President of India

The Indian Constitution has provided for the election of a President of the Country. In the past we have had several eminent and respected persons holding this post with distinction and giving our Country great respect. Without taking names, the selection of candidates for the high post of President has over the years been reduced to a political appointment thanks to Mrs Gandhi's idea of having a pliable person with favourable political leanings. This has become a unfortunate trend and India is no longer respected for its President. The present incumbent is perhaps the best proof of having some one solely because she is a woman but with no other attribute other  than being favoured due to her political leanings.

Rightly, the debate on who should be our next President has become a serious topic for discussion. The move to evolve a consensus candidate is also very noteworthy.  It would be ideal if one can have an apolitical person of eminence without attaching meaningless attributes. The country should also establish a tradition of rising above considerations of North, South, East or West or the caste etc. Nor should we base our selection on success in business or scientific achievements. But the person should enjoy the respect not just in the country  but who can contribute to world thinking by his or her views representing the culture of our country. Ideally the person should also have some legal background or experience or some recognition abroad.

Someone who is apolitical with a respected lineage and who has had experience in foreign postings and also been associated as an adviser to a past President like Sri Gopal Krishna Gandhi comes to my mind. His role as  a Governor of a State where he maintained good relations with all political parties was also commendable.
However, we could anyone else with such similar attributes rather than a political animal!

Media and Freedom of speech

The Supreme Court is hearing  this important question on reporting by the media, and this  has invited many diverse reactions. While one extreme position is that the media should be free to write what they want, there is a strong feeling that some kind of self regulation or self censorship should be exercised by those responsible for the media in particular. The problem seems more applicable to the electronic media who are constantly  claiming to be the "first with the news" and are on for 24 hours!. What is important is not being first but being correct and right. Sensationalizing news on the basis of having got some inside information is not always what one wants to hear. The listener wants to hear the truth.and not a version or a partial truth. We have had a news channel claiming to have a copies of  reports which are yet confidential and in some cases the information has been only partly true. And these anchors do not believe in admitting if they were wrong except giving a weak apology when taken to the Court!

The other issue is the reporting of cases as they are being argued or presented in Courts as well as remarks made by Judges while hearing such arguments. Quite often it is premature to report matters that are yet to be heard in full and till the Court passes its  orders. We have some political parties with a direct line to these channels and within minutes of the news the spokesman is ready to give his reaction. The recent sensational news by one paper though sketchy and full of holes has had the editor justify their action by saying as is the usual song- "we stand by our correspondent ". Such news may give  temporary attention but if the news item is proved to be unsupported by solid evidence, then that channel or newspaper will lose their creditability.

The other important issue  is publication of news which can affect the security of the country like in defence matters or an interpretation on foreign affairs that can affect our diplomatic relations. Henry Denker in his book "Judge Spencer Dissents" makes this point about news channels who behave as though they can determine the foreign policy of the country. Most debates on such matters turn out to be of no consequence as the participants are chosen who have diametrically opposite views and the debate becomes  a shouting match and it is impossible to get a balanced view on any issue. On defence matters, one has to be careful not to create a panic situation but rather evolve a positive solution to the issue under discussion.

The question therefore is how can our media exercise some restraint and avoid sensationalizing any news. External censorship or control can be avoided if the media themselves frame guidelines. The Editors Guild had sent a team of five eminent journalists to Gujarat after the 2002 riots and had made several positive suggestions in their report. However, no one has taken serious note of these suggestions though the Guild now has a Chairman from the electronic media and there is also a body to monitor broadcast contents. Perhaps this question has been raised in the Supreme Court. to try and evolve guidelines which will be respected though not enforceable.

There is a very thin line between exercising one's freedom of speech but in the process affecting the freedom which is the right of others for their privacy or honour!