Channel Surf-Times Now/CNN-IBN

We have, over the last 48 hours, had several debates both in the print media as well as on the telly about the expulsion of the erstwhile Samajwadi Party spokesperson, Shahid Siddiqui. Siddiqui had deigned to interview the prime hate figure of Indian polity viz. Narendra Modi.

Siddiqui protested that he was just exercising his journalistic functions but that did not cut ice with his party leaders. He was mercilessly grilled on several channels last night, with the most notable being Times Now and CNN-IBN. Clearly peeved, he went on to mention that through this interview he had exposed Modi even further and his abhorrence of Modi was second to none. Ironically, it was this last statement that served to undermine his case. According to me, the interview itself was a legitimate performance of his journalistic responsibilities.

The Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Journalists, Charter of Munich, 1971, moral equivalent of the Hippocratic oath for journalists states:

The right to information, to freedom of expression and criticism is one of the fundamental rights of man.

All rights and duties of a journalist originate from this right of the public to be informed on events and opinions.

The journalist’s responsibility towards the public excels any other responsibility, particularly towards employers and public authorities.

The mission of information necessarily includes restrictions which journalists spontaneously impose on themselves. This is the object of the declaration of duties formulated below.

A journalist however, can respect these duties while exercising his profession only if conditions of independence and professional dignity effectively exist. 

It goes on to state:

1. To respect truth whatever be the consequence to himself, because of the right of the public to know the truth;

2. To defend freedom of information, comment and criticism;

3. To report only on facts of which he knows the origin; not to suppress essential information nor alter texts and documents;

4. Not to use unfair methods to obtain news, photographs or documents;

5. To restrict himself to the respect of privacy;

6. To rectify any published information which is found to be inaccurate;

7. To observe professional secrecy and not to divulge the source of information obtained in confidence;

8. To regard as grave professional offences the following: plagiarism, calumny, slander, libel and unfounded accusations, the acceptance of bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression of news;

Furthermore:

1. Journalists claim free access to all information sources, and the right to freely inquire on all events conditioning public life. Therefore, secret of public or private affairs may be opposed only to journalists in exceptional cases and for clearly expressed motives;

2. The journalist has the right to refuse subordination to anything contrary to the general policy of the information organ to which he collaborates such as it has been laid down by writing and incorporated in his contract of employment, as well as any subordination not clearly implicated by this general policy;

3. A journalist cannot be compelled to perform a professional act or to express an opinion contrary to his convictions or his conscience;

4. The editorial staff has obligatorily to be informed on all important decisions which may influence the life of the enterprise. It should at least be consulted before a definitive decision on all matters related to the composition of the editorial staff e.g. recruitment, dismissals, mutations and promotion of journalists.

I am not altogether sure what percentage of journalists are aware of this Charter, and it is observed more in breach than in spirit. To the best of my knowledge, only the Italian Union of Journalists have adopted a Code of Conduct for its journalists on this pattern in 1993 and they adhere to it scrupulously.

The wordings make it very clear that if Siddiqui indeed was a journalist exercising his journalistic functions, then his superiors through their actions could be held guilty of violating the journalistic code. But was Siddiqui exercising his journalistic responsibilities? That remains a valid question.

Siddiqui ruined his own case by his admission that his main objective was to expose Modi which goes against the grain of journalistic code which requires and demands objectivity.

Let us look at the main protagonists. My opinion of Modi is that he does not seem to believe in the principle of accountability at the top – a sine qua non for any healthy democracy. His pronouncements trouble me deeply and I consider the 2002 riots in Gujarat as one of the most shameful chapters in independent India along with the Emergency and Sikh killings in 1984. I have no doubts at all that his interview with Siddiqui was his way to reach out to Muslims who view him with utmost suspicion – with justification.

Shahid Siddiqui on the other hand claims to edit a magazine called Nai Duniya. I must admit that I have never seen a copy of this august journal. It is periodically mentioned when his name appears on TV screens. I am not aware of the political philosophy that guides it nor have I come across any reference to any of its articles in the newspapers and journals I subscribe to and read. I associate him with his professed political views and somersaults rather than his writings. Apart from BJP, there is not a single major political party that he has not been a member of – Congress (I), Bahujan Samaj Party and Samajwadi Party. He has, I know, served as a spokesperson for Congress (I) at one point, and until a couple of days ago was the spokesperson for SP. It would be a case in study to recapitulate his statements when he was the spokesperson for Congress (I) and then contrast these with his supporting statements for the SP. That by itself would establish the consistency that he represents.

In all fairness, I have to state that he is not the first Indian politician to have a profile of this nature. Jaipal Reddy was the fiercest critic of the Congress (I) in the Nineties. This did not prevent his elevation to the position of being the chief spokesperson of the party he so savagely used to criticise. A better case in point is Rashid Alvi who was Mayawati’s spokesperson until a very public falling-out with her. He used to bend over backwards to support her as well as the BJP, since his party was in alliance with the party. Contrast that with his position now. Shivanad Tiwari was Laloo Yadav’s chief henchman until family loyalty prompted Laloo to deny him a ticket. He used to go to ridiculous extents to defend the indefensible when it came to Laloo. He was inducted as the chief spokesperson for Laloo’s main rival, the JD (U).

Indian politicians are never to be taken at their word. The latest example is Manish Tewari who after being in hiding had to issue a contrite apology to Anna Hazare and explain that politics made him say things he did not believe in.

The third protagonist is Mani Aiyar who appeared on CNN-IBN in the debate on this matter. He was his usual voluble bombastic self, using insulting expletives for all and sundry except his Dulcine and her family. Even though I defer to no one in my own criticism of Modi, I am simply not prepared to accept the deeply insulting analogy that Aiyar repeatedly drew with Adolf Hitler and I was disappointed that Rajdeep Sardesai did not take him to task for that. Aiyar seems to have forgotten that Modi is the subject of an apex court probe and is being repeatedly criticised – justifiably I might add – by all and sundry in the media and the polity. My reading of history does not lead me to believe that Hitler subjected himself to a judicial probe for his actions. Instead, Hitler after being sworn in by Hindenberg as the Chancellor went about systematically whittling the Reich constitution and establishing statutes to enable him to remain in power. If that triggers a sense of déjà vu, it is because this is what a particular leader in India whom Aiyar idolises did in the mid-Seventies. She suspended the Constitution, did away with the habeas corpus and amended the constitution to provide her retrospective immunity for her actions. To me that was more Hitlerian, but I would never draw that offensive analogy leaving it to the likes of Aiyar for whom hurling vile abuses is not a vocation but a way of life. Very few in the Indian polity can stoop down to the sleaze like he does.

Rajinder Puri in his column in The Statesman on July 31, 2012 makes a valid point – that all this hullabaloo is about vote bank politics. Muslims do vote for SP, Sikhs do not, hence this overkill. But let us not delude ourselves into believing that Siddiqui’s motives were altruistic and in accordance with journalistic ethics. It was pure politics from him as well, and that is why he does not merit any sympathy.