings and whose only demand was recognition; Ganpati Patil, who played a key role as a courier in the freedom struggle from UP to Maharashtra; N. Sankariah who battled the British Raj in public, in prison and underground; Bhagat Singh Jhuggian of Punjab’s Hoshiarpur district, who took on the British Raj, and continued to fight for farmers and workers into his 90s; Mallu Swarajyam of Warangal who led squads armed with slingshots and rifles against the Nizam’s militia in the 1940s.

Each of these women and men, said Sainath, believed that even though India secured its independence in 1947, the fight for freedom still had to be won. Only six of the 16 freedom fighters profiled were still alive but most of them remained active in peoples’ movements in one way or the other their entire lives.

Sainath was joined by three university students – Sukhpreet Kahlon of JNU, Yusra Naqvi of Jamia Millia and Jenisha Singh of Ambedkar University – who noted how the stories narrated in the book not only filled a vital gap in the history of the freedom struggle but also demonstrated how the struggle did not come to an end in 1947.

Role of Savarkar

In response to a question from the audience, Sainath said that it was important that the role played by all freedom fighters be acknowledged but that historians could not invent a record of struggle where none existed. Citing the example of V.D. Savarkar, he said that the issue was not merely one of the Hindutva icon having submitted a mercy petition to the British colonialists in order to secure his release from prison. Others also sought mercy or clemency, he said, but they then went on to use their freedom to plunge back into the freedom movement rather than collaborating with the British.

The Last Heroes is published by Penguin Books.

‘In Solidarity With Survivors’: P. Sainath to Return Basavashree Award After Pontiff’s Arrest

The journalist appealed to the Karnataka government to pursue the investigation into Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru’s sexual abuse vigorously.

Bengaluru: Noted journalist and Ramon Magsaysay awardee P. Sainath has said he is returning the Basavashree award, which was conferred on him by the Murugha Math in 2017.

In a series of tweets on Friday, Sainath made his decision public after the chief pontiff of the Murugha Math, Shivamurthy Murugha Sharanaru, was arrested for alleged sexual abuse of school girls.

“In solidarity with the survivors and with the cause of justice in this case, I hereby return the Basavashree award (and the Rs 5 lakh prize money that came with it by cheque) conferred on me by the Math in 2017,” Sainath said in one of the tweets.

He said he was disturbed to learn from media reports that Sharanaru faces charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

No word is strong enough to condemn such offences against children, the eminent journalist said.

He also appreciated the efforts of Mysuru-based NGO ‘OdaNadi’ to bring the incidents to light and their decades-long fight against social evils.

He also appealed to the Karnataka government to pursue the investigation into the scandal vigorously.

The pontiff has been remanded in police custody till September 5 in connection with the case.

Farewell to Comrade Bhagat Singh Jhuggian, a Lifelong Freedom Fighter

Expelled from school for protesting against the British, jailed multiple times by governments and forever a friend to those in need, this Punjab revolutionary’s spirit will never die.

Hoshiarpur (Punjab): It was March 13, 2022. A gathering of 200 people in a small hamlet in Indian Punjab responded to an unusual slogan: “Down with British imperialism! Long live India!”

With their hands stretched straight to the sky and with firm fists, they also raised another slogan: “Long live, Comrade Bhagat Singh.”

They were talking about Bhagat Singh of Jhuggian village in Hoshiarpur district, an Indian freedom fighter who died on March 8 this year. He was 95 years old.

His relatives, friends and comrades carried out his last rites on March 13. Throughout their way, the red flags they held were tilted at 45º. It was as if the sun set a little early that day – even the skies mourned his demise.

“He was our torch in the dark,” said one of his friends, Darshan Singh Mattu, a member of CPI(M)’s Punjab State Committee. “Without him there will be darkness around.”

‘He was our torch in the dark’. Photo: Amir Malik.

All his life, Bhagat Singh Jhuggian lived in relative anonymity.

The stories of his struggles against the British empire would have been lost had award-winning journalist P. Sainath, founding editor of the People’s Archive of Rural India (PARI), not interviewed him last year.

The young Bhagat Singh started out as a courier for the revolutionary underground. He would operate a printing press and supply food in the dead of the night to underground freedom fighters. In those days, he told Sainath, “The police were more scared of me than I was of them.”

In 1945, he formed the Azadi Committee or ‘committee for freedom’. The British administration promptly put Bhagat Singh in jail. Mattu tells The Wire, “The Azadi Committee would hold peace committees as World War II was going on” and Bhagat Singh would organise people to agitate for peace and against wars.

‘It was as if the sun set a little early that day – even the skies mourned his demise.’ Photo: Amir Malik

As the British headed home, they left India to face the horrors of Partition. Massacres of countless thousands began as people rushed to cross borders.

Bhagat Singh Jhuggian, and many like him in India, were among those who would save Muslims from attackers, and bring them home stealthily. “He would serve Muslims leaving India and heading to the newly-formed Pakistan food and sharbat,” Darshan Singh Mattu says.

Also read: Excerpt | The Man Who Told the World of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

Even in the chaos, he ensured that those who had lost homes did not have to go hungry.

