Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a Government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter. – Thomas Jefferson

In other words, Jefferson regarded journalists as more important than the politicians. These words came back to me as I read an article in The Indian Express by Shekhar Gupta. http://m.indianexpress.com/news/%22national-interest-the-mulayam-touch%22/1006163/. The IE article left me quite shocked.

Let us look at a few adumbrations which disturbed me profoundly. Paragraphs 3 and 4 read as follows:

“I got to know Mulayam rather well only when we had a scrap that he, subsequently, made public. It was the summer of 2004 and he, then chief minister, called me on my mobile and was furious. He said a young person had died in an accident in his extended family that lived near Agra. Tavleen Singh (formidable Indian Express columnist) was nosing around that village, and how the hell was this her business. He said I had better make sure she desists from any “mischief.” Or, if somebody broke her legs, he (Mulayam) should not be held responsible. I took a few seconds recovering, but then said to him, in Hindi, that we all know law and order is the state’s responsibility under our Constitution and he, being chief minister, would be responsible for our columnist’s safety, whatever his disclaimers
and threats.

I was still reflecting on such a rough exchange when the phone rang. It was Mulayam again, much calmer this time. He said he was so sorry he had been rude to me. But that was because he was stressed about a death in his immediate family and the concern that the media would make a controversy out of it. Yet, he said, he should not have spoken to me the way he did, and would I accept his apologies. I said, of course, and offered my apologies to him as well for having responded so sharply. This too, a senior politician saying sorry after such a rude argument, was a first-time experience. It should be much valued in times when even supposedly genteel and liberal civil society leaders treat you with George Bush-like you-are-either-with-us-or-the-corrupt-so-may-you-rot-in-hell disdain.”

Is it Shekhar’s case that senior politicians are demigods who should not be expected to apologise? More disturbingly, is it okay for a politician to threaten a journalist – a senior journalist – the way Mulayam did? And most importantly, was it not a journalistic obligation on Shekhar Gupta’s part to publish this conversation? If I am not mistaken it was IE, under Arun Shourie, which had published the minatory conversation the then-Deputy Prime Minister Devi Lal had with the editor which brought the latter a heap of much deserved embarrassment. It almost appears that Shekhar was gratified at receiving this apology and as the piece goes on, this very gesture on Mulayam’s part turned Shekhar into an unapologetic admirer. I cannot even imagine any American politician daring to threaten any senior or junior journalist in this manner.

Several times, Mulayam is referred to as a Lohiaite. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia was an intellectual giant. It was his intellectual prowess which enabled him to obtain enviable academic credentials – a doctorate from Berlin at the age of 22. Even Mulayam’s most ardent follower would not credit him with erudition. Again, Lohia exemplified socialism in his very spartan lifestyle. I do not recall him ever being comfortable in the company of capitalists or moving about in a limousine. There were some rumours floating around about his philandering habits, but they were never substantiated. Contrast this with Mulayam’s affinity for the Ambanis, Subrato Roy and the others. Lohia staunchly opposed dynastic politics. I happen to recall at least two of his speeches in which he prophesised that the Congress had lost all its sheen because the leaders were busying themselves with dynasty-building. Need I elaborate Mulayam’s position in this regard?

Lohia was uncompromising in his stand against political corruption. It was he along with Feroze Gandhi who relentlessly pursued TT Krishnamachari on the Mundhra scandal which led to the Finance Minister’s resignation. He could, at times, be justifiably accused of using less than suave language. But his commitment to the greater cause was there for everyone to see and even his fierce opponents treated him with respect. Because of his inflexible stances he may have ended up losing more elections than he won.

In effect, I am stating that no matter what Mulayam might claim, the apostasy from Lohiaism as defined by the great man himself could not be more comprehensive.

Let us move on to paragraph 2 of this very article:

“He also knows his limitations, better than many others like him, who get muddled up trying to punch above their weight. Not Mulayam. That is why you have never seen him make a maximalist demand, or give ultimatums. And I know, I could be risking an internet kolaveri, but I have to also add that he is a deeply patriotic Indian, in fact, sometimes hyper-patriotic (and Sinophobic), as old Lohiaites tend to be. Among our wonderfully diverse pantheon of powerful regional leaders, he is also the least complexed or self-conscious.”

Was Shekhar Gupta really serious when he described Mulayam as “patriotic”? That too on the very day Samajwadi Party had decided to withdraw very serious criminal cases against errant party workers? Is this the action of a patriot? Raghuraj Pratap Singh, a known crook was made a minister of prisons by Mulayam’s government.

There was another article which caught my attention. It was written by NDTV’s Sunetra Choudhury and appeared in DNA. http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column_live-tv-and-neta-tantrums_1743729
The article discussed the tantrums thrown by our politicians when they’re asked to appear on TV panels. Without naming names, Choudhury did list some highly unparliamentary behaviour by the politicians. And drove home the point that politicians know they are in a position to throw their weight around, and journalists are expected to play ball. The proposition is not only absurd but positively dangerous.

All of this brings me back to the relationship between politicians and journalists which I shall revisit. About 10 years ago, I was attending a seminar in Geneva where one of the speakers was the renowned journalist David Brewer who touched on this very topic. His lecture was on the duties and responsibilities of a journalist – to inform the public debate whereby people can make an informed choice. The role of politicians is to represent the interest of their constituents. It is imperative for the journalist to ensure that the politician does his/her job and if that calls for a perpetual adversarial relationship, so be it.

He of course lamented that this was not always adhered to, and then went on to
categorise different types of journalists:

a. Activist journalist: Deeply committed to a cause and will fight those who oppose that cause and support those who are in favour.

b. Buddy journalist: Believes in being chummy with the politicians so much so that the news gets obscured.

c. Possession journalist: Completely possessed by a politician to the extent that he/she becomes a cheerleader.

d. Comfortable journalist: Will scratch your back as long as you scratch his variety.

e. Hunter journalist: Tracks politicians down relentlessly. Follows any trail. This journalist never gives up until they have their prey. They are driven and won’t believe the politician, even when the politician is telling the truth. The hunter journalist can often lack perspective and objectivity. Their contribution to enhancing the understanding of the audience is questionable.

f. Party member journalist: Will spend a lot of time rubbishing the political opinions of those with whom they disagree.

g. True journalist: As Brewer’s handout for the lecture says, “Free from party ties, has integrity and can’t be bought, is passionate about informing the public debate, seeks the truth, reports objectively and fairly, and includes multiple perspectives of even those they dislike. Is prepared to investigate all they hold dear. Sees nobody as being beyond reproach and is realistic about human nature. The true journalist seeks the truth.

Sadly, it seems that we in India are least bothered about engendering a journalistic culture in which “true journalists” can find succour.