Give media a chance

What all we can say is that journalists must be able to speak and write without fear of persecution, arrest and intimidation. It is the responsibility of the State to create such congenial conditions

A gutsy, aggressive, yet sensitive and controversial super cop V Dinesh Reddy, Director General of Police, AP, appears to have opened too many fronts simultaneously. The running battle with Umesh Kumar, a fellow IPS officer, has reached a critical stage. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is understood to have registered a case against Reddy on Wednesday following the orders of the Supreme Court to probe the allegations against him on disproportionate assets.

Reddy’s request for extension of service as DGP is yet to be acted upon. Some service issues are reportedly pending before the tribunal. Added to these problems, his penchant for visiting religious persons and propensity to overreact to media publicity have led him into an unsavoury situation where he is pitted against a newspaper known for its conservative style of reporting (at least until recently) and high professional values.

When L Subba Rao, DIG (Administration) filed a complaint against Z 24, a Telugu news channel, for telecasting ‘wrong’ reports and ‘morphing’ visuals, many eyebrows were raised. Section 469 (forgery for purpose of hurting reputation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2005, were cited by the complainant. Ravi, a Desk in-charge, and Akhtar, a contributor at Hussaini Alam in Old City of Hyderabad, were taken into custody and a police party went to the studio to procure evidence. A Nampally court remanded them to custody and they were let off on bail on Tuesday.

They are back at work. LKV Ranga Rao, the DCP of Central Crime Station where the complaint was filed, told the media that one part of the complaint was against the telecast of morphed images showing the DGP touching the feet of Ramavadhuta Swamy. Subba Rao says it is true that the DGP visited the Swamy, but it is false to say that he touched his feet.

It is an open secret that Dinesh Reddy goes to a place in Prakasam district to visit Ramavadhuta Swamy who seems to be quite popular. Ministers from Karnataka also come to seek his blessings. Even bureaucrats have personal freedoms and they are not barred from paying respects to Swamys. But when a top official like the DGP or a District Collector goes visiting ashrams, his subordinates would follow suit to be seen on the same page as their boss, if not for spiritual reasons.

The reason for the DGP to be angry with The Hindu was a report published in the issue dated September 13 on top of the first page about his visit to Fateh Darwaza in the Old City of Hyderabad to meet Habeeb Mujtaba Al Aydaroos Baba, known as a spiritual healer. Ram Narasimha Reddy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, lodged a complaint against S Nagesh, Resident Editor of The Hindu, for publishing “false report without verification of facts.”

The police registered a case under 505 (dissemination of false and mischievous news) and 469 (forgery) of IPC. The complaint said the report was intended “to cause alarm and fear among the public and with an ulterior motive to demoralize the police force…”

The Z 24 has “wrongly shown the DGP carrying a file containing papers” of the recent Supreme Court ruling, ordering a CBI enquiry, during his visit to the spiritual healer in the Old City. The Hindu also hinted at that, quoting sources which said he carried some file. Politicians like ND

Tiwari and Jaffar Sherief met the Baba in the past. Report on his visit alone would not have upset the top cop. Reference to the file must have hurt him. Another complaint lodged with the Hussaini Alam police station accused Z 24 of slandering the spiritual leader by leveling false allegations against him. The followers of the Baba and journalists in the city made some noise to convey their respective protest.

Dinesh Reddy could have sent a rejoinder to the Editor and a complaint to the Readers’ Editor of The Hindu. But he does not have much faith in rejoinders. He bemoans in his rejoinder sent to the Editor of The Hindu on Wednesday (a copy of which was marked to me for information) that “in the past some of our rejoinders were never published and if published it was done in an insignificant way. I wonder whether such rejoinders can really undo the damage when the banner items published on the front page have already taken the toll causing irreparable loss.”

He also claims in his letter that “the present DGP is known for his impeccable integrity, track record and reputation” and asks the Editor, “What is the fate of the common man (in this kind of a situation)?” It would be more credible if others expressed a similar opinion on the DGP’s integrity. The CBI is on the job, anyway. At this stage, what all we can say is that journalists must be able to speak and write without fear of persecution, arrest and intimidation. It is the responsibility of the State to create such congenial conditions.

Journalists today are working under a lot of pressure because of the unprecedented division in society in all aspects and the tendency of political parties and other sections to adopt irreconcilable positions and taking things to the brink. The media certainly needs guidance and advice to maintain a modicum of balance and dignity in a highly surcharged atmosphere. But what the DGP and his colleagues at his behest have done is not in good taste. Both the police officers and media professionals have better and more important things to do than fighting litigation on trivial issues.

The Hindu management and the DGP are capable of sorting this issue in an amicable way and we can only hope that they would do it as soon as possible. Having said that, there is a very important point to make. The concern expressed by the DGP and the attitude exhibited by him is shared by all the other three estates of democracy - the legislature, judiciary and the executive. In my four decades of journalism, more than half of the years spent at the helm as Editor, I must have attended a number of courts in cases of defamation.

To attend a court in Chittoor, I used to fly from Hyderabad and take a car in Tirupati to travel to Chittoor. It is an expensive two-day ordeal. When I stood before the magistrate, he would not even raise his head and look at me. No questions were asked. The case was about a report that was published in a tabloid in a small way. I had no knowledge of the report till a case was filed. There was no substance in the complaint. Most of the cases were dismissed after years of routine adjournments. I have developed a feeling that the judicial officers have a sneaking contempt for media persons. They admit cases which need not be admitted. Making trips to the courts is in itself a punishment for editors.

I shall cite two more incidents. When a senior and well-respected Delhi journalist Iftikhar Gilani was arrested and illegally confined for five hours in the name of preserving law and order in the hours following the hanging of Afzal Guru, the entire media in the country, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, protested. Gilani’s only fault was that he happened to be the son-in-law of Kashmir separatist leader, of Jamaat-e-Islami, Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

Gilani’s young daughter and son also were locked in a room at his residence during the time he was in confinement. He was released without explaining why he had been taken into custody and why he was being let off without any charges (He had spent nine months in Tihar jail earlier). Markandey Katju, chairman of the Press Council of India, wrote a letter to RK Singh, Union Home Secretary, demanding that the police officers responsible for the incident should be suspended forthwith and legal action taken against them. Nothing happened till this day. The UPA government did not care to act.

A three-member committee was appointed by the Press Council of India to inquire into the allegations that violent methods were adopted by police officers in dealing with students of Osmania University at Arts College during their agitation as part of the Telangana movement. I was representing the local media. The other members were K Srinivasa Reddy (Editor, Visalandhra) and Paranjay Guha Thakurta (a freelancer), both members of PCI. The allegations were mainly against Sitaramanjaneyulu, the then DIG, and Stephen Ravindra, the DCP.

The State Home Secretary, City Police Commissioner and other senior officers were questioned. The PCI, after examining the report of the Committee, had advised the state government to post Sitaramanjaneyulu in a place where he would not have to deal with media persons or the student community. It was supposed to be a punishment of sorts. The Rosaiah government not only rejected the advice but promoted the officer as Police Commissioner, posting him to a very important place like Vijayawada. Such was the respect shown to the Press Commission by a State government.

Something has to be done by the media to regain the respect of the three pillars of democracy and the people in general. Publication of rejoinders prominently is only part of the solution. Self-regulation by way of appointing Readers’ Editor, as in The Hindu, or Ombudsman as was done by the HMTV, is, no doubt, a step in the right direction. But more has to be done. Figuring that out is the biggest challenge before the media. We are feared. But are we respected?