In 1948, Singh led a movement against big landowners and had to spend three months in jail. Four years later, landless farmers got some land because of the agitation he had led. A year later, he along with his three comrades – Badhawa Ram, Rajinder Singh Srinh and Gurcharan Singh Randhawa – Singh daringly escaped Ludhiana Jail through a tunnel.

In 1953, the government in Punjab imposed heavy taxes on water and Singh was moved to struggle again. After he spent three months in jail, the decision to impose taxes were reversed.

Singh also spoke out against a lathicharge on students in Moga in 1972 and was incarcerated in Hoshiarpur Jail for 45 days. In 1973, during a movement against inflation, he and 35 of his comrades were arrested from Chandigarh. He was jailed for three months in Patiala Jail. In 1974, he was once again in jail, arrested during one of the meetings of the Kisan Sabha.

In 1975, he was arrested when he was speaking on the stage against the Emergency. He spent 14 days in Hoshiarpur Jail. Later, he went underground, distributing anti-Emergency literature, and playing the role of a courier, again.

In 1980, he helped factory workers expelled by owners return to work in an agitation that went on for about 93 days. For these three months, Bhagat Singh Jhuggian organised food and other essentials for them. His fight against hunger was a lifelong one.

In the same year, the government of Punjab increased the bus fare by 43%. He fought against this. The government issued a warrant for his arrest but did not manage to catch him.

Also read: In Punjab, the Legacy of the Ghadar Movement Continues to Inspire the Fight for Justice

Singh was also receiving constant threats from Khalistanis in 1990s, when Punjab was tormented by terror. A Khalistani activist – whose brother he had helped secure a job – reportedly told others, “If it is Bhagat Singh Jhuggian who is our target, I will have nothing to do with this.” This was recounted by Singh himself to Sainath.

“He would take one road in the morning,” says 51-year-old Paramjit Singh, Bhagat Singh’s younger son, “and the other one in the evening while coming back to avoid an encounter with any extremists.”

He would maintain detailed records of accounts in diaries. In that collection of old notes and ledgers, I found two news clips from the 1980s. One is of a woman having been tortured by her in-laws and another, a story of landowners grabbing land from the poor. “He was always very active when it came to women’s rights and the rights of the poor,” Paramjit says.

“He was not very happy with the state of affairs of the country,” adds Paramjit.

‘In the same year, the government of Punjab increased the bus fare by 43%. He fought against this. The government issued a warrant for his arrest but did not manage to catch him.’ Photo: Amir Malik.

Singh put up a black flag put on his rooftop in protest against the three farm laws passed by the Union government. The law was later repealed following farmers’ protests at the borders of Delhi. He could not join the protests at the borders because of his ill health, but was active in organising food and other essentials to be supplied to his comrades at the gates of India’s capital.

“Till his last breath, he would live to guide the country, with his spirit intact,” Darshan Singh Mattu says.

During the funeral and as a pall bearer, I felt as if mourners were mourning the death of freedom itself.

As Singh’s body was laid on the pyre, Darshan Singh Mattu raised the slogan, “Britannia murdabad, Hindostan zindabad.” He told the mourners that this was the same slogan which Bhagat Singh Jhuggian raised in the Government Elementary School at Samundra. He was expelled from the school.

The letter which confirmed his expulsion also had the assent of the then deputy commissioner of the area and it described him as ‘dangerous’ and ‘revolutionary’. He was 11-years-old.

This ‘dangerous revolutionary’ is no more but the spirit of Comrade Bhagat Singh will live on.

Amir Malik is an independent journalist. He can be reached at malikamiralig@gmail.com.

Watch | What Does the Farm Law Repeal Decision Mean for Farmers?

A conversation with P. Sainath on the implications of the decision.

In a televised ‘address to the nation’ on Friday morning, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the three controversial farm laws passed in September 2020 stand repealed by the Union government.

Farmers across the country have been protesting against these laws since before they were passed. They believe that the laws will benefit large corporates and hurt farmers.

Mitali Mukherjee of The Wire talks to P. Sainath.

Journalist P. Sainath Wins Japan’s Fukuoka Grand Prize 2021

Sainath dedicated the prize to his fellow journalists who are reporting from rural India and to PARI, the news website he founded in 2014.

New Delhi: Renowned journalist P. Sainath was the recipients of the Fukuoka Grand Prize 2021, one of Japan’s top awards open to people from all Asian countries for “investigate[ing] impoverished farming villages in India, listen[ing] to voices from the rural population”.

The Fukuoka Prize has three categories, Academic Prize, Culture Prize and the Grand Prize. Sainath was the recipient of the Grand Prize. Previous Indian winners of the prize include Professor Romila Thapar (Academic Prize0, Ustad Amjad Ali Khan (Culture) and A.R. Rahman (Grand Prize).

The citation for the award says Sainath, who is the founder of the news website PARI, was awarded the Prize for being, “A passionately committed journalist who has continued to investigate impoverished farming villages in India, listen to voices from the rural population, capture the reality of the people’s lifestyle, and report ‘rural stories’. As Asia goes through turbulent changes, Mr. Sainath has been seeking new ‘knowledge’ and promoting civil cooperation. For this reason, he is a very deserving recipient of the Grand Prize of Fukuoka Prize.”

