     
|
|
 |
|
Noorani on Ban on Pakistan TV (EPW)
25th June 1999 aiindex @mnet.fr
June 25, 1999 FYI (South Asia Citizens Web) ====================== From: Economic and Political Weekly (Mumbai) June 12, 1999 Civil Liberties Section Ban on Pakistan TV By A G Noorani BAR a few honourable exceptions there have been no protests worth the name against the government of India's order forbidding cable networks from transmitting Pakistan's TV telecasts. The order is palpably absurd, illiterate and unconstitutional. The Indian Air Force launched its air-strikes in the Kargil sector on May 26. Exactly a week later on June 2 prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said in Mumbai that the situation had "considerably improved". That very day in the city his colleague Pramod Mahajan, minister for information and broadcasting, announced that he had given orders imposing an indefinite ban on receiving signals of Pak TV. Mahajan said: "The channel has been broadcasting false and mala fide news which might create a confusion in viewers' minds." Are the viewers' minds as weak and impressionable as that of the judge who heard only one side because when he heard both sides he got confused. More than one daily quoted his exact words expressing his dread of 'confusion'. It is time this issue is faced squarely, for Pak TV has been fair game for such blackouts. On February 28, 1998 the police commissioner of Hyderabad, C Ramaswamy, ordered cable operators to black out Pak TV with effect from March 2 in view of its "motivated campaign" which might "disturb law and order". The insinuation was as plain as the official's utter lack of authority. That insinuation is not far beneath BJP minister Pramod Mahajan's remarks either. "The message being given by PTV might lead to internal insurgency in India." Who are the people Mahajan had in mind whose loyalty to India is so fickle that PTV could drive them to insurgency? Incidentally, the order is worthless in the states affected by insurgency. In Kashmir as well as in the north-east, satellite dishes dot even the rural areas. For that matter the affluent ones in India's major cities who can afford to have them will not be affected either. Mahajan threatened action by the police against those who disobeyed his order. Where does the police come in? Yet Bombay's police commissioner A S Samra had no hesitation in sending cops to cable operators in the city in November 1993 during the Hazratbal crisis ordering them not to receive and communicate signals from Pak TV. To begin with, neither the police nor the government as such has the power to impose such bans. The discretion belongs to officers authorised by the government. Section 19 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 reads thus: "Where an officer, not below the rank of a Group 'A' officer of the central government, authorised by the state government in this behalf, thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, he may, by order, prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or retransmitting any particular programme if it is likely to promote, on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities or which is likely to disturb the public tranquillity." Section 20 adds: "Where the central government thinks it necessary or expedient so to do in public interest, it may prohibit the operation of any cable television network in such areas as it may, by notification in the official gazette, specify in this behalf." A blanket power. In neither case is appeal to an independent tribunal provided, unlike Section 15 which provides for appeals against orders of seizure and confiscation of equipment. Section 19 and also Section 20 are thus patently unconstitutional. The restriction they impose on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not "reasonable" as its Clause (2) insists, because there is no safeguard against abuse of the wide power conferred. Note that Section 19 confers a severely limited power to ban transmission of "any particular programme" only, not an entire TV channel. The word 'programme' is defined in Section 2(g) to mean and include, among other things any "audio-visual live performance or presentation" - a particular programme. For instance a particular film which spreads communal hate. That is the true purpose of Section 19 - spread of "disharmony" among citizens of India or disturbance of "public tranquillity". How can the very popular drama serials or songs telecast by PTV possibly fall within the purview of Section 19? To come to news telecasts, they will, of course, present Pakistan's viewpoint which an Indian citizen has a right to hear. Freedom of speech includes the right to receive information. Yugoslavia did not ban receipt of BBC or CNN telecasts. Those who find it unwelcome or even offensive have the option not to view the telecasts. The ban robs the citizen who wishes to view Pak TV of his right and freedom to watch it. Obviously, no such ban can be imposed in respect of Pakistan's radio broadcasts. Nor can private TV channels like Star and Zee TV be banned from telecasting interviews with Mushahid Hussain, Pakistan's minister for information. Pramod Mahajan only arouses people's chauvinistic emotions when he says, "I appeal to all of you to call up the offending cable operators to stop beaming the channel". That he knows little of the law becomes clear from his interview to The Times of India (June 6, 1999). Section 19 does not confer a discretion only, he claims. It imposes a duty to ban. Ever the demagogue, he argues "ask the families of all those who have sacrificed their lives for India; ask them if what I did was wrong". If PTV beams "ludicrous, nauseating and obviously biased reports" viewers have the option of not viewing it. No government has the right to tell citizens what TV channel they must not watch.
30th June 1999
K. K. Arun Krishnan @giasmd01.vsnl.net.in
Mr Noorani Earlier on, you styled yourself as the spokesman of "South Asians Against Nukes". And now you have reincarnated yourself or your outfit/ organization/ body of individuals as "(South Asia Citizens Web)" and all from the cosy confines of France! PTV at its best, spews out anti Indian venom and consistently reports heavy Indian reverses which if were to be half believed would mean that the Pakistani heads of armed services are already vacationing in Srinagar! Some times censorship is necessary. The Americans and their allies enforced censorship during Desert Storm. In India, the leaders of most political parties have arrived at a consensus that defeating Pakistan's act of treachery in Kargil is of primary importance. It would be best if you spoke at forums at the Champs Elysee or a little further at Hyde Park and leave us to decide our future sans your brilliance. Yours truly K. K. Arun Krishnan
30th June 1999
PK Joseph @gto.net.om
I receive all channels without interruptions because I live outside India. After watching PTV and Channels like TVI, Zee News, DD, Asianet, BBC and CNN I could make out Pakis are liars and trying their best to distort the facts.It is possible for people to think that PTV is telling truth unless they watch other channels as well. Hence it is better to ban them at least within India and wherever possible. P.K.Joseph.
1st July 1999
Udhay Shankar N @pobox.com
