Strange that PC should talk of media freedom

It is much ado about nothing, really. A section of the media has tried to work itself into a lather over an alleged case of 'censorship'. A former Union Home Minister, peeved at an English language news channel for not airing his peevish interrogation of the surgical strikes, has cried foul. Lo and behold! This was evidence, that is, if any was needed, of creeping illiberalism and intolerance. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the supreme commander of reactionary and obscurantist Hindutva forces out to demolish peoples’ basic rights and impose  authoritarian rule, we are told. Seeking to make a mountain of what was not even a molehill, Chidambaram has sought to enlist wider media support for his private grievance against the news channel. He has accused the entire media of "falling like nine pins". Barring  the usual suspects who, like the former Home Minister, find themselves ejected from the inner councils in New Delhi, none in the media has taken up his plaint. Given the disproportionately high nuisance value, relative to their actual media presence,  of these viscerally anti-Modi journalists, the controversy has gained some traction. However, had they paused for a moment to consider the credentials of the complainant, there would have no ground for a controversy in the first place. For the ever self-righteous P Chidambaram while in power was never  known to respect media freedom. As for the news channel concerned, by no stretch of the imagination can it be accused of being soft either on Modi or on the BJP. Therefore, it does seem ironical in extreme that the man who had pushed, in vain, as it would turn out in the end, the draconian Defamation Bill as Rajiv Gandhi’s junior Minister in the mid-1980s, is lamenting about censorship. Had the Defamation Bill been allowed to go through, the entire  media would have been in shackles. For  someone  who was known to go after reporters if they merely mentioned in passing an inconvenient fact, this is rich. He who would patronise inexperienced journalists on his ministerial beat and give the short shrift to veterans fully proficient in the subject-matter.  He would insist only on positive media coverage or none at all. This is the politician who is now complaining of censorship. Some questions arise in the wake of the controversy. Are the usual suspects miffed at the perceived betrayal by a media house it had taken for guaranteed and depended upon to broadcast yet another diatribe against the Modi Government? Can't channels and newspapers exercise their independent editorial judgement in favour of nationalist forces? Must channels feel obliged to give free airtime to someone who for his own reasons might want to question the veracity of the surgical strikes? As for the surgical strikes, anyone blessed  with a modicum of commonsense will find ample  proof coming out of Pakistan. The Nawaz Sharif Government blackballed (and later retracted its decision) a leading journalist who exposed the sharp divisions between the civilian and military leaderships after the surgical strikes. The Pakistani Foreign Secretary has warned that Pakistan faces further global isolation unless terror-masters like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar are locked up. Is that not proof enough for Chidambaram? Meanwhile, let us debunk this myth about India being a haven of press freedom and liberty in the early decades following Independence. The one-leader, one-party syndrome had straitjacketed the media into singing hallelujahs to Nehru. It was the heyday of the license-permit-quota raj. Media-owners were dependant upon the Union Government for their for survival. Even newsprint was given as a favour to pliant media outlets. Following his Himalayan betrayal, when a rare journalist pointed an accusing finger at  Nehru, he found himself rendered jobless. Despite that, there was barely any criticism of the then Prime Minister because the Press was afraid to exercise its freedom. And as for Press freedom under Indira Gandhi, the less said the better. Contrary to the myth-making by the Left-liberal megaphones, sections of the Indian media seem to come into their own only when a non-Congress Government is in power in New Delhi. The decision not to air Chidambaram's interview is entirely between him and the channel concerned. Why drag Modi into it? Disclaimer: The opinions, beliefs and views expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this website are personal and do not reflect the opinions, beliefs and views of ABP News Network Pvt Ltd.