One disquieting trend in the Indian polity is the increasing signs of intolerance at all levels. Politicians are weary of criticism. They wish not to see any evil or hear any evil. No wonder the country has thrown up a high-yielding variety in sycophancy called chamchas in popular parlance. Whether we like it or not once politicians get used to sycophancy their level of tolerance totters. In fact we can say that the pervasiveness of sycophancy is in direct proportion to the decline in the tolerance level.
Intolerance throws up its own set of in sensitivities what makes matters worse is when public men build their privileges on intolerance. Legislators have carved out extra Special positions for themselves and they guard their privileges with a hawk-like agility Ministers arc of course a class by themselves. They make hay while the sun of power shines. Perhaps this is a universal phonemic on though we more often than not crudely use power as an instrument of business for the promotion of the self and the family.
More than the money-cum-power business it is the growing militancy in intolerance that should worry us. The problem then is not only one of communicating one’s‘wisdom to the powers that be but also whether such an exercise makes others wise especially when they are real or potential opponents. The wielders of Dower and privileges do get jittery when they hear voices of dissent around.
Legislators as the people’s representatives have a unique position in any democratic polity but the problem arises when this unique position is viewed in isolation or is guarded zealously the recent episode involving the editor of Bombay’s Marathi eveninger Apla Mahanagar Nikhil Waggle is the latest instance of the growing intolerance of criticism on the part of legislators.
Waggle has already undergone a four-day sentence of civil imprisonment after being held guilty of a breach of privilege by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. Apparently members of the Maharashtra Assembly did not relish his pointed allegations of Iegislators’ criminal links’. Broadly speaking the charge though general in nature cannot be dismissed lightly. We have known of Iegislators in UP and Bihar with history sheets. Well that’s a different matter. What Waggle’s case underlines is the very thin line that has come to divide between the sensitive issues of legislative privileges and the freedom of speech and expression Not that the Apla Mahanagar ed\tor is the first journalist to take of criminal links of validity of such allegations has been let unverified because of the fear of the unknown
waggle refused to appear before the privileges committee. He probably realized the futility of such an exercise in a surcharged atmosphere whatever might have been his calculations that fact is that a dichotomy prevails between lop isolative privileges and the fundamental freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution. These privileges to impinge upon and impose certain curbs on inter alia the freedom of the Press to publish its own evaluation of the legislative proceedings and to comment upon the conduct of legislators both inside and outside the House.
As Justice R.S Sarkaria Chairman of the Press Council once put it Journalists: dread to tread on this unchartered minefield. How true! Interestingly Justice Sarkaria has aptly explained the danger of this unchartered mine field. The Most potent weapon in the armory of a legislative House to enforce its privileges is the power to punish for its contempt. What is however disturbing is the fact that the grounds on which a person can be held guilty of it is contempt remain vague.
Indefinite uncertain and unspecified. What is the way out of this blatant distortion in our polity? A simple answer would be a comprehensive codifications of legislative privileges Articles 105(3) and 194(3) do provide certain privileges immunities a5 enjoyed by the House of Commons in England as On 26 January 1950 to Parliament and the State Iegislators. But it was surely not the Intention of the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution to perpetuate the centuries-old monarchic dual Even in England the old order is changing. The trend there is to narrow and not 16 widen the scope of privileges to the disadvantage of the freedom of the Press.
Voices of dissent ought to be accepted as part of our democratic functioning. The Press has been seeking codification of privileges simply because newsmen ire not Sure how and when they would be hauled up for a breach of privilege. Since there is no protection against action by the legislature it virtually becomes the sole judge of what constitutes its dignity and privilege. An arrogant attitude is not conducive to building bridges of understanding and moral confidence between the Press and the legislature on one hand and between the judiciary und the legislature and the Press on the other. They all are crucial organs of our democratic polity and they have to be treated as such.
‘The Indian Press is of course not a monolith It is as diver seas is the rest of society Still it has by and large accedes a watchdog of democracy. It has reported cases of miscarriage Of justice. It has exposed the wrongs perpetrated on the weaker sections by feudal lords and governmental authorities: It his exposed some of the mightiest persons of the land for indulging in Corruption and bribery The Press knows how and when to pounce upon the authorities to safeguard its freedom and the people’s right to information The growing power of the Fourth Estate is of course often viewed with awe Perhaps there has to bean clement of fear in Situation of drift though the Press could at times be harsh. But then Parliament and the state legislatures like other institutions are expected to function under close public scrutiny and they must face criticism howsoever unpalatable in the spirit of tolerance and understanding and with a view to applying Correctives. This is surely not a tall order.
Harry Jaisingh Courtesy: The Sunday Tribune
Article extracted from this publication >> June 3, 1994
