STATEMENT OF CONCERN ON NIYAMGIRI

Here is statement on the recent Supreme Court order on bauxite mining in Niyamgiri, Orissa.

STATEMENT OF CONCERN ON NIYAMGIRI

We the undersigned are deeply concerned over the recent order of the
Supreme Court in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and
Others in the matter of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. This
Order will pave the way for forcible displacement of thousands of
adivasis for the mining of bauxite by Sterlite Industries Ltd., a
frontal company of the notorious Vedanta Alimunium Industries, which
is already tainted with its corporate malpractices.

We note with deep anxiety that most of the inhabitants here are
Dongria Kondhs who are classified as Primitive Tribes (which itself is
a colonial construct) who know no other way of life hence need to be
dealt with due sensitivity and precaution and who will be uprooted and
marginalized once they are removed from their natural habitat. Today,
where the UN bodies, all the governments, international and national
civil societies including the progressive and democratic organisations
world over are worried and deliberating on global warming and the
impending ecological disaster and death of the planet. The issue
raised by this judgement has become of crucial importance. The Dongria
Kondhs who live a harmonious and symbiotic relationship with their
environment show the way to mankind on how to lead a sustainable,
meaningful and egalitarian life.

It is also to be noted that the present order of the Supreme Court
contradicts the 89th Amendment of the Constitution which clearly
stipulates that no industry, mines or townships or any other
construction activity can be undertaken without the consent of the
Gram Sabhas of adivasis residing in the areas demarcated under the
Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

This order will also nullify the implementation of the recently passed
Forest Rights Act, under which the adivasis tilling forestland should
get the ownership of the land they have been tilling since years.

We are also deeply concerned that mining in Niyamgiri area will
seriously upset the ecological equilibrium; this area is very rich in
bio diversity including rare flora and fauna and many species of rare
medicinal herbs. Niyamgiri hills are also the source of important
rivers like Nagavali, Vansdhara, which caters to the need of many
districts in Orissa including the southern coastal districts. The
mining in that area will contravene the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986 because it will seriously violate
the letter and spirit of the Act.

We urge the political parties especially the three most important
pillars of our democracy i.e. the Executive, Judiciary and the
Legislature to take cognisance of the aspirations of innumerable
anti-displacement movements and progressive and democratic
organisations in the country and scrap the draconian and colonial land
acquisition act of 1894. Thus we call upon the Supreme Court,
Government of India and Orissa to reconsider the case of mining in the
Niyamgiri Hills and rescind the permission given to Sterlite
Industries for mining in Niyamgiri.

Kamal Mitra Chenoy School of International Study,JNU

Thomas kochery World Forum of Fisher People ,Special
Invitee,NAPM,NFF,NCI

Professor Arun Kumar Centre for Study of Economic and Social
Planning, School of Social Science, JNU

Vijay Pratap Convenor, Lokayan

Babulal Sharma Convenor, Global Gandhi Forum

Rakesh Bhatt Coordinator, SADED/CSDS

Faisal Khan Asha Parivar, NAPM, New Delhi

Anil Thakur Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, New Delhi

Chandrasekhar Hota Research Scholar, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Science, JNU

Jeet Bhattacharya Research Scholar, Film Studies, School of
Art and Aesthetics, JNU

Peeyush Pant Editor, Lok Samvad, New Delhi

Sayantoni Datta SADED/CSDS

Asit Social Activist-Researcher, New Delhi

Kumar Sameer Social Activist, New Delhi

Shabnam Hashmi Anhad, New Delhi

Kavita Krishnan Editor, Liberation

Kiran Shaheen Media and Social activist, New Delhi

Kundan Kumar Activist,Researcher,Orissa

Felix Padel Anthropologist,U.K.

Subrat Kumar Sahu film Maker and Freelance Writer, New Delhi

Mamta Dash Social activist and
researcher, New Delhi

Prof Manidra Nath Thakur Centre for Political Studies ,SSS,JNU

Prof Vivek Kumar Centre for Study of Social
System, SSS, JNU

Prof Rohan D'Souza Centre for Study of Science
Policy, SSS ,JNU

Prof Mohan Rao Centre for Social Medicine and
community health, JNU

Prof Janaki Abraham Women's Study Programme, SSS, JNU

Prof Vanitha Damodarah University of Sussex, Sussex, U.K.

Prof Asha Sarangi Centre for Political Studies,JNU

Prithpal Singh randhawa Research Scholar, Instutute of
Development Studies,Sussex, U.K.

Rona Wilson Research Scholar and social
activist, New Delhi

Sunil Kumar Social Activist, New Delhi

G.N. Trivedi Lecturer, Moti lal Nehru
College, Delhi University

Amit Student, CESP/SSS, JNU

Sumandro Research Scholar, JNU

Debolina Biswas Student, CESP/SSS,JNU

Supreme Court bench abandons hearing on Provident Fund scandal

New Delhi, Aug 7 (PTI) In an abrupt move, a Supreme Court bench today abandoned hearing on the controversial Uttar Pradesh Provident Fund (PF) scandal allegedly involving some judges.

