Prime
ministerial paranoia and press freedom
The overreaction to the Time story is because most of India’s
¿trusted¿ publications appear to lack the courage and the leadership to expose
truth or touch controversial subjects.
PRIME MINISTERIAL PARANOIA AND PRESS FREEDOM
Mannika Chopra
At nearly six feet, Alex Perry comes
across as an unlikely victim. Physically strapping, normally dressed in
colour-coordinated khakis and Ray Ban shades, Perry, the bureau chief of Time
magazine, fits the role of the cool dude rather than persecuted scribe. Yet
that is exactly what he has become over the past two weeks, ever since he
authored a 1,992-word report (¿Asleep
at the Wheel¿) which appeared in the magazine¿s Asia edition, dated June 17.
The feature detailed the failing health of the Indian Prime Minister, Atal
Bihari Vajpayee and his resultant inability to govern a nation potentially on
the brink of a nuclear war.
One week after the magazine hit the stands
it received saturation coverage inspired by what appeared to be a sense of
national outrage. On Monday, June 17,
Delhi based newspapers got into the act. Leading the firing squad was The
Pioneer, a daily known for its pro-BJP leanings. In a front page piece, editor-in-chief Chandan Mitra, (¿This Time
it¿s Really Sick¿) using a series of sentences that included verbs,
adjectives, nouns---all in the right order scathingly critiqued the report
calling it ¿¿... supercilious, patronising, white-supremacist, flippant and
crassly ill-mannered ... I was outraged that a magazine of such awesome
reputation could actually publish a catalogue of bazaar gossip, almost totally
incorrect and unsubstantiated." On Tuesday, activists of the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) in Mumbai burnt
copies of the magazine calling it an example of "yellow journalism."
Through out the week, Pioneer
questioned Perry¿s bona fides and motives. It reported that the British born
Perry who was made bureau head in April had systematically being entering the
country over the last year using false information. Worse he owned two or was
it three passports. By last Sunday (¿History is Unkind¿) the paper was
convinced that Perry¿s report was part of a greater global post-colonial
mindset which sought to establish the ¿superiority¿ of the West at the cost of
highlighting the ¿inferiority¿ of the ¿East ¿ Speaking to The Hoot Mitra
defended his crusade/campaign: "The tone and tenor of Perry¿s article showed
that it was malafide. It was essentially a personal attack against Vajpayee and
not against his policies which would have been acceptable. Besides it¿s timing
was suspect.? "
Politicians, too, gave the report
categorical thumbs down. From home minister L.K. Advani, ("bundle of
untruths"); defense minister, George Fernandes ("part of a conspiracy
on the part of force hostile to India") to railway minister, Nitish Kumar
(¿cheap shots’), there was general condemnation.
It was against the backdrop of these
reactions, that Perry was summoned thrice in a space of five days to the
Foreign Regional Registrar¿s Office (FRRO) to explain why he had doctored his
travel documents and why he owned two or was it three passports. Much like Mark
Tully, BBC¿s former correspondent who had been expelled by Indira Gandhi in
1975 for being too critical of her regime, Perry feared that he, too, would be
persona non grata soon.
As the government¿s reaction bordered on hysteria, most media outlets advised a rational approach. The Times of India in an edit page piece (¿After the Waltz, the Whine¿) said that the Prime Minister¿s Office (PMO) should have limited itself to a dignified rejoinder and left it at that. The Asian Age (¿Ink Can Still Expose Stink¿) looked at the down side of media bashing, while an Outlook columnist while calling the feature shoddy journalism said that most of the details were common knowledge. The Sunday Indian Express impudently asked so what if the Prime Minster was not in the pink and then gave its readers a list of past