What compels a successful parliamentary democracy like India to enthusiastically exploit her archaic sedition law of the colonial era or the modern day anti-terrorism law, all for stifling free expression? And that too by letting loose the state’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies on law-abiding citizens and even media, the fundamental pillar of a free society.
Yes, freedom of expression is a complicated issue, especially in areas torn by armed conflict where the media finds itself sandwiched between various vested interests. But is India that volatile to be left at the mercy of overzealous military commanders, who decides what to publish and what not?
On Nov. 16, celebrated as National Press Day in India, three mainstream newspapers in the northeastern state of Nagaland published blank editorial pages to uphold their constitution-given right to play the role of an impartial watchdog in a thriving democracy. Last October, the Indian security establishment served a censorious notification to Nagaland-based newspaper editors and ordered them all to refrain from publishing news or views that in any way favor or provide undue limelight to the banned faction of Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) insurgent group led by Hemi Naga leader Shangwang Shangyung Khaplang. Interestingly, the Indian government has some time ago entered into a peace deal with Khaplang’s erstwhile colleague and Manipuri Tangkhul guerilla commander Thuingaleng Muivah to resolve one of the world’s oldest, armed, ethnic conflicts that sought to establish a pan-Naga nationalist identity.
The recent military diktat handed out to Nagaland journalists clearly stated that by publishing news of banned outfits, the media was intentionally or unintentionally supporting unlawful association and becoming complicit in extremist organizations’ illegal activities. And this authoritarian gag begs a larger question about the independence of Indian media. Agreed, when safety and security of the silent majority is at stake, the press, being the fourth pillar of democracy, is required to play a more matured role. Even the Supreme Court of India observed, “freedom of speech and expression has to be given a broad canvas, but it has to have inherent limitations.”
But an official gag that reduces the media to an appendage of the state security apparatus is the worst thing that has happened to the Indian press ever since the 1970s dark days of emergency. Any move to regulate media content must come from within, as forcing newspapers to take a particular editorial line that suits the interests of various actors in conflict-ridden zones is completely unacceptable. It is indeed bizarre that the government of the same Narendra Modi, who believed that a threat to freedom of expression is a threat to media itself, has somehow come to the conclusion that the press must be made accountable to the country’s security establishment to safeguard national sovereignty.
Worse still, the representative of the Indian President in Nagaland, Gov. P.B. Acharya, aggressively supported the effort of curtailing the editorial rights of newspapers to retain India’s iron-grip over the Naga people. Is the governor oblivious of the fact that there are multiple unofficial power structures in Nagaland and the Indian State has virtually outsourced the task of governance to these parallel de-facto authorities that has ruled the region by proxy since independence?
Besides, keeping the state under military control for 60 years through “Armed Forces Special Powers Act” has made the military a vested regional power broker too. Does Gov. Acharya not know that the factious underground organizations, including the one with which the Indian government is hobnobbing nowadays, have a history of turning the media into a propaganda tool forcefully?
However, the military’s overreaction is seen as an effort to bolster the supremacy of NSCN Muivah faction in Naga inhabited areas. Intelligence sources have confirmed that Muivah, unable to explain his flip-flop on the question of achieving a pan-Naga identity, is fast losing confidence of the Naga people on the ground. And hence, media publicity to Naga rebels, who continues to defy the murky manipulations of the Indian State for the sake of the abandoned Nagas in Myanmar and preserving ethno-centricity, can help generate a new wave of anti-India sentiment across the region.
But does that justify muzzling media one way or the other? The media in trouble-torn Kashmir has faced similar harassments, sometimes through open intimidations and mostly via the indirect method of choking advertisement revenue. For how long will the press continue to live a life between the devil and the deep sea? In the words of Naga journalist Monalisa Changkija the time has come for them to do or die or die doing their best to disseminate impartial and objective information, without glorifying the vested stakeholders.