The 2021 Academic Prize and Culture Prize was awarded to Japanese scholar Mio Kishimoto and Thai writer and filmmaker Prabda Yoon.

Sainath, who has reported extensively on the crises in rural India and the farming economy during his four decades as a journalist, has been the recipient of many awards, including the Amnesty International Global Human Rights Journalism Prize and the Ramon Magsaysay Award. He has also authored several books, the most famous among which is Everybody Loves A Good Drought, and was a part of documentaries such as Nero’s Guests.

Sainath told Newslaundry that with the cash prize of 5 million yen (Rs 33 lakh), he would start a fundraiser to help families of stringers who have died of COVID-19 and start a fellowship for rural journalists from Dalit and Adivasi communities.

During his acceptance speech, he dedicated the prize to his fellow journalists who are reporting from rural India and to PARI. He said the award signals support to an “endanger species in journalism”, referring to his and PARI’s extensive coverage of rural communities. He noted that during the pandemic, when the need for public-spirited journalism is at its highest, corporate-owned media groups have laid off thousands of journalists and workers.

Backstory: Elections Are Contributing to the Coarseness of Our Public Discourse

A fortnightly column from The Wire’s public editor.

One of the major markers of Indian democracy has been the relatively uninterrupted conduct of elections. Much computer time has been spent describing, analysing and reporting on this exercise which has taken place with admirable regularity since 1952. S.Y. Quraishi, former chief election commissioner of India, begins his 2014 book, An Undocumented Wonder The Making of the Great Indian Election, with a quote from V. Mitchell’s news report on the 2009 general election for the New York Times:

“It is truly the greatest show on Earth, an ode to a diverse and democratic ethos, where 700 million plus of humanity vote, providing their small part in directing their ancient civilization into the future. It is no less impressive when done in a neighbourhood which includes destabilizing and violent Pakistan, China, and Burma.”

Such lustrous words would warm the average voter because they too believe in the greatness and neutrality of this process; otherwise why would they stand so patiently in never-ending queues, time after time, under the sun or rain, with babes in arms or on failing limbs, to exercise their franchise? This is why it is profoundly disturbing to note that every election without fail, especially over the last few years, seems to be leaving India more communally riven, more hate-filled, more money-driven, more patriarchal, more caste-driven and more cynical. Simultaneously, if we are to borrow words from the preamble to the Constitution, it has left us less equal, less fraternal, less united, less integrated and less democratic.

People are voting blind, based on a combination of a tribalised sense of affiliation, carefully nurtured fears/hatred and the hope of cashing in on a few benefits that may come their way. Meanwhile, institutions that could have made a substantial difference have allowed the natural laws of gravity – in this case the weight of power – to take its course.

This is an election season that saw the Supreme Court green-signal the flow of opaque funds into the system, after flattering to deceive through its April 2019 statement on the ADR petition challenging electoral bonds: “… the rival contentions give rise to weighty issues which have a tremendous bearing on the sanctity of the electoral process in the country” (‘Ahead of Polls in Four States, SC Needs to Prioritise the Challenge to Electoral Bonds‘, March 9, 2021).

As it turned out, it refused to temporarily stay their implementation this time on the specious ground that electoral bonds were “allowed to be released in 2018 and 2019 without interruption, and sufficient safeguards are there”. Coterminous with this is the painfully sluggish audit processes of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, depriving voters of information vital for an informed exercise of franchise (‘As States Enter Election Season, Important CAG Reports Remain Unavailable to the Public‘, March 17).

A TMC activist writes on a wall for the speedy recovery of party supremo and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in Kolkata, Thursday, March 11, 2021. Photo: PTI

Institutions of the more punitive kind, including the Enforcement Directorate and Central Bureau of Investigation, have played their role in quickening the heartbeat of both electoral hopefuls and voters alike (‘Weeks Before Bengal Election Announcement, ED, CBI, Police Probes Suddenly Gain Steam‘, February 23). Finally, the institution that is central to the process, the Election Commission of India, has been repeatedly tested already and been found severely wanting (‘EC Orders Repolling in Assam’s Ratabari Seat After EVMs Found in BJP MLA’s Car‘, April 2).

It is amidst the crumbling of the pillars of our democratic edifice that we should now turn to three interlinked media-driven narratives that have darkened the poll scenario significantly: social media messaging, “mainstream media” coverage and electioneering rhetoric of candidates. For some years now, the IT cells of various parties have attempted – and often succeeded – in gaming the system. It is the ruling party however that has shown the greatest stomach for such an exercise, and the appointment of Amit Malviya, the experienced head of BJP’s IT cell, as overseer of the Bengal election, is comment enough (‘Amit Malviya’s Appointment in Bengal Shows How Heavily BJP Relies on Social Media‘, November 18).

