announced
a ban on Pakistan Television (PTV) broadcasting in India. This unusual
statement left many in shock who cherish freedom of expression and free
flow of information, not only in South Asia but also in the international
arena.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) acted sharply; sent letter of concern to the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and sought his explanation [See box item for complete text of the letter]. Based in New York, the CPJ monitors abuses against the press and promotes press freedom around the world.
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), based in Brussels, went even ahead. Its general secretary Aidan White met Indian minister of information and communication Pramod Mahajan on 9 June.
White raised the IFJ's concerns, similar to those raised by other organisations, about the ban on Pakistan television by the Indian authorities.
Mahajan claimed that only cable television services were affected and that existing terrestrial arrangements remain intact. The decision to ban the broadcasts followed fifteen days of monitoring the Pakistani broadcasts, he added. He also conceded to provide report of this monitoring to the IFJ. The minister stated that Pakistani broadcasts will be allowed to resume within twenty-four hours of the end of the current hostilities. He alleged that there was evidence that Pakistani artillery had attacked Indian TV transmitters.
Taking an exception to these developments, Pakistan's federal minister of information and culture Mushahid Hussain in his 15 June letter to the IFJ rebutted Mahajan's statement as untrue. He said that those listening to Pakistani broadcasts have been told that they can be imprisoned for one month and even fined, according to an order issued by the Indian Police on 8 June. According to Mushahid Hussain, this is the first such ban imposed on a foreign broadcasting organisation by a democratic country after World War II. The ban is absolutely unjustified and has only one purpose, namely, covering up truth because India knows truth is not on its side, he said. He proclaimed not to pay back India in the same coin, because, he said: "We believe in free flow of information and freedom of expression." He also denied that Pakistani artillery has ever attacked non-military targets and said that the Indian allegation is totally false.
JRC displays its solidarity herewith such efforts to promote freedom of the expression and to disapprove the politics of ban in and around the country. It also appreciates CPJ, IFJ and other bodies who along with many concerned individuals and groups of South Asia raised their voices to protect free flow of information. These initiatives also remind us of spaces available outside narrow sense of nationalism; in that certain ideals are not put off, even, in the so-called political emergencies defined by this narrow nationalism that ,in fact, is destined to be narrowed down to a minority aspiring to grab power in the grating slogans of Hindutva, Jehad _ for example.
While the ban on PTV broadcasting in India is still on, it invokes in many keen observers of India the days of emergency (1976) imposed by the Indira Gandhi government. The only outcome that it entailed was setting up an undemocratic tradition in the short run, while in longer terms, it strengthened even engendered a far right militancy of Hindutva which has crept into Indian power regime within 2 decades of its erstwhile virtual non-existence. We urge upon democratic forces of the South Asian region to formulate an integrated approach towards issues of collective concern and resist every move that thwarts free flow of information among the people of the region.
