When fear rules: How journalists are at receiving end for speaking out against the State
The article begins by summarizing the events that lead to the arrest of a crime report in Mumbai named Tarakant Dwivedi in 2011. He was arrested under the Official Secrets Act for a story he wrote that exposed how arms and ammunition were being stored poorly in a storage container after the events of a terrorist attack that lasted 3 days and led to the deaths of 164 people. The Official Secrets Act is supposed to be used for acts of treason, such as spying for an enemy state. The case of Dwivedi is thus clearly not an instance where this act was required, so journalists held a protest after there was a long legal battle to get him out of jail and asked the Home Minister (essentially leader of domestic security) to withdraw the case. The government did nothing. This raises the question of how this series of events could happen. The author then goes on to explain how Mumbai prides itself on free speech, but it has been a battleground for issues on the topic. The author explains another incident where a cartoonist, Aseem Trivedi, was arrested for cartoons he displayed during an art show for the India Against Corruption movement under the sedition law (if someone brings hatred or contempt or excites dissatisfaction toward the government). Again, there were protests and the case was dismissed.
The author explains how freedom of expression is essentially the ability to express your thoughts in public or private without fear of your own safety or of those close to you, and it is the state’s duty to protect this. However, the government has failed to do so; by remaining silent in events similar to those mentioned above, or even worse, targeting citizens for free speech themselves. By not protecting the people (for example, when artists have shows vandalized or writers have books burned or banned), an environment of self-censorship from the art world is created. They state: “As a consequence, there is no public discourse without threats, there is no argument without the fear of being physically assaulted or mentally broken on social media, and the State continues in its ways without an active watchdog.” Also, in the era of social media, fear is heightened by “trolls” making death threats. The author explains that the role of journalists is to report facts, and if they are attacked for doing so, that is attacking the strength of freedom of press. He ends with a somewhat pessimistic outlook by saying that it appears the conflict over freedom of expression does not appear to be ending anytime soon, but the people need to fight back without fear in order to avoid an authoritarian government from forming.
This article really focuses on one perspective; that of complete freedom of press, expression and speech. The author himself explains that he feels personally impacted by the current climate of freedom of press, and thus has chosen to participate less in discussions on the matter. As a journalist, his opinion isn’t coming out of left field, however, so it doesn’t feel out of place in the context of the article. The evidence he uses is sound; he mentions multiple cases of journalists or individuals getting arrested or attacked for issues of freedom of press/speech/expression, and also explains some of the current laws in India. The article does not link to any sources, but further research does validate these stories. Overall, I think the author raises an interesting discussion on the issue of freedom of expression in India.
Works Cited:
Image/Article Source: Kalbag, Sachin. “When Fear Rules: How Journalists Are at Receiving End for Speaking out against the State.” The Hindu, The Hindu, 17 Sept. 2017, www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/when-fear-rules/article19705378.ece.
