Freedom of the Press under Govt shelter

This is the Part-VI of the series on political communication By S.Narendra, Former Information Adviser to PM, Principal Information Officer to Government, and Spokesperson.

Disclaimer: Some of the media friends may find part of the content shocking!

Political communication is the oxygen of an open democracy like India. During the first decade-and-a-half after independence, such political communication closely followed the economic development model and foreign policy stance adopted by the government. The ‘Cold War’ was at its height, along with massive propaganda battle for mind space. India was struggling to navigate through the complex international politics. One of the far sighted measures introduced during this time was to protectthe Indian media against global competition and propaganda war. This was aimed at allowing Indian media to develop and grow and evolve their own perspectives on internal developments and India’s engagement with the outside world. While the foreign media enjoyed as much freedom as the domestic one in reporting and commenting on Indian affairs, it could not exert a dominant influence on public opinion. Read on this Part-V in series of political communication.

           

Some samples of reporting by the international media would show that Indian policy of restricting foreign media entry in the formative years of Indian democracy was not totally misplaced.

During the Falkland conflict in 1982 between Great Britian and  Argentina, the All India Radio morning broadcast had this headline: British armed forces are poised to free Falklands (Islas Malvinas in Spanish). This story was sourced to Reuters, a British agency. Because AIR had used a British source, it reflected the British view point and ignored Argentina’s legitimate claim to these islands in Antartic ocean, closer to that country than Britain that had gained control over the islands in 1833.

In 1980s and 1990s, when there was separatist militancy in Punjab, most western agencies reporting this agitation used to  begin their stories thus: ‘Punjab,  homeland of Sikhs’. It was ignored that half of the Sikh population of India lived outside Punjab, and India has been their homeland.

Until mid-1990s, the western media showed a bias in reporting terrorism in J&K. Once the US government softened its stance on J&K dispute and began to view it as a bilateral issue between Paksitan and India, their media changed tack.  When Tony Blair government asserted in 1997 that it had a role in resolving this dispute, Reuters reports invariably toed the British government line on this subject. Once a new government came to power and changed this policy, the agency stories on the dispute too underwent a noticeable shift.

India has been a victim of terrorism exported from Pakistan for long. However, India’s complaints on this score went unheeded in the west. Their media largely reflected the western governments’ line and viewed the separatists as Kashmir freedom fighters. Post 9/11 terrorist attack, however, there was a 360-degree turn in the stand of those governments and media belonging to those countries in New York.

Looking at these instances of foreign media behaviour, one would begin to appreciate Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s move in 1956 to bar the entry of foreign media into India and thus facilitate the Indian media to develop. The Union Cabinet in May 1956 formally put restrictions on foreign news agencies from directly feeding Indian newspapers and other news outlets. To quote from the Cabinet decision: “Our policy should be in all such cases (of news dissemination) be that communication facilities can be granted only where the distribution of news (by such agencies) within  the country is to be effected through an Indian news agency, owned, managed by Indians... which would have full and final authority in the selection of foreign news...and would be in a position to supply Indian news in reasonable volume to the foreign news agencies with whom they have a working arrangement”.

This policy continued almost unchanged until 1991.

It is amply clear the discussions recorded in that cabinet meeting that the government was keen to project developments abroad in India but also project its own point of view on international matters. It did not want the foreign media to thrust its western bias on Indian public opinion. The international information order historically was dominated by the media from the West (please refer to MacBride report, UNESCO 1978).

The prime minister, who also shaped the foreign policy right from the interim government days, was wary of the ‘cold war’ between the west and the Soviet Union (as early as 1946, Winston Churchill had famously used the expression “Iron Curtain’ has fallen on Europe). The ‘cold war’ had impacted the global media and divided them into advocates of rival ideologies. The rival military alliances such as NATO,SEATO,CENTO had been forged by the West which faced the Warsaw Pact allies. It may be impolitic to call the media partisan but their reporting and commentaries were visibly coloured. Never before in history, in a peace time, countries competed  so  fiercely for  propagating  their ideologies through massive propaganda apparatus such as the Voice Of America, Radio Free Europe, US Information Agency, Radio Soviet Union, Soviet information Service, Radio China and Radio KMT. The academia in all the contending countries had received patronage from their respective governments  for undertaking research  on perceived ‘enemy countries’  and contributed to the raging propaganda war.

Media Freedom Upheld: In a way, by 1956, India had openly embraced ‘non-alignment’ foreign policy, as it did not want to be drawn into ‘cold war’. In some ways, the government was extending this policy to media, especially the Indian wire agencies. Full credit must be given to Nehru for upholding the freedom of the press.

In an often quoted speech at AINEC or editors body, he had said that he prefers a chaotic Press to a (officially) disciplined Press.

In a deliberate move, the government set up separate official agencies for media relations and government advertising. Detailed guidelines were prescribed for distributing advertising budget in order to ensure that it was not used as a tool for influencing  the Press.

Although the Indian news agencies received indirect financial and other support much as agencies  like AFP, Reuters and broadcasters like CNN had received official patronage from their home governments. Successive governments, of course until the infamous 1975 Emergency, did not try to arm twist them. As a result of the government maintaining an arm’s length, Indian agencies like PTI and UNI  gained professional credibility unlike the national news agencies set up in many  Afro-Asian countries.

The relative protection from competition enjoyed by the Indian media has enabled it to develop as a robust wing of Indian democracy as the 1956 Cabinet resolution prevailed right up to 1991. This policy was relaxed during 1998-2000 to allow FDI in Indian media. Further, as the Indian media was able to present an independent and Indian perspectives on  international issues, it was possible for Indian public opinion to gain access to international news and views  that was not influenced by cold war politics. However, it has to be acknowledged here that the coverage of foreign news in Indian media, especially AIR was not only limited  but such news and views largely  were sourced from foreign media. There was no restriction on the circulation of foreign newspapers or access to foreign broadcasts. But not many individuals could afford them. The Indian newspapers were permitted to  enter into arrangements with foreign newspapers for  reproducing articles and commentaries appearing in such partner foreign newspapers. Mostly English language newspapers had made use of such government rules. The language media by and large relied on Indian wire services for their foreign news as well as domestic coverage. The Indian wire agencies had agreements with most foreign wire agencies for exchange of news. Although they were expected to filter such news flow to their subscribers, rarely did they exercise this right. 

The freedom enjoyed by Indian media as well as the protection from global competition offered by 1956 government decision have contributed to the emergence of Indian media barons.

Numerous developments in the economic, political and international spheres set the course of political communication as sieved through the Indian media. After the non-aligned nations conference in Bandung in Indonesia held in 1955, India, Indonesia, Egypt and Yugoslavia and their leaders came to be viewed as the spokespersons of the third world. India and China moved into the Bhai-Bhai phase. The Soviet Union, that  had been  upset by India joining the Common Wealth, The Soviet media used to refer to India as the lackey of the West. But the Indo-Soviet relations suddenly changed after the Soviet leaders Bulganin and Nikita Krushchev visited India in 1955. The Soviet offer of technical and financial help to India in setting up government projects strebgthened the ties. Indian diplomacy had played a significant role in the peace process in the Korean Peninsula where  China and Soviet Union were confronting the US. India was also active in the peace process in Indo-China where the West was facing China. Pakistan had joined the western alliance and the US and Britain had sided with Pakistan in the UN Security Council. The political discourse was unfavourable to the west and correspondingly there was not so subtle a tilt in favour of the Soviet Union and its satellite countries.

As mentioned in an earlier post, The INC session at Avadi had adopted the resolution of setting up a socialistic pattern of society. This was soon followed by the  framing of the Second five-year plan that had borrowed the Soviet model of economic development with emphasis on heavy industry development. And the Soviets had come forward to offer technical and financial assistance to government in setting up big projects. Cumulatively, all such developments had increased the favourable news fall  related to the Soviet Union, China and third world countries such as Egypt. India’s staying out of western alliances, its economic preference for socialist model and moves to expand the Non-alignment movement  were openly disapproved  by the United States through its Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.

Indian envoy to the UN Krishna Menon, described by US President Eisenhower as ‘a menace’, was a widely reported figure in India. His anti-west and anti-imperial forces utterances used to hog the headlines.

Misgivings about  the government’s distinct tilt towards the ‘socialist bloc’, within the professed ‘non-alignment’ foreign policy were not heard until 1959, when  Dalai Lama came into exile in India. By then, China had moved troops to Aksai Chin, ceded to it by Pakistan. This was also the time when Gen. K.N. Thimmaiah had offered his resignation to the then defence minister Krishna Menon over differences regarding defence preparedness to meet the China threat. As recalled earlier, Rajaji’s Swatantra party had hoisted its flag of opposition to prime minister Nehru’s economic and foreign policy.

The author:sunarendra@gmail.com

PM writes to CMs: The political communication emanating from the ruling Congress and government communication at this stage of evolution had got mixed up. Most of the newspapers and media professionals were followers of the national and state leaders from the freedom struggle days. There was a sort of hero worship that reflected in the reporting of statements and activities of such leaders, many of whom had become government ministers or prominent party functionaries. Prime Minister Nehru was both a prolific speaker and an equally prolific letter writer to colleagues, state chief ministers and foreign leaders. In an unsual move, the prime minister thought it fit to write letters to CMs on national and international affairs and the engagement of the Union government with such issues. Some persons unfairly criticised Nehru on the ground that such letters did not deal with issues relevant to States. But the fact is it was a far sighted effort to keep the state leadership informed of global issues impacting India as the States are vital stake-holders in the Federation. Nehru’s statements and his correspondence with Indian and foreign leaders were closely tracked by media. The tradition of carrying lengthy reports on the speeches and statements of political leaders that was in vogue during the freedom movement continued even after independence.

This made the official PR work less difficult!