One big area of civil society space is the press and media.
This is getting messy.
Are the owners of this media exercising too much influence? In evidence given to the Press Laws Committee 1918, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru asked: “Do you mean to say that a powerful personality like Mr.
Horniman would be influenced by the Board of Directors?”
To this came the answer: “What was he when he was on the staff of the Statesman”
Trusteeship model
Nehru opted for a “trusteeship model” for the National Herald, copying this idea from the Manchester Guardian.
We now have a Sunday Guardian in India.
There are many regular columns in it, including that of Ram Jethmalani.
One day Jethmalani’s regular column, which was there since its inception, did not appear.
All of us asked why.
Had the column disappeared voluntarily? Jethmalani, aged 93, is busier than most.
Then, all of a sudden, a paid advertisement appeared in another paper about what Jethmalani wanted to say about black money.
I asked him what happened.
He gave me a copy of correspondence suggesting he might resign from the Guardian’s Board.
This is censorship within the press due to external influences.
Jethmalani suspects this was due to the intervention of a minister.
On one occasion, I was told my column was suspended because a judge asked the owners, who asked the editor to blank me.
What is happening? Some call it “Murdochism”.
Certainly owners in India seem to be taking over.
We have to rely on the integrity of journalists to uphold the press and civil society.
They have to show courage, craft and contention.
But that is not the only point.
It is not about editors and owners, but whether there is governmental interference.
Till the 1960s, the British government issued ‘D’ notices injuncting publication.
This was a hangover from the World Wars and earlier.
‘D’ notices were replicated in the Emergency through minister V.C.
Shukla.
But does a powerful government control exist? How can a column simply stop, even though it is written up? It would be very tragic for our society if an informal but strong ‘D’ notice system continues.
Attack on NGOs
Apart from the media, there appears to be a strong attack on NGOs.
The attack on Greenpeace was symbolised by Priya Pillai being off loaded from a plane when she was to attend a meeting abroad.
Why? She was opposed to the Mahan coal mine project.
Before this a Greenpeace worker was not allowed in India.
In the eighties, Amnesty was not allowed in India.
The present is more forbidding.
Foreign fund transfers to Greenpeace and other NGO’s were blocked.
What irked the government was that two ministries blocked the Mahan project for “Greenpeace” reasons by way of exposure.
The informal accusation: Greenpeace was working for the interests of the United Kingdom.
What followed was a massive attack on the Ford Foundation and foreign-funded NGOs.
Curiously, Nehru had asked for the foundation’s help in the early fifties.
In a debate in the sixties, communist MPs had declared the foundation free from the CIA.
The bigger attack is now on all NGOs and activists — first by Modi and now the imminent financial clamp down.
Taking on corporates
When I ran India’s legal aid in the early 1980s for small spells, I found that the fiscal system did not, and could not, support a well-funded activist movement which could take on corporates and government on behalf of civil society.
Supporting local welfare can be
done on less funds and self-sacrifice.
But to take on those with power requires knowledge, information, strategy and resources.
It was Ford which provided core funds for the National Law Schools and for society-based NGOs capable of legal and social strategies.
Other funders followed suit.
More importantly, Ford, then, worked on prior clearance.
It is one thing to target fraudulent NGOs.
But what are being targeted are the responsible NGOs and activists and blacking “foreign” funds which are totally transparent and accountable funds.
Civil society scares our rulers and corporates.
Well-funded activists loyal to India scare them even more.
The next issue relates to net neutrality.
Post modern communication is fast, inexpensive and forceful.
Differential solutions offered by telecom companies will make access warped and expensive.
With it, the great weapon of communication will distort.
We seem to be going back to devious forms of control on civil society.
Corporate control on the media has increased.
NGO and activists are being pauperised by the government, and access to information is in danger of being skewed.
Democracy is not won or lost in periodic elections.
