 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we have with us Senior Journalist T.K. Rajalakshmi and we are going to discuss the current scenario of media in our country. For the past two, two and a half years we are seeing this clamp down on media, we are seeing this on government's part, this, they are trying to control the media. What are your views on that? Well, you know the two aspects of this whole thing, it's a fact that, you know the media, in fact, today is under, you know, a lot of pressure. Now, the media, you know, it is not that, that there wasn't a kind of, you know, inbuilt pressure on the media earlier too. Like for instance, we have often used this term called self-censorship in the media. Now, we find that there is a very interesting report, you know, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists. It is an international organization and they have, you know, they have recorded that they have been at least 42 incidents, you know, of violence against journalists, where journalists have been killed. It is not just, it is not just simple, you know, violence, but they have been killed in India. 42 instances, that is, since 1991. So, you have this 25-year period of, you know, a liberalized economy, you know, for more free, let us say, in, you know, media and where you have this attacks, you know, on journalists too. Now, if you come to the present context, now, in the last two and a half years, since you, in fact, mentioned that, it is, you know, I think continuation of that process, but it is far more, let us say, the kind of, you know, rhetoric and the kind of, you know, language that we have seen, in fact, the ruling political party in the centre and its ideological affiliates use. Now, it has created a certain kind, you know, of an environment of deep fear, you know, as well as insecurity. We have seen how a section, you know, of the intellectual class, authors, writers have, scientists, you know, have responded to this and they also feel, you know, threatened. You know, we have, we have writers who have withdrawn their work. We have writers who have, who have been abused, you know, on the blogs, you know, on the blogs, you know, and there is a lot of hate, you know, and a lot of manipulative, you know, language which has a lot of violence in it, you know, which is used. Of course, it is all done under the cloak of, you know, anonymity. The social media is a place where you can say anything, you know, abuse anything, but I think that the bulk of the abuse, it seems to be following, you know, and coming from a certain pattern. So, now you have a certain trend now. Of course, the media, you know, is not free, you know, was not free in any case. It was sort of circumscribed, you know, by several conditions. Some as I said, you know, inbuilt self-censorship kind of conditions. It was also circumscribed by, by, let us say, for instance, the entire nature, you know, of the ownership in the media, where you have a lot of pretty influence now. So, where the role of the editor itself is extremely diminished. So, when we have so many extraneous controls, then you have to ask, you know, how free is the media, really? Recently, the central government imposed a one-day ban on a national television news channel, NDTV, which was not implemented. But it gives you a sense that the government is trying to penalize certain sections of media. What are your views on that? How do you articulate this? Yes, you know, most definitely, most definitely the government is trying to send, you know, a certain signal. Even if that particular media house or the media channel would not have, in fact, warranted such kind of action. But the government has, I think, sent a signal and it is not just to them, but it is to everybody, you know, to fall in line. Now, there are two or three issues that need to be addressed here also. First of all, about the whole issue of, you know, whether that content itself was something that sort of jeopardized India's security, you know, or, you know, or for the national security, is not it? Because those are the grounds on which the government seems to have, you know, acted against a particular channel. Yes, the channel went to court and then the government, you know, put on hold its order and it is a kind of a wait and watch thing. It is not entirely over. So, the case is in the Supreme Court. So, I think one, so without, you know, going into that too much in depth, but one can, of course, definitely say that this incident raised questions of a certain subjective, you know, application of the government's, of the government's fiat, you know, the, you know, the government's are dictated on this entire, you know, on the TV because what they showed and what they aired did not seem very different from what others had did and as far as the, as far as exposing the country, you know, and its, you know, and its security, that was also something which sort of needs to be established in a very, in a very cogent way with certain evidence. It cannot be just a statement, isn't it? You have to show that, that how those particular actions, you know, subsequently created a situation where those, where those installments, you know, which were discussed, you know, actually were sort of, you know, it were sort of, you know, let us say become, you know, vulnerable to attacks from across the border. Now, so, A, you know, first of all, is that thing. Now, the second thing is that, is that, is that