On September 21, The Indian Express published a report, pointing out that the Indian Army and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) were talking at cross purposes about the discovery of “Pakistani markings” on weapons seized from slain terrorists in the Uri attack. One day later, the newspaper had been sent two letters – one from the NIA and the other from the Army – rapping its knuckles.

The IE report, written by Praveen Swami and Sagnik Chowdhury, said that while the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) had claimed that the terrorists’ weapons had markings or signs implying Pakistani origin, NIA officials had said these markings were found on medicines and food packets. In response, the NIA stated that no seizures of any items had been made by them, which discards the questions of markings. The Director (Media), Integrated Headquarters (HQ) of Ministry of Defence (MoD) (Army), said that the DGMO had never claimed that the weapons had any markings, let alone those indicating the items were Pakistani.

The Army’s missive also contained the following line:

“All content relating to Indian Army, irrespective of ‘source’ of inputs and intended to be published should be pre-verified from the offices of the Media centres in Commands & Corps HQ or from this office through your Defence Correspondents,”

What the Army ostensibly seems to be asking, is for all stories related to it to be pre-vetted. Simply put, censorship (a concern also raised by the The Wire).

For greater clarity, we sent an email to Colonel Abhijit Mitra, Director (Media), Integrated HQ of MoD (Army). Mitra replied promptly.  “Our communication quoted by you was a “request” to the concerned newspaper while publishing reports/ articles which have military security & operational implications. It is not a directive as you are making it out to be,” he wrote. (Emphasis as in the original). He did not specify exactly what the process of being “pre-verified” entailed.

Speaking to Newslaundry, veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta – who edits the Economic and Political Weekly – said, “The Army is now trying to wriggle out of that situation, but it’s been the tradition of the armed forces. From having said that ‘we want to vet your copies before they’re published,’ now they’re backtracking a little bit.”

Legally, what the Army is calling for cannot be termed censorship. Supreme Court lawyer Nikhil Mehra told Newslaundry, “It is not an issue of censorship, if one is requesting the other party to get articles vetted. Say, if one runs a company, and if someone were to write a story on your company, one may request that the story be pre-verified before it is published. As long as there is no binding element, or threat of a sanction in cases of non-compliance, then it is not censorship. If anything, with this pre-verification request the Army is opening up its desk to about 20-30 reports every day. It is paramount to opening a Pandora’s Box.” The wording of the letter is significant. As Guha Thakurta pointed out, by couching it as a request, the Army stays in the clear even while flexing its authoritarian muscle subtly. “The army in India and world over is very zealous in protecting what they consider their own privileged information,” said Guha Thakurta. “Even when they do provide information to the media, they would rather share it with journalists perceived to pliable, and loyal, rather than with those who take independent, or antagonistic positions. Even if they take you on a nice journalistic junket, it is on the condition that ‘you should show to us what you write before publishing.’ I am not surprised that the military establishment has acted in the way that it has.”

The question that remains is why IE was the sole recipient of this letter when the ‘markings’ were widely reported by mainstream media. If the army was truly bothered about the DGMO being misquoted regarding the origins of weapons used in Uri, why didn’t any other media outlet receive the same request? Perhaps in the letters from the Army and NIA lie a subtle pat on IE’s back for its reporting credentials.