Katju persona non grata in Andhra
PCI Chairman M Katju has now pronounced judgement against division of states.
MADABHUSHI SRIDHAR ACHARYULU says this leaves pro-Telengana activists stranded, with no chance of appealing against media bias.
A judge should hear both sides and a media regulatory body, should practice neutrality. No wonder advocates and mediapersons strongly protested the remarks of Justice (retd) Markandey Katju while the new 29th Telugu news channel Deccan TV, which invited him to inaugurate its logo on April 6, asked him not to come. They were upset about Katju’s controversial and one-sided remarks against the Telangana agitation which stirred up the feelings of pro-Telangana sections in Hyderabad.
The chairman of Deccan TV Zaheer Ali Khan conveyed the resolution of Board of Directors to Justice Katju that “we are cancelling invitation to you and you need not come…we are doing this in protest against your anti-Telangana remarks which are highly unreasonable.” This message was personally communicated to him during a break in Press Council of India (PCI) hearings held in Hyderabad. The logo was finally inaugurated by Prof M Kodandaram, Chairman Joint Action Committee for Telangana, who said that Katju erred legally and also factually in his statements on Telangana. Every speaker was critical of Katju’s remarks and cheered the decision of the organisers. Chief Editor of Deccan TV M A Vasu said that the new channel would take a pro-people stand and boycotting Katju was a reflection of that character. Shailesh Reddy, former chief of Zee News, felt that the PCI chairman was ill-informed and did not attempt to know the reasons for the six-decade-long movement for a separate state.
In all, Justice Katju made five points: 1. The demand for Telangana state is not justified 2. It was advanced by self-interested personalities 3. If Telangana is conceded, the integrity of India would be adversely affected 4. It might even result in each district seeking statehood and 5. ‘I am against small states.’ Kodandaram felt points 1 and 5 were opinions, but delivered as judgments without fully appreciating the causes.
The Telangana Lawyers Joint Action Committee made a representation to Justice Katju protesting his remarks. The memorandum explained what it called the disparities imposed, continuing exploitation, and how successive governments deliberately violated all promises, besides suppressing the people of Telangana. It was not separation but ‘demerger’ to go back to the pre-1956 position, they said. When Article 3, which was crafted by Dr B R Ambedkar, facilitates formation of a new state rearranging borders of an existing state without even its approval or in spite of its opposition, as part of the federal character of India, how could a judge say it would cause division of the country, advocates questioned. They said Katju had hurt the feelings of crores of Ambedkar’s followers also.
Justice Katju is Chairman, Press Council of India, and is supposed to enforce the code of ethics that no news item should be published without verification or hearing the other side and that the media has to practise and follow neutrality. Unbiased reporting is a professional value of journalism. Where should we complain against this, asked Vasu.
The Justice Srikrishna committee report on Telangana contained a secret eighth chapter which recommended cheap and unethical tactics of suppressing the movement for Telangana by using the owners of media who belong to coastal Andhra. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the disclosure of that chapter. People were shocked by the suggestions to suppress the agitation. This secret chapter preached unethical practices which can be complained against to Press Council of India. But with these biased conclusions of the chairman, the hopes of complaining are lost, said Vasu.
Telugu daily Namasthe Telangana identified the families whose bread winners committed suicide for Telangana and disbursed financial aid to them in a recently held public meeting in Hyderabad. Immediately after that, Rajya Sabha member and Congress spokesperson Renuka Chowdhary made the provocative statement that all those who committed suicide for Telangana died of diseases. It was highlighted by anti-Telangana media, while the protests, condemnations against these statements, picketing at her residence were totally ignored by that media. One newspaper and one channel of Telangana alone reported the protests.
Within a week came Katju’s remarks. The biased reporting and sustained campaign against Telangana by leaders belonging to all parties from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema including the media is against the freedom of speech and expression of the people of Telangana. It is also professional misconduct and unethical practice on behalf of media not only for running anti-Telangana campaign and distorting the facts, but also spreading venom and provoking the frustrations, making some commit suicide.
This has to be complained against and the forum available is the Press Council of India. But now it will be a hopeless exercise for Telangana people, especially agitators, when the Chairman himself is partisan and not ready to hear their viewpoint. Anti-Telangana media has already gone overboard giving publicity to the remarks of Katju by scrolling continuously, repeating his bytes throughout the day and print media carrying it as a banner headline.
While hearing complaints against two Telugu newspapers in Hyderabad, the PCI chief pulled up their managements for not collecting and publishing the version of the other side. Katju should have avoided one-sided remarks to maintain neutrality expected of a judge or a journalist.
Madabhushi Sridhar is Professor and Coordinator, Centre for Media Law and Public Policy, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.