The pre-election period is typically the time when the dragon seed of fake news is planted. For instance, this time we saw the wide circulation of a tweaked video made to appear as if AIUDF Badruddin Ajmal was promising voters to make India an Islamic state should be Congress-AIUDF alliance win (‘Right-Wingers Tweet Morphed Video of AIUDF Chief Saying ‘India Will Become Islamic Nation‘, March 10).

Pratik Sinha, co-founder of Alt News, perceived the menace of fake news widespread enough to launch a campaign: #AnyoneCanFactCheck. He demonstrated how, for instance, voters could discover for themselves the fakeness of a video, presently circulating, of a woman being molested in public, with text claiming that this is what is happening in present-day Bengal. The original image is from a 2015 Bhojpuri film, Aurat Khilona Nahi.

The same video, incidentally, was made viral during the 2019 general election. Of course, the possibility of voters, many of whom are located outside the digital space, doing fact-checks of this kind is remote, but that doesn’t mean such efforts to educate should not be made.

It’s not just on social media – a great deal of election-related disinformation is springing up in the newspaper and television space. During the general election of 2009, P. Sainath had reported for The Hindu on a phenomenon that came to be known as “paid news”. The modus operandus was simple: the electoral candidate, in this case Congress leader Ashok Chavan, got three newspapers to cover him in glowing terms. The stories were near identical and even the mugshot of the protagonist was the same. Basically these were ads passed off as independent reporting.

That moment came to mind when I came across the PTI/The Wire story, ‘EC Issues Notices To Assam Newspapers Over BJP Advertisement In the Form of Headline‘ (April 1), concerning an ad for the BJP that was dressed up to appear like a lead front page story. But there were significant differences. In the earlier case, only three newspapers were tempted to carry the fake content; now eight had succumbed. Also, in the earlier instance, it was about the fortunes of an individual. Here it was a national party playing fast and loose with election norms. The story claimed that the BJP would emerge victorious in all the 47 seats where polls were conducted in phase I of the Assam elections.

Such premature projections of victory, we know, have become part of the BJP’s election toolkit, but it is a worrying sign of journalistic decay. Sainath’s observation made 11 years ago, “Either we finish paid news, or it will finish us”, has come back to haunt us.

The more astute voter understands the implications of saturation media coverage. As a Bengal resident of Nandigram put it, “Politicians will contest and go, but we will have to live here. All these cameras and mics don’t suit us, we want peace” (‘Propelled to Poll Epicentre, Nandigram Battles Polarisation in Fight for ‘Bengal’s Soul‘, April 9). Saturation coverage invariably also silences important concerns. In Bengal, for instance, voters rarely came to know about the issues raised by the Left-Congress coalition (‘West Bengal: The Dilemma That Left-Leaning Voters Are Facing in This Election‘, April 3).

The third narrative is of course the discourse of communalism and patriarchy now permeating election speeches across the country. DMK leader A. Raja probably thought he had hit upon a winning script when he attacked Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami by saying he was “born out of an illicit relationship and through a premature delivery”.

Dilip Ghosh’s infamous inference that Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is going against Bengali culture by not covering her injured leg with her sari is not just crass; it amounts to body shaming. His party and prime minister rushed to call out Raja’s misogyny but were silent about the man heading their Bengal campaign.

Double-speak, of course, is par for the electoral course. Notice how the BJP waits for the Assam elections to end to unleash the promise to bring the Citizenship (Amendment) Act into force while campaigning is still on in Bengal, or how the CPI(M) ties itself into knots over the Sabarimala issue with the Kerala chief minister and his minister for temple affairs signalling sympathy to believers – even though the party has come out strongly for women’s equal right to worship at the shrine (‘Ahead of Assembly Polls, Kerala CM Vijayan Says No Debate Needed on Sabarimala Issue‘, March 19).

There is no such prevarication however when it came to communal rhetoric layered with caste innuendoes (‘Movement, a Battle to See Who the ‘Real’ Brahmin Is‘, March 13). Two states that were going to the polls – Bengal and Assam – were profoundly shaped by Partition and the anti-Muslim narrative became dangerously overt. A telling ground report based on detailed conversations with an RSS functionary (‘Ground Report: The RSS Took Root in Bengal One Haripad at a Time‘, April 4) reveals how vital everyday communalism is for the BJP’s electoral invincibility.

Cashing in on it are people like the BJP’s new recruit Suvendu Adhikari, anxious to prove his fan-boy credentials by adopting a strategy borrowed from his boss. If Narendra Modi had taken to terming Rahul Gandhi as “shehzada” from the 2014 electoral campaign onwards, Adhikari termed Mamata as “begum”: “If begum comes back to power, the state will turn into a mini Pakistan” (‘‘Mini-Pakistan’: Closer to Poll Date, BJP’s Nandigram Campaign Turns Openly Anti-Muslim‘, March 29).

The Election Commission may not have acted if it had not been prodded to do so (‘EC Issues Notice to BJP’s Suvendu Adhikari for Communal Overtones in His Speech in Nandigram‘, April 9) by Kavita Krishnan of Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (CPI-ML) Central Committee.

