People's Democracy

More Than A Year Late  

Press Council Censures Two Top Gujarat Dailies

S K Pande  

AFTER rather ominous silence during the riots in Gujarat when it just issued appeals for restraint, the Press Council acted at last on June 30. The report, according to a council source, is not yet  final and could be released shortly though some papers have quoted from parts of the report. The report is self-explanatory.

The Press Council of India (PCI) has in effect censured two Gujarat dailies, Gujarat Samachar and Sandesh, for publishing “scurrilous” reports on the last year’s communal carnage in Gujarat.

The full council meeting, held in Delhi under the chairmanship of PCI chairman Justice K Jayachandra Reddy, a retired Supreme Court judge, endorsed in toto the findings and recommendations of the inquiry committee constituted by the PCI in the matter. The inquiry committee held its sittings at Ahmedabad on April 28 and 29 to examine eight complaints received with regard to the Gujarat riots after first serving the show cause notices on the two dailies.

The committee also examined 16 other complaints against other newspapers, including The Hindu, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Telegraph and The Deccan Chronicle, regarding reports and comments on the Gujarat riots. But all these complaints were closed with advice to the press to be more diligent and restrained in future.

In the case of Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar, the committee’s initial view was to issue them warnings. But it later felt that a warning would be too mild, as both the dailies deserved nothing short of censure.

The committee expressed its displeasure over the boycott of its sittings by Gujarat Samachar by remaining absent. Nor did this paper respond to the PCI notices on six complaints against it, except in one case. There were eight complaints against Sandesh but the paper sought to take shelter behind the plea that it had carried the objected reports “in good faith.”

As recommended by the committee, the PCI censured both Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar “for the infraction of the norms of journalistic conduct in some of the reports.”

The PCI also chose the occasion to advise the media, including electronic media, “to introspect on its role in the coverage of these riots, learn from its errors and ensure that in future at least its reportage serves to douse the passions of divisive forces and encourages the people of this country to rise above the division of caste and creed.”

On yet another complaint filed by noted dancer Mallika Sarabhai against both Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar for publishing scurrilous stories, accusing her of creating rowdyism in Gandhi Ashram in Ahmedabad, the PCI directed both the dailies to publish her clarification with a foot note by them to the effect that “We did not mean any disrespect to Mallika Sarabhai as a person, for whom we have respect.”

The inquiry committee report that was endorsed by the full council meeting pulled up Sandesh for being “negligent” in publishing on March 1, 2002, a false news item captioned “Dead bodies of two young women found in very distorted condition.” The news item claimed that two girls were allegedly abducted from the Sabarmati Express and found dead later on. The worst part of the reporting was that their bodies were found with the breasts cut and that the horrible sight had created a feeling of vengeance amongst the Hindu community.

The inquiry committee noted that “even though the reported incident had been publicly denied and this denial reported by another paper, Sandesh did nothing to inform its readers about the same.”

The committee also censured Sandesh for another news item on March 6, 2002, that the pilgrims returning from Haj were carrying RDX and other explosives for mounting attacks on Hindus at various places and that terrorists, on orders from the ISI, were just waiting for the Haj pilgrims’ return to begin their attacks.

The committee held that the report “appeared to aim at creating a sensation in the surcharged atmosphere” as the “facts therein did not conform to the information given out by the concerned authorities.”

Stopping short of a blanket condemnation of Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar, the committee said “it did not appreciate the headlines like ‘Godhra killings a challenge to the rise of Hindutva’ in February 28, 2002 issue of Gujarat Samachar or even some of the later reports/articles that exhorted Hindus to rise as a class against the Muslims.”

The committee noted that “a greater onus lies in times of crisis on regional media rather than the national media, in restoring the faith of the public in the law and order situation and encouraging communal harmony and amity.

Among the complaints received by the PCI against the two Gujarati dailies was one by the citizens of Ahmedabad against Sandesh for spreading violence. Other complaints accused both the dailies of publishing “misleading and inflammatory reports during March-April 2002 and playing a criminal role in spreading riots in Gujarat after Godhra violence.”

The memorandum from the citizens of Ahmedabad, which was accepted by the PCI as a complaint, had cited not one or two but as many as 17 “bogus” reports and headlines in Sandesh “in provocative and instigating language.”

The editor of Sandesh had sought to claim that these reports were “published by all other newspapers in the state and.... repeatedly aired by the TV channels.” He went on to claim that “reporting in Sandesh was the outcome of the events which had taken place for which no newspaper was required to be dealt with under the provisions of the Press Council Act.”

In its conclusion, the PCI noted that the Gujarat “carnage has given a terrible shock to India’s fair secular name.” Stressing that “it was a national shame,” the PCI said: “There is no need to reiterate norms that media has to adhere to in such situations. However, now there is a greater moral responsibility on the media to do their best to build up the national solidarity and to re-cement the communal harmony at all levels, remembering the noble role they had played during the pre-independent days.” For the record, well said, even if belatedly. (INN)