Public
should be aware of impact of restricting press freedom: M.D. Nalapat
“There is an effort by the successive
governments in India to continue the colonial policy of putting lot of
restrictions on the freedom of the citizens”
“If you want a better India, you need better journalism”
Madhav Das Nalapat is currently the Managing Editor, Sunday
Guardian, India, and Professor of Geopolitics and UNESCO Peace
Chair, Manipal University. In an interview given exclusively to Inquirer, he shares here his
views on a variety of topics such as press freedom, commercialisation of news
media, Justice Katju’s remarks on media, WikiLeaks, Hazare, and condition of
journalism and social science education in the country.
Muhammed Sabith: How
do you as an experienced journalist see the development of journalism in India?
M.D. Nalapat:
I think journalism in India has got exceptionally bright future for the simple reason
that good and strong journalism is very important for the future of India.
There is an effort by the successive governments in India to continue the
colonial policy of putting lot of restrictions on the freedom of the citizens
of this country. Even today we have colonial system of law, we have colonial
attitude of the administration, and the politicians and officials believe that
they are the masters. Unless you have strong, good journalism, this kind of
arrogant attitude will continue among politicians and officials. So if you want
a better India, you need better journalism.
M.S.: talking
about better journalism, sir, we see the media is being corporatized and has
become a full fledge business industry. What seems to be a beginning of the
Indian ‘Murdochism’, Reliance now largely buy the shares of various media
groups. There already is a strong criticism that media is being used with
commercial interests. How do you comment on it and how the Indian media could
get rid of the commercialisation?
Nalapat: See, if you take talk of the media as
one of the important pillars of the society, then it is very very clear that
there have to be laws that ensure that those who run the media houses are
basically dealing only with the media. For example, you have Washington Post, or The Hindu or the Times of
India family in India. These are people who are running media houses and
nothing else. I think your point is well taken. I think it is very important to
ensure that media companies are controlled only by those who are in the media itself
so that they cannot utilize this for other purposes.
“Transformation cannot take place
because of the government, it has to take place inspite of the government.”
M.S.: I think it is impossible not to talk about
the Press Council of India chairman Just. Katju when we talk about Indian mass
media today. His recent remarks on the media have been very critical. He opined
that the Indian media persons are of poor intellectual capabilities. How do you
comment?
Nalapat: I
don’t agree with Justice Katju at all. I think, you know, Justice Katju seems
to be out of touch with the young India and definitely with the aspiring India.
I go to villages and I see youngsters who have seen the computers for the first
time and within two weeks they become experts in that. The reality is that the
Indian people including journalist, if they are given the right opportunity,
they will do extremely well. In India, unfortunately, journalists are not given
that opportunity. For example, how many newspapers spend money on doing good
stories? Very few. So given the constraints they have, I think our journalists
are doing a very good job.
M.S.: I think it is too earlier to leave out
WikiLeaks from our talks on independent journalism. How do you comment on the
works it does, the controversy, and its impact on the freedom of expression?
Nalapat: No, I am really sorry that we are
still a colonised country and we still are not a free country or not a really
perfect democracy. If we were a perfect democracy, Julian Assange would be welcomed
in India. We would have at least twenty Julian Assanges in India.
Unfortunately, we don’t have even one. The reason is that, unfortunately, the
overwhelming power of the government. That power is used by the politicians and
officials to suppress dissents and independent voices. The state agencies are
misused in order to blackmail and bully and, in some cases, bribe journalists
and media houses which follow Particular point of view. I am for internet
freedom. There may be some misuse of this freedom; there may be some license as
result of this freedom. But it is much better to tolerate the misuse and
licence than to block internet freedom and to block media freedom. In india, we
really don’t have internet freedom and media freedom. I think WikiLeaks shows
the amazing potential of a group that does operate in a very free atmosphere.
M.S.: do we really lack potential laws to
protect journalists or whistle-blowers? Is it either because of the lack of
effective laws or because of the absence of effective and proper utilization of
the existing laws? do the journalists face problems while telling the truth?
Nalapat: I think it is not so much of the
lack of the laws with there are too many laws as they are. But the fact is that
the public do not realize how important their own welfare is with journalistic
freedom and freedom of speech. The point of the matter is that the Indian
public has to be conscientious. We saw during the Anna Hazare campaign in which
hundreds of thousands of people were participated in that campaign on the fight
against corruption. So, in terms of press and internet freedom, as yet, our
people are not aware of the impact this can have on the future India and of how
important internet freedom is to the development and research. India is a pigmy
in terms of creative development and scientific achievement comparing to its
potential. So we need to create a much freer system, for that there has to be
public pressure. More than law, there has to be public pressure. I am not
believer in new laws. For example, Anna Hazare is talking about Jan Lokpal. I
don’t belive Jan Lokpal is a solution, I believe increased public awareness and
pressure is the solution.
M.S.: Sir, coming to a new topic, journalism
institutes is flourishing in the country. But, as Justice Katju’s remarks
indirectly pointed out, our J-schools often fail to ensure that the students
have basic understanding in the social sciences like economics and history
which is very important in journalism. So how do you think our media or
journalism education should be like?
Nalapat: well. I think it is what is very important
as it has to be grounded in reality of the country which we belong to. One
problem which we face in the academics across the boards is that most of the
text books are derived from foreign countries including the social sciences and
the text books are basically based on the examples of the society which is very
different from ours. Take for example International Relations. Most of the
International Relations courses are taught in the point of view of the United
States, or, may be, of the United States and Europe. But nothing or very very
little of the curricula is based on the specific needs of India. Therefore what
is very important in journalism courses is to have many more text books that
are local, and many more case studies that are local so the journalists have
clear understanding of the ground reality. Unless a journalist understands what
is taking place in the country that he is part of, he is not going to be a good
journalist.
“What is very important in journalism
courses is to have many more text books and case studies that are local so that
the journalists have clear understanding of the ground reality”
M.S.: As a journalist and academic, how do
you look at the future of the country?
Nalapat: I am very optimistic when I see our
young people. And I am again very optimistic about the fact that these young
people are not going to accept second or third class options in the way people
of my generation had accepted. I think India within a one generation can be a
very different, very advanced country. I have told you what I have seen, for
example. People coming from village area into a town and within two, three
years they change themselves completely. A man goes from, let us say, Patna where
the situation is chaotic, to Singapore and within the matter of two or three
weeks, he becomes a very good citizen. So that transformation is possible in
India. And journalism has to be part of that transformation. Looking at the
young people who are there in the communications today and who are very optimistic
that this transformation can take place.
It
cannot take place because of the government, it has to take place in spite of
the government. And the mistake of the people of my generation had is that we
did depend on the government for transformation, for hand outs, for reservation
where as we should have to depend on ourselves and understand that the government
and power structure would be obstacles.
So
we need to empower ourselves through education, through knowledge, through
confidence, and this process can only take place if we have a dynamic media.
No comments:
Post a Comment