Yet these five elections have proved again that there is really nobody who can conduct electoral psyops and ensure communal cash-ins as dextrously as the two men who have come to define the BJP: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah. Their appetite to win at all costs is combined with an amazing ability to switch avatars – one moment they are pouring scorn on the Muslim-appeasement of opponents, the next moment they assume roles of being the committed guardians of a united country, its security, vaccination drive and what have you. What’s more, every bit of this double-act is faithfully recorded by the “mainstream media”.

Also read: How Equations Have Changed in 3 Places That Had Brought Mamata Banerjee to Power

Eyes wide shut

Who would have thought, going by the coverage in our media, that there is a bloody massacre playing out on the streets next door? That over 500 people have died while confronting a brutal junta? That over 60 journalists have had to face the wrath of the generals?

Reporting on Myanmar has been insignificant and editorial comment occasional. None of the editorials so far have called out the Indian government’s cynical pussyfooting on the issue strongly enough – although Hindustan Times did summon the courage to point out that the Indian Army chief has not yet condemned the atrocities by a neighbouring military.

The brave people of Myanmar however are not about to give in: they are using every resource they have, even their garbage, to take on the tanks. As for the journalists of that country – they have been tested in ways that few of their counterparts elsewhere have, and have emerged as flag-bearers of people’s liberties. Three hundred of them have got together to form the Independent Journalists’ Force (IJF) and some days ago an IJF member had this to say to Johanna Son of reportingasean:

“The professional and independent media will still exist in Myanmar. This is unquestionable. Now, most of the journalists are young people and (from) Generation Z, who stand with the truth. Also, there are many freelance reporters. They are (letting) the media offices use information (they provide) without consideration of any risks (to themselves). This is obvious (just) by looking at them (journalists) who rely only on the meals donated at the protests.”

The courage of this speaker is enough to bring tears to the eye – and fire to the belly.

Two views on reservations

Photo: Barry Pousman/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Chandan Kumar Pandey:

“I just read the piece, ‘When It Comes To Reservations, the Supreme Court Needs To Change Its Approach‘ (April 1). According to the writer, reservations should continue and be increased to represent the community at any cost, whether they want or not. So according to this view representation cannot be gained through hard work. This means that only the people in the general category should work hard for it, others should get it for free just because they are minorities. Who decides that they are minorities, you?

Media institutions like yours are just doing propaganda. If reservations are so necessary, then why is it that other developed countries haven’t adopted such policies? Can the minorities be uplifted only by reservations? Why don’t you write about helping the minorities financially rather than asking for increasing reservations. Before questioning the Supreme Court, you should first change your views.”

* * *

We received the following email from someone who did not want their identity disclosed:

“I have been an admirer of The Wire because of the voice they have provided to Dalits and Adivasis. I am a typical urban, forward caste boy from the middle class and am convinced that Dalits and Adivasis still face harassment at various levels. Take a major injustice being done to them and to rural students, when it comes to placements in the private sector, especially in IT. This process is conducted mainly through two instruments: Campus placements in urban institutions and through high cut off marks at the 10th and 12th standard levels in schools. Many students from these communities just don’t have the money or the access to private tuitions; many among them opt for urban colleges rather than prestigious institutions, even if they qualified, because they cannot afford hostel fees. Some 60 to 70 per cent of entry level jobs are filled through campus placements.

“Even if they manage to get a satisfactory job, the work environment is so toxic that it is often difficult to carry on. They are mocked for coming in through the reservation system and there is no one within the company to handle their problems.

“I would therefore like The Wire to bring all this to the public. It should 1) request all IT companies on how many entry level jobs are facilitated through campus placements over the last 10 years. 2) What were the cut off marks for the Standard 10 and 12 school leaving examinations in the last decade? 3) How many Dalits and Adivasis make it to entry level jobs? 4) Dalits and Adivasis should be requested to reveal the instances of racism they faced. 5) Finally, how were such complaints handled by the respective establishments?

“I don’t want to be trolled so please withhold my name. I look forward to good reporting on issues of this kind from you.”

Tale of a missing licence plate

A personal experience from Siddhanth Rathore:

“I got my high security registration plate number plate affixed on February 18, 2021 (a streamlined process, no complaints there). On coming back home later that week, I noticed that the rear number plate was missing. Thus begins the story of mental agony, helplessness and hopelessness. As per a government notification, it is mandatory to file a police complaint to get a new number plate issued. On the website of the agency responsible (Rosmerta Safety Systems Pvt Ltd), there is no process mentioned to get a new HSRP number plate issued. I contacted the customer care, who asked me to send a mail for the same… I mailed them, but got no response. I called them, and was told that the issue will be addressed in 48 hours (March 8). I repeatedly tried to contact them after that to no avail.

“In the meanwhile, I tweeted to the Minister of Road Transport & Highways, but got no response. I then resorted to mailing the editors of leading newspapers. As expected, no response. Eventually, I went to the local bike-repair shop to get my old number plate fixed. My only purpose of writing this mail to you is to bring to the notice of the government the issues that a common man is facing.”

Random thoughts via email

Vikas Kumar: “How does ‘The Wire‘ manage to be so biased?”