A three judge bench comprising Justices B N Aggrawal, V S Sirpurkar and G S Singhvi abandoned the hearing following "contemptuous" remarks made by former Union Minister Shanti Bhushan and his son Prashant Bhushan.

Justice Aggrawal, who wrote the order, observed that he was "recusing".

The other two judges, however, did not concur or differ and hence the matter has been left to the Chief Justice of India for his decision.

The unprecedented drama was marred by an acrimonious exchange of words between Justice Aggrawal and Shanti Bhushan culminating in the denouement.

August 7, 2008
PTI

Chief Justice withdraws from fund scam case

Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan has withdrawn himself from the Ghaziabad provident fund scam case, allegedly involving some UP judicial officers, certain judges of the Allahabad High Court and a Supreme Court judge.

The CJI recused himself after the Indian chapter of Transparency International challenged his administrative decisions related to the scam probe. The corruption watchdog is seeking a "through and unfettered" probe by the CBI into the scam.

Two petitions related to the sensational case, in which the CJI's Bench had on July 17 issued notices to the Centre and the UP Government on the plea for a CBI probe, is now listed for hearing on August 1 before another Bench headed by Justice
BN Agrawal. The Ghaziabad Bar Association has filed the second case.

Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan had on the last date pointed out on behalf of Transparency International that the CJI could not hear a petition challenging his own administrative decisions relating to the scam probe. Bhushan had said SC Secretary General VK Jain had written to Ghaziabad SSP that he should prepare a questionnaire for examining the Judges of the higher judiciary allegedly involved in the scam for prior vetting. The questionnaire would form the basis of the probe.

Terming it as "unheard of", Bhushan had said there could not be different sets of procedures for judges and other people involved in a corruption case.

The CJI had clarified that the petition did not challenge his administrative decision, inasmuch as its prayer related only to judicial officers (subordinate court judges) while his decision was with regard to Allahabad High Court Judges. He had made it clear that if the petitioner changed its prayer so as to mean the judges of the higher judiciary, he would not hear it. The prayer has since been changed.

According to SC ruling in the Veeraswami case, an HC or SC judge cannot be proceeded against in a criminal case without the CJI's prior permission. In view of this ruling, the Ghaziabad SSP had sought the CJI's permission for probe against judges of the higher judiciary.

July 29, 2008
HT

Missing US Nuclear-bug a threat to the Ganges

On the eve of the Beijing Olympics, a climber has disclosed his role in a secret cold war mission to plant a nuclear-powered bugging device in the Himalayas to spy on China.

Robert Schaller, an amateur mountaineer and hospital doctor, was part of a team recruited by CIA. He carried the 40-pound device on his back as he climbed Nanda Devi, the highest peak wholly inside India.

The US spy agency hoped to use the device to monitor missile tests in China. The radioactive device was later lost in an avalanche. Even today, fears remain that it could break open and cause an environmental disaster by leaking radioactive material into the Ganga.

Schaller, 73, believes radiation from carrying the device caused the rheumatoid arthritis that was to prevent him practising surgery. He says in an interview in the Mountaineer magazine that he was selected by CIA for his medical expertise as well as his climbing skills.

Two Hollywood film companies are competing to be the first to make a movie based on the Himalaya missions. "It will be a cross between Charlie Wilson's War and Indiana Jones," said one insider.

Schaller was on his rounds at the University of Washington Hospital in Seattle when he was paged to the front desk where he met a man in a trench coat and dark glasses. The visitor opened his coat, showed him an airline ticket and whispered: "Do you want to go to the Himalayas?" Schaller jumped at the chance. It was 1965, the Chinese had detonated their first nuclear test the year before and had recently fought a war with India. Spy satellites were in their infancy and still unreliable.

Robert Schaller, an amateur mountaineer and hospital doctor, was given with a cover story that he was training as a scientist-astronaut and not even allowed to tell his wife what he was really doing.

He said last week: "It was very hush-hush. I would be flown somewhere, I don't know where, to train how to jump out of a helicopter and use plastic explosives... I went on six missions to the Himalayas in all over the next three years. It clearly contributed to the breakup of my marriage."

The first mission, to place the device on Nanda Devi, involved two other Americans and three Indians. The peak provided unfettered views into Xinjiang province to track Chinese missile tests.

"The device was about 18 inches round, one foot high and on an aluminium post with guide wires. It was powered by cylinders of plutonium about the size of a cigar," he said. The climbers reached 24,000ft and lashed the device to a ledge when they were hit by a blizzard. When they returned the entire ledge had been swept away.

Schaller said he later put a second device on the 22,510ft peak of Nanda Kot, 10 miles south, which beamed information back for two years to a CIA agent in Nepal. The CIA declined to comment this weekend. SUNDAY TIMES, LONDON.

Schