news details |
|
|
| Left to NC it would not mind gagging media | | Revisiting 1952 -- II | | Rustam
Jammu, Feb 29: The February 27 Mehbooba Mufti's statement that "the National Conference (NC) has the history of gagging those exposing its misdeeds" was not based on heresy. It was based on hard facts. The NC was hostile to the Press in the 1950s and it is hostile even today.
Take, for example, what happened in Jammu in 1952 and what the then Sheikh Abdullah-led government did. (The Sheikh had formed the government in 1951 after rigging elections wholesale. His administration had rejected the nomination papers of almost all the candidates seeking election to the Constituent-cum-Legislative Assembly. The then Indian Prime Minister and enemy number one of Maharaja Hari Singh, Jawaharlal Nehru, was solidly behind the Sheikh.) In the 1940s and 1950s, media persons could not report and comment freely on happenings in the state. That it was so could be seen from the Cabinet decision No. 137-C of February 15, 1952 to invoke the rather harsh sub-section 3 of section 9 and section 10 (1)(d) of Jammu and Kashmir Press and Publication Act (JKPPA) of 1932 and confront the "father of journalism" in the state, Mulk Raj Saraf, with a choice between a fine of Rs. 1000 and closure of his press. (Rs. 1000 in those days used to be a huge amount.) The specific charge against Saraf was that he had sought to provoke a sort o rebellion against the government "established by law" by publishing an article "Kansa rule and atrocities on children a good omen" on February 5, 1952.
The charge that Saraf had attempted to inflame popular feelings through the impunged article, published in The Kashmir Mail, was untenable. The author of the article had only catalogued chronologically details of the GGM Science, Jammu, and schools in Jammu between January 15 and February 7, 1952. At the end he had warned that such a "brutal action" against children would lead to a "revolt against the cruel government of Sheikh Abdullah". The only crime of the students was, it may be recalled, that they had bitterly opposed the Sheikh's resolve to "hoist the National Conference flag in the Science College", Jammu, on January 15. The students had, in addition, objected to the NC flag being placed side by side with the National Flag". (The National Conference flag was adopted as the state flag on January 26, 1957 with some minor modification.)
There was nothing whatever in the impunged article and what the Jammu students had done which could in any way be construed as an act "sedition". It is indeed a paradox that Sheikh Abdullah, who had rejected the JKPPA of 1932 as most retrograde, reactionary and fatal to the people's legitimate civil rights and had sought to combat it and the policy underlying it during 1932-1947, should apply the same Act and deprive the Press and the people of their right to react against the official measures or actions considered anti-democratic.
Saraf did raise his voice against the government's highhandedness. But the Sheikh and his cabinet colleagues did not pay any heed. Saraf consequently approached the Jammu and Kashmir High Court of Judicature for seeking justice. His counsel, R C Nanda, argued before the Full Bench of the court, which was then the state's apex court, that "there was nothing wrong in the article which tended directly or indirectly to bring into hatred and contempt for the government". Nanda further contended that the "words" used in the article were "merely claptrap phrases" and could not be considered objectionable". The Full Bench consisted of Chief Justice Janaki Nath Wazir, Justice Jia Lal Kilm and Justice M A Shahmiri.
Nanda also referred to the judgment of the Board of Judicial Advisors in the Prem Nath Bazaz vs State in which it had been observed that "an article should be dealt with a fair and liberal spirit, not picking out an objectionable sentence here or a strong word there or giving undue importance to inflated or turbid language, but looking at the real intention and spirit of the article. It is also to be remembered that mere abusive epithets, declamations, invectives, turbid language will not necessarily bring the writing under condemnation. What really counts is whether, on a perusal of the article as a whole, one can come to the conclusion that they have the tendency to create a feeling of hatred or contempt or disaffection against the government in the mind of the ordinary average man who reads the newspapers". In short, Nanda maintained that the Press should have the liberty to "criticise the actions of the government and comment upon matters of public import".
The Full Bench was entirely in accord with Saraf's counsel. So much so that it observed that "there is no doubt that the right to freedom of discussion and the liberty of the Press are fundamental doctrines of democracy and it will indeed be an evil day for the state if the provisions of the JKPPA are invoked for stifling the fair comments or criticism, or for preventing the ventilation of genuine grievances of the public on the ground that they are likely to create feelings of disaffection against the government in the minds of the public. Such an happening this court will always consider its duty to prevent…"
However, in its April 5, 1952 judgment in the Mulk Rak Saraf vs State (Criminal Original No. 5 of 1952), the Full Bench expressed its inability to set aside the cabinet order on the ground that "the court has to construe the Act as it and that it is bound to give effect to the language of the Act so long as it is in existence even though it thinks that the provisions of the Act have not kept pace with the changed time".
What happened in the assembly on February 27 or what led to a deadlock between the Speaker and the Press needs to be viewed in the light of the fact that the National Conference has never ever respected dissent, even if genuine. The bottom-line is that the Congress was with the National Conference in 1952 and the Congress is with the National Conference in 2012. Nothing seems to have changed. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
