Indian
Media Watch
Beware
of 'The Hindu' Newspaper , it is spreading lies , semi-truth
reports to the readers
Here are two reports: (1) about
deafening silence; (2) about
allowing the legislature to function, both from The Hindu of Nov.
10, 2003.
It is strange that one cannot see the mote in one's own eye. N.
Ram's statement is a case in point. He talks of the deafening
silence in the Tamil Nadu Legislature Speaker's statement that N.
Ravi had asked for being 'heard in person' and that this was not
stated in the statement. Well. N. Ravi had issued a 14-page response
and it will fill the entire Hindu page to record this. Suggestio
falsi, suppressio veri is indulged in by everyone in this dirty
game: N. Ram and Co., in particular. How often has The Hindu not
used 'deafening silence' as a means of distorting news?
When Prof. R. Nagaswamy issued a rejoinder to Irfan Habib's rubbish
about archaeological work in Ayodhya, -- covering the issues of:
the impossibility of a circular muslim tomb and the Nataraja case in
London Courts -- N. Ram chose 'deafening silence' and refused
to publish it. (Here is the article Click
http://www.oocities.org/mediawatch_india/ayodhya_londoncourt.html
))
This
is a clear case of presenting a CPI-M view and not presenting the
opposing view. How can The Hindu brass claim objectivity in reporting?
One can multiply such instances of the last few years' behaviour of
the National Daily, which in fact is a CPI-M politburo tabloid. Only
problem is, the fact is not announced on the banner which keeps
changing.
Press-people and law-makers both indulge in hypocritical behaviour,
often times and as the Speaker notes, with asymmetrical
accountabilities and rights: Article 194 enshrines, says he, the
rights of law-makers and there ain't no article codifying the rights
(and duties) of press-people.
Who wins? That is not the question. The nation loses with such
rotten eggs in the polity. Make no mistake about it, press-people
are playing politics and should become accountable on an even
playing ground of warfare between law-makers and press-people (both not
very honourable people -- ana_rya --, in the eyes of the poor villager
and the child who struggles for his or her existence, under a village
tree).
----- We don't want to disclose the Name of this person
`Deafening silence in Speaker's statement'
By Our Special Correspondent
CHENNAI NOV. 9. There is a "deafening silence" in the Speaker,
K.
Kalimuthu's statement on the submission of The Hindu's Editor, N.
Ravi, seeking to be ``heard in person'' by the Privileges Committee,
the Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu, N. Ram, said here today.
Reacting to the statement, Mr. Ram told mediapersons that the last
sentence of Mr. Ravi's 14-page response to a notice issued by the
Assembly on the privilege issue stated that if the Committee was not
satisfied with his explanation, he was ready to appear before the
panel. "Natural justice, among others, required that he should have
been given the opportunity. But the Speaker's statement is
deafeningly silent on this vital point," he pointed out, responding
to a query on Mr. Kalimuthu's reference to the reply of The Hindu.
Mr. Ram added that it was not the business of the Speaker to take a
dig at the media. "He has made defamatory statements (against the
media)".
http://www.hindu.com/2003/11/10/stories/2003111006610100.htm
Full text of Speaker's statement
The following is the text of the statement by the Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly Speaker, K. Kalimuthu:
In all the din created by the media in the wake of the resolutions
passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on the Breach of
Privilege committed by the Editor, Executive Editor, Publisher,
Chief of Bureau and Article Writer, and Special Correspondent of The
Hindu and the Editor - Publisher of Murasoli, a deliberate attempt
is being made by those sentenced to mobilise support through
political parties and other sections of the media to portray the
Breach of Privilege and the consequent action of the Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly as being scripted by the Hon'ble Chief Minister
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa. This itself reflects a desperate attempt by
those sentenced to extricate themselves by totally distorting the
facts in a crude attempt to mobilise media support and support of
some political parties who would like to fish in troubled waters for
their gain.
Since this is a matter of great public importance touching the
rights of a hallowed institution like the Legislative Assembly, it
is extremely essential that the right facts connected with this
issue are set out clearly so that the public, who through the
electoral process have reposed faith in the Legislative Assembly,
are not misled.
In the first place, it is the intention of the framers of the
Constitution to ensure that the Legislative Assembly is able to
function in an independent and free manner. Article 194 of the
Constitution clearly sets out the powers, privileges and immunities
of a House of the Legislature of a State, and of the Members and
Committees of a House of such Legislature. This is to ensure that
members of the House can voice their opinion on issues with absolute
freedom. This cannot be obstructed by distorted reporting by the
media. When the functioning of the House of the Legislature is thus
obstructed, the privileges of the House as a whole are affected and
its very functioning jeopardised. It is the normal procedure for the
House of the Legislature to refer such infractions to the Committee
of Privileges of the House to go into all the facts in detail and
make its recommendations to the House.
The Committee of Privileges of the Tamil Nadu Legislature Assembly
is an elected Committee including representatives of the Opposition.
In this case, the Committee has met on several occasions, namely 5-5-
2003, 12-5-2003, 1-10-2003, 14-10-2003, 27-10-2003 and 6-11-2003,
before making its final recommendations. It can thus be seen that
detailed deliberations have been held on these dates and detailed
proceedings have been drawn up. These recommendations of the
Committee of Privileges have thus been reached after careful
consideration. Both The Hindu and Murasoli have been given adequate
opportunity. They have filed written submissions. The Hindu has
given a 16-page written submission going into all aspects of their
defence. The Committee of Privileges has gone into these written
submissions point by point in great detail and only thereafter
reached its conclusions and recommendations.