Aditi Yadav: “Please keep doing what you’re doing. The Wire gives me hope.”

* * *

Also read: Why The Wire Wants the New IT Rules Struck Down

Busybody, embodied?

Finally, as many commentaries on the recent Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 had anticipated, there is already evidence of lateral surveillance being conducted by people who, for their own ideological or other reasons, are willing to perform vigilante roles in this regard.

One individual, Shashank Shekhar of Mumbai, is rather anxious to ensure that an independent news portal like The Wire is controlled forthwith through the use of these new IT rules. He took the unilateral step of demanding to know from The Wire what steps it has taken on appointing a grievance officer as mandated by the IT rules. He also made sure to mark this mail to the Cyber Law & eSecurity Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

In his communication to the ministry, he also wanted instructions on what “necessary action” he should to take in case “there is no response by the Intermediary”.

Write to publiceditor@cms.thewire.in.

Official Panel Sees ‘Western Bias’ in India’s Low Press Freedom Rank But Wants Defamation Decriminalised

‘Index Monitoring Cell’ member P. Sainath distances himself from ‘draft’ report, submits separate note.

Mumbai: A committee set up by the Narendra Modi government last year to suggest ways of India improving its ranking in the World Press Freedom Index has concluded that the media is doing well and that India’s poor score – which it says is “not in line with the ground situation” – is the product of “western bias”.

But in a nod to the growing incidence of criminal cases being filed against reporters and editors across the country – cases that are widely seen as an attack on media freedom – the committee’s draft report has also asked the government to consider making it mandatory for the police to secure the consent of the Press Council of India (PCI) before “filing an FIR against a media for her/his publication of a news article, cartoon, opinion or photograph”. Another key recommendation is the decriminalising of defamation. India is one of the few democracies to retain the offence of criminal defamation on the statute books.

In addition, it recommends that the PCI be recast as the ‘Media Council of India’ to cover “the entire gamut of media, i.e., newspapers and periodicals in print or other form, e-newspapers, news portals, social media and any other platform of news dissemination besides electronic media.” This recommendation is at variance with the government’s controversial new policy, announced last month, of introducing a sweeping new regulatory regime for digital news.

The Wire has learned that at least one member of the 15-strong committee, the journalist P. Sainath, has submitted a number of critical observations on the draft, declaring that the document circulated by the chairman “falls far short” of what was meant to be the principal task of the panel – to review and discuss proposals to improve media freedom in India.

“The first thing the report needs to clearly state,” his note says, is “that we recognise the existence of a serious crisis in freedom of expression in the country (without which there would have been no need for this committee) – and which has reached the proportions of an undeclared emergency for the media, particularly for independent-minded journalists.”

The Wire has obtained a copy of the 42-page draft official report and Sainath’s scathing observations on it, which run to 46 pages and comprise a 12-page note with three appendices attached as evidence.

Coming in the wake of the new IT rules for digital news media and the leak of a Group of Ministers report on communication, which speaks of tracking and blacklisting journalists critical of the government and even ‘neutralising’ them, the official committee’s sanguine tone – with phrases like “the work culture in the Government of India involves transparency as the norm” – is likely to heighten rather than dampen global concerns about the state of the press in the country.

Genesis of panel

In 2020, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) ranked India 142nd among 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index 2020. India’s rank has fallen steadily over the past decade. And for a country that obsessively compares itself with its western neighbour, it is now merely three places ahead of Pakistan, which stands at 145. In 2006, India’s rank was 106.

Taking note of the RSF report, the Narendra Modi government set up a committee – called the ‘Index Monitoring Cell’ (IMC) – to work on “improving India’s ranking on the freedom of press index”.

Also read: From ‘Partly Unfree’ to ‘Fully Unfree’? The New IT Rules Could Hasten the Slide

The 15-member IMC is chaired by Kuldeep Singh Dhatwalia, principal director general of the Central government’s Press Information Bureau (PIB), and includes 10 other government employees or appointees. Apart from Sainath, the committee also includes three other journalists, Rajat Sharma, Jagdish Upasane and Hitesh Shankar. Originally, the names of Sharma and Sainath were suggested by the Press Council of India.

Ten months after its formation in May 2020, the IMC has prepared a report in four chapters and made a set of recommendations. But instead of focussing on the problems plaguing the Indian media – which includes government pressure of various kinds – the official draft says the country’s poor ranking is the product of “western bias” and attempts to rebut the observations commonly made about the parlous state of press freedom in India.

Key challenges to media ignored

During the four meetings held online between IMC members – there were also apparently several held by sub-committees or sub-groups – many pertinent issues were raised relating to press freedom, including the right to dissent, protection against motivated legal proceedings, internet shutdowns and the special problems faced by Kashmiri journalists. However, none of these have been incorporated into the draft report. In protest, Sainath prepared a separate document and has asked the IMC to add it separately to the official report.

Even as the IMC ponders finalisation of its report, India has been downgraded in the Freedom House rankings from ‘Free’ to ‘Partly Free.’

P. Sainath. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Mullookkaaran CC BY SA 4.0

In his separate comments, akin to a dissent note, Sainath states that the draft report by the committee has “failed to get anywhere close to these objectives”. “Perhaps the most unacceptable aspects are: a) there is no description, no recounting or measuring of the situation on the ground in relation to press freedom and, b) there is not a single mention of ‘accountability’ of the State and governments or any level of authorities,” he writes. He further says that there is no mention of accountability in relation to corporate media owners either – though the disturbing trend of sackings, retrenchments and forced ‘voluntary’ resignations did find mention in committee meetings.

While the committee had circulated the report as a “draft version”, curiously, the cover page does not say ‘draft’ – suggesting this could be their final one.

Watch: As Digital Media Gives Modi Govt Jitters, Efforts Are on to Silence Journalists

India’s press has been facing a tumultuous time with the government overtly exerting its power on both journalists and editors. Many have been booked under stringent laws in frivolous and fake cases. (An appendix to the dissent note enumerates as many as 52 laws that relate to the media in this country – the list prepared by a sub-group of the IMC). Several government bodies have engaged in peddling baseless stories and questioned the credibility of those seeking accountability from the government. Kashmir, among all regions, is the worst impacted. The draft report, however, speaks of how much “positive work” is done to protect journalists in the valley. In the section discussing the situation of media in Kashmir, the draft report says,

“The complex security situation of Jammu & Kashmir makes it unique with regard to press freedom. The security personnel make tireless efforts to ensure the physical security of journalists and the wider public from foreign-bred terrorist elements in the region. The measures taken in this regard often lead to restricted permissions for travel and frequent internet shutdowns, which are portrayed in the western media as violation of press freedom.”

To this, Sainath’s note asks, “Does that include the safety of Kashmiri journalists? Or are they all “foreign-bred terrorist elements”?” The experiences of journalists in J&K are so widely known – yet completely absent from the report’s appreciation of the ‘ground situation’, he points out. “And internet shutdowns are not just portrayed as violations of press freedom in the western media. They are very grave violations with severe consequences in social, economic, political and human rights spheres,” he further adds. He calls the internet shutdown a “very feudal form of collective punishment – punishing an entire region, once a state, for things claimed to be the doings of a handful of foreign-bred terrorists”.

The committee, formed months after the abrogation of Article 370 in J&K, only speaks of the region in relation to lists in languages and publications. “Is this the ground reality we perceive in Kashmir?” he asks.

Cases against providers of ‘essential service’

In March last year, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi imposed a nationwide lockdown in the country, he had also listed media among “essential services”. But the draft report, the dissenting note points out, does not seem anywhere to contextualise “the ironic and astonishing rise” in attacks on journalists that comes after their work was declared an essential service by the prime minister.

This is particularly disturbing as since the lockdown, the criminalisation of journalists has risen exponentially. An appendix to the note cites at least 22 instances where journalists were arrested, served notices in nine other instances and FIRs registered in 22 other cases.

His dissenting note says that, when he carried out a search for keywords in the draft report, the words “sedition”, “censorship” and “FIRs”, do not appear a single time in description of that ground situation. ‘Sedition’, he points out, appears once “in a convoluted quote from late communications scholar Wilbur Schramm”. Even the word ‘censorship’ – at the heart of the debate over freedom – only appears in a single line that actually denies its prevalence in India, he says. “There is no pre- or post-censorship on any news report in India, subject to the reasonable restrictions provided on free speech provided in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution,” the report claims.

In response to the missing key aspects in the report, Sainath made a list of those important words. He adds dissent/right to dissent, false pretences, sedition charges, sacking of journalists under government pressure, intimidation by government agencies, arbitrary action against journalists, internet shutdowns among others. None of these words figure anywhere in the draft report, he observes.

Sacking, retrenchment of journalists

The note also expresses his concerns over the sacking, retrenchment and forced ‘voluntary’ resignations carried out by media houses under the pretext of the COVID-19 pandemic. These concerns, however, find no mention in the report, he said. By the time the committee held its first meeting, over 1,000 journalists had already been laid off, his note says. Some of them were by the wealthiest, most cash-rich media houses in the country. That number, he estimates, has long since crossed 1,500. “We do not in our report raise the question of why the media owners can get away with this after the prime minister declared journalists and media to be an essential service 11 months ago,” he points out.

Also read: A Mala Fide Attempt to Control Independent Digital Media

Typically, when a body like the Press Council asks media houses about retrenchments, their standard reply is that the issue doesn’t pertain to the freedom of press, and that it falls under the Industrial Disputes Act, and is thus outside the purview of bodies like the PCI and is none of their business. “This is an obnoxious argument – that destruction of journalists’ livelihoods, the complete loss of security which accompanies that has no bearing on their freedom of expression, on press and media freedom in general,” Sainath observes.

‘Drop cases against journalists, free Siddique Kappan’

He emphasises the need to drop all the FIRs filed against journalists this past year or more. “Release all journalists incarcerated on outrageous charges – like Siddique Kappan under the UAPA,” he notes. He also seeks a clear advisory to the police and bureaucracy not to victimise any citizen under outlandish provisions of laws, some of which were formulated in British times to crush Indian freedoms of both press and citizenry. “The government also needs to lay in parliament all data on the FIRs and arrests besides declaring itself committed to freedom of the press and that it will ensure no further excesses shall happen,” he suggests.

Podcast: Intolerance Against the Media Has Risen Since Modi Came to Power

On a similar note, he also suggests that a legal defence body for journalists be constituted to fight against false cases foisted on them. He says those media houses wilfully scuttling the wage board’s recommendations – recommendations already supported by the courts – must be strongly penalised.

Taking note of another recommendation in the chairman’s report, Sainath writes, “Regular engagement with international media ranking agencies.” Our job is to improve press freedom in India, not to carry out public relations exercises (like is done with the Ease of Business Index, or with credit rating agencies etc.) with ‘international media ranking agencies’.”

IMC makes 13 recommendations

Apart from decriminalising defamation, creating a Media Council of India and amending the law to make its approval mandatory for FIRs against the media, the committee official draft report’s 13 recommendations make a case for the legal and financial security for journalists, their upskilling, widening the ambit of accreditation, and developing an “India specific Index” for measuring press freedom in the country.

“A review of various archaic and colonial laws impacting press freedom in India may be considered,” the committee states, in one of the recommendations.

The committee has also suggested that the Majithia Wage board recommendations, made to the labour ministry with regard to remuneration for journalists, should be considered.

It wants the ministry to regularly engage with international media
ranking agencies to “further understand the various aspects related to methodology of the Press Freedom Index, present the correct factual position of
the status of press freedom in India and convey, to the organization, the unique
socio-cultural complexities of India and the national security imperative in light of
internal and external threats”.

Summary of proposals

1. Definition of a journalist and journalism practice: “Setting and following the definition of a journalist that merges the two viewpoints – the legal and the ethical – is recommended to ensure that the best interests of the public and of the newsroom are served.”

2. Quantitative tool to measure media pluralism in India: “To measure media pluralism in India and to identify areas of concern, a scale with indicators is recommended.”

3. Establishment of Media Council of India: “…the need for a Media Council of India is felt for the entire gamut of media, i.e., newspapers and periodicals in print or other form, e-newspapers, news portals, social media and any other platform of news dissemination besides electronic media. In 2019, the PCI had also recommended enacting a single legislation to include all the aforesaid media in line of the Press Council Act 1978.”

4. Legal and Administrative Security for Journalists: “consider decriminalisation of the offence of defamation; consider a review various archaic and colonial laws impacting press freedom in India; consent of the Press Council of India may be made mandatory for filing an FIR against a media; time-bound investigation and filing of chargesheet by police authorities may be made mandatory in matters related to journalistic expression.”

5. Financial Security of Journalists: “Take the draft ‘Journalists Welfare Fund Act’, proposed by the Press Council of India in 2015, forward; consider enacting a single legislation/scheme for the welfare of journalists; consider implementation of Majithia Wage Board recommendations.”

6. Physical safety of Journalists: “Provision of bullet-proof identifiable jackets, helmets, etc. wherever required. The concerned organization should take responsibility for those journalists who are deployed to cover disturbed or conflict regions; Insurance schemes for media persons working in life-threatening circumstances; Access to welfare measures and schemes announced by Union and State Governments.”

7. Engagement with Industry Representatives and Media Associations: organise ‘outreach’ with media houses and Media Associations., consider organizing an annual Indian media conclave

8. Re-skilling and upskilling of journalists: Online capacity building courses may be offered for journalists; frequent workshops and other short-duration programmes would aid in capacity building of the industry.

9. Coordination with other line Ministries/Departments: I&B ministry may coordinate with law ministry on legal amendments; with home ministry regarding sensitisation of police; with the Ministry of External Affairs regarding engagement with international ranking agencies and obtaining feedback from foreign journalists in India; with Ministry of Labour on implementation of Majithia Wage Board recommendations across the country.

10. Widening the ambit of accreditation: Compile a complete list of working journalists in the field throughout the country; benefits associated with accreditation may be extended to journalists working in smaller organizations in even Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities and towns.

11. Engagement with International Media Ranking agencies: “establish a regular engagement with international media ranking agencies to … present the correct factual position of the status of press freedom in India and convey… the unique socio-cultural complexities of India and the national security imperative in light of internal and external threats.”

12. Communication Strategy: Implement three-pronged communication strategy related to the Press Freedom Index may be implemented by the Ministry featuring “engagement with Industry Representatives and Media Associations, Positive Aspects with regard to Press Freedom in India at national and global level: publicizing reform actions taken towards enhancing press freedom in India”.

13. Developing an India specific Index: NITI Aayog has suggested creating certain indices to promote competition amongst the States… more discussion is required for deciding whether such indices for ranking of states would achieve the desired goal.

You can read the full report and Sainath’s note below.

Draft IMC Report on Press Freedom in India 03.12.2020 by The Wire on Scribd

P. Sainath’s Response to Draft Report of the Index Monitoring Cell by The Wire on Scribd