Recently, the Indian Women’s Press Corps (IWPC) added a strange requisite to organising events in its premises. Or, given the times, perhaps it was not that strange after all.

If you’re a member of the IWPC and want to reserve the cosy little space in the heart of Delhi for a meeting or a conference, you would have had to sign a declaration that stated that the event will not be a platform for any anti-national activities. The form for ‘Reserving Facilities for Conferences and Meetings’ read:

“Nothing will be said which will be anti-national, question the integrity of the country, amount to sedition or cause harm to the reputation of the club”.

As it is in such cases, none of the IWPC members wanted to come on record to comment on why exactly this clause was added to the form.

Newslaundry also reached out to the club’s office bearers who again did not want to be quoted in the story. Both the members and office bearers we spoke to, however, had different versions on how the ‘anti-national’ clause made it into the form.

Some members stated the clause is a recent addition and that the office bearers told them that it was taken from the Press Club of India’s form. However, the PCI does not have this precondition for organising events. Another member said the clause would be deleted and that she does not know why it was placed in the form in the first place.

The office bearers themselves seemed a little confused on how or why the declaration was added. One of them told us that while it was borrowed from PCI, it would also be removed. Why? Because PCI does not, in fact, instruct its members on what to say or not say during an event. Another office bearer suggested that there had been some confusion and that the form that contains the declaration was just a draft that had accidentally been circulated.

As things stands now, both members and office bearers agree that IWPC will take out the clause that essentially asks its members to conduct events in the spirit of ‘nationalism’, but despite this consensus, none of them had an explanation on why that clause had appeared on its form in the first place.

Asking its members to ensure nothing “anti-national” is said at an event they organise is a vague pre-condition. Will an event discussing excesses by security forces in Chhattisgarh be considered anti-national? What about an event that focuses on pellet blindings in Kashmir?

It is noteworthy that IWPC has a tradition of raising necessary questions, even if they’re uncomfortable. The club was formed in 1994 with the stated aim to make women’s bylines and voices more visible. It has close to 700 members who are journalists with various print, web and television media organisations. In an increasingly contractualised industry, IWPC works to get journalists together on a common platform. The club has time and again stood up against media censorship and organised events that have served as platforms to critique the government of the day.

On January 12, this year, IWPC hosted an event by Campaign for Peace and Justice in Chhattisgarh (CPJC) and Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression (WSS) that centred on the brutal state repression in Maoist-hit areas. IWPC cannot be accused of cracking down on dissenting voices, but that is also why the clause insisting nothing anti-national is said at any of their events raises alarm bells.

The addition of the clause – as temporary an insertion as it may have been – raises questions about whether IWPC would stand by its members, should a controversy arise for their perceived “anti-national” utterances. The backlash can be swift and safe spaces are shrinking. Remember the sedition case against SAR Geelani for an event organised at PCI? According to sources, Javed Ali, a professor of Urdu at Delhi University and the member who had helped organise the event, was temporarily thrown out of PCI following the controversy. Speaking to Newslaundry, he confirmed this and stated that the slogans that were chanted at the event in February last year were problematic. “I thought chanting Afzal Guru slogans made no sense and defeated the purpose of the event that was supposed to be focusing on the problems facing Kashmir,” he says, while adding that “everything objectionable is not anti-national”.

One would have hoped that nuance is not lost on organisations made up of journalists.

Update: IWPC has put up a clarification on its website stating that: “We [the club] needed to put this particular clause to protect our premises from misuse by vested interests.” It is noteworthy that IWPC is now choosing to stand by the clause and the need to have it in place when earlier it was non-committal. Meanwhile, its members have written a letter to the office bearers, urging them to take out the clause. It states that the club should not fall prey to the spurious nationalist-anti-national debate. It adds, “Journalists are not and can never be arbiters of what amounts to sedition. So, once again, we urge you to remove the offending clause from the booking form and uphold the spirit of free and non-partisan journalism and the reputation of the IWPC.” For now, though, the clause is here to stay.

The author can be contacted at manisha.pande1110@gmail.com and on Twitter @MnshaP