whether the government should be entering into this sphere, you know, at all or not when we have certain, certain rights of freedom and expression which are there in our constitution, which are quite, you know, explicitly given, isn't it? So, to, so to use the cable television network act, the regulation act which has been sort of tightened, you know, in 2015, where certain guidelines have been given, you know, to report in such situations. Now, you use that, you know, you know, as a handle to attack a particular channel and again, as I said, without any, there is no substantive evidence. So, as I said, that instead of, instead of resorting to the Cable Television Regulation Act and which has been made more stringent in 2015, the government should have, you know, exercised, you know, a certain amount of judiciousness before sort of resorting to this, this order by saying that you are going to be off the air. And because we are the government, you have to, you know, sort of listen to us. So, then obviously, there was a reaction because it didn't seem to be a reasonable, you know, step. And here we had several journalists, journalist organizations who came together and they, you know, and they took a position against the government's order. Because as I said, this feeling of insecurity is now at a stage where everyone feels, you know, vulnerable and feels that, you know, they could be next if you do not toe a certain line or if you do not appear to be patriotic or nationalist enough. The journalism as a profession, it demands a certain courage as well. Outside Delhi, when journalists report in remote areas, especially in Buster, so they face harassment, even assaults. And nowadays we are seeing, we are witnessing that even human right activists, they are being attacked. So, how do you see this situation? How do you see this? How do you see where the future of journalism will be? You are right, absolutely. Because this situation itself, you know, as I said, is the outcome of a, you know, of a certain kind of an atmospheric, you know, which has been built up and, you know, which is a reflection of a certain kind of intolerant kind of politics, which is being sort of pushed through, you know, either by the policy or, you know, or in language or in sheer action. So, you have a situation here. Now, we know in Buster, we have, you know, this extreme poverty. We know that, in fact, the Maoists, you know, operate in the jungles and we have this state government, which is going completely, you know, all out of way to sort of, you know, ensure, you know, the Maoists are, you know, kept under control. Fair enough. It is a law and order problem, but you can see it as a, you know, as far as the state government is concerned, every state government would have that particular, you know, right to do that. But, you know, in the process, but in the process again, as I said, it is overreach, it is over zealousness to sort of view everybody with extreme suspicion, to see everybody as an agent out to overthrow the, overthrow the, in fact, the legitimate authority of the state. So, this kind of a paranoia, this is something which also seeks to divert, you know, in my opinion, to divert attention, you know, from the real issues that confront people. So, you, so you create this entire thing of, you know, patriotism, nationalism, and you said, no, nobody ought to sort of question the government, you know, you know, ever, okay. And if you do it, you know, we are going to book you under the toughest laws of the country, okay. So, it could be sedition, it could be anything. So, my last question is about print media. So, in times where there is online media, TV journalism, social media is there, where do you see the future of print media? Print has a great future, I think. Print has a great future, given the fact that that a sizable population of our country is still in illiterate. And, you know, once they sort of reach that threshold, you know, of literacy and further on, I am sure the reading public is going to be, is going to be much more, you know, besides the internet coverage in our country is hardly anything. It is hardly just confined to the urban centers as well as, you know, as well as, you know, the metros. So, in terms of online reading, it is a very small section of people who keep on, I think, talking amongst themselves most of the time. So, but the newspaper, if you see, if you go, you know, to villages also, you will find that the Panwala shop or the tea stall or the Dhabba or wherever bus stands, you find people reading, you know, people reading. It is not that they are sitting in front of the laptops or their phones, you know, reading news, but they are reading people. The local papers have been read. So, it is increasing. So, I think it has got a great future, you know, therein lies, you know, I mean, a greater responsibility, you know, of the print media to, because I think that the written word, you know, has a far greater impact as well as, you know, lasting influence on the mind, I think so. Because the visual bombardment, you know, of images, it tends to clutter, you know, in my opinion. But the written word, you can cogitate, you can think forwards, you can backwards, you know, gives you time to reflect, you know, and that is something which you should all aspire to, to increase the increase in numbers of the reading population. Thank you very much for coming to our studio and sharing your views. Thank you very much.