In a desperate attempt to mislead the public, the media reports have
completely mixed up the three separate issues of Breach of Privilege
relating to the Media considered by the Committee of Privileges of
the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The first issue of Breach of
Privilege relates to the blatant attempt to influence the conduct of
an important member of the House, namely, the Honourable Chief
Minister, within the Assembly by the use of all kinds of abusive and
intemperate language while the Honourable Chief Minister was
discharging her duties in the House. This constituted undoubtedly a
gross Breach of Privilege and Contempt of the House as a whole. It
should be noted that such an attack on an important member of the
House while discharging duties in the House, constitutes an attack
on the whole House, amounts to obstructing its proceedings and
without doubt affects the independent functioning of the House. The
Committee of Privileges after going into all aspects of the issue
came to the conclusion that the reporting in a distorted manner by
The Hindu in its issues dated 12-4-2003, 13-4-2003 and 23-4-2003, on
the interventions made by the Honourable Chief Minister while
replying to the debate in the House clearly constituted a gross
Breach of Privilege and Contempt of the House. Therefore, the
Committee recommended 7 days simple imprisonment for the Editor,
Executive Editor, Publisher, Chief of Bureau and Article Writer and
Special Correspondent of The Hindu only.
The Legislative Assembly was considering this recommendation in this
report on 7-11-2003. At this juncture, when the Resolution came up
for a decision before the House, the Honourable Chief Minister
magnanimously suggested that the House pardon them as these offences
related to her functioning in the Assembly. The House considered the
request of the Honourable Chief Minister and dropped the punishment.
The media reports are now attempting to distort the whole issue by
indicating that these offences were the ones for which the
punishment was imposed. This is totally incorrect. In fact, it needs
to be clarified that even in the first instance, when the issue came
up in the Assembly in April 2003, it was I, who as the Speaker of
the House, suo motu referred the matter to the Committee of
Privileges under Rule 226 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Rules. The Honourable Chief Minister did not make any request to me
as the Speaker of the House or to the House to refer these matters
to the Committee of Privileges.
The next issue relates to the Editorial in The Hindu dated 25-4-
2003. In this case, I, as the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly, suo motu referred the matter to the Committee of
Privileges. Here again, the Hon'ble Chief Minister did not make any
request to me, as the Speaker of the House, or to the House
suggesting reference of this matter to the Committee of Privileges.
After detailed consideration and after taking note of the written
representation of The Hindu and Murasoli, the Committee of
Privileges made its final recommendations on 6-11-2003. This was
considered by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 7-11-2003. The
contents of the Editorial published by The Hindu on 25-4-2003 shake
the very foundation of the Legislature which is the cornerstone of a
democracy. It has pre-judged the proceedings of the Committee of
Privileges even when the issue was pending before the Committee of
Privileges. This is undoubtedly casting aspersions on the integrity
of the Committee and the House. The editorial has also gone into
detail at length indicating how the Committee of Privileges should
deal with this particular matter and virtually indicated the
conclusions, when the matter itself was under the consideration of
the Committee. The editorial has also cast a slur on my action as
the Speaker of the House in referring the matter to the Committee of
Privileges. It also amounted to a threat to the Committee and the
House to force it to decide in favour of the newspaper.
After careful consideration, the Committee of Privileges has
concluded that this editorial published on 25-4-2003 affects the
entire functioning of the House. This constitutes gross Breach of
Privilege and Contempt of the House. For this offence, the Committee
of Privileges has recommended 15 days simple imprisonment. The
Legislative Assembly after due consideration accepted the report and
awarded the punishment of 15 days simple imprisonment. The Hon'ble
Chief Minister had absolutely no part individually in this decision.
Likewise, the same offence was repeated by Murasoli on 26-4-2003 by
publishing the translation of the editorial in The Hindu. Based on
the report of the Committee of Privileges, a similar punishment was
imposed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
When these are the real facts, namely, that the punishment imposed
by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly is solely on account of the
Breach of Privilege and gross Contempt of the House, committed by
The Hindu through its editorial dated 25-4-2003 and also the
Murasoli by publishing the same on 26-4-2003, the media is whipping
up totally unwarranted personal campaign against the Hon'ble Chief
Minister Selvi J. Jayalaithaa. It should be noted once again that in
the attack by The Hindu on her functioning in the House, for which
the Committee of Privileges recommended 7 days simple imprisonment,
she had graciously suggested that no punishment be imposed and the
House accepted the same.
Article 194 of the Constitution is very clear. A House of the
Legislature has to be enabled to function in a free and independent
manner. Its privileges, powers and immunities have to be protected
to secure this. This resolution of the Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly is only to protect its independent functioning and there
cannot be any obstruction to its functioning. The powers, privileges
and immunities under Art. 194 of the Constitution are to secure this
independent functioning and cannot in any way be abrogated by the
Press in an attempt to obtain to itself the role of ultimate
arbiter. The ultimate test is public welfare and common good. In a
democracy, people vote for a Legislature to secure them these
guarantees. Article 194 of the Constitution is specifically
enshrined to ensure that a Legislature can function in a free and
independent manner to secure for the people these guarantees. The
functioning of the Legislature cannot be obstructed by the Press
which has no such separate rights in the Constitution such as those
enumerated in Article 194 of the Constitutions.
http://www.hindu.com/2003/11/10/stories/2003111004991200.htm
Indian
Media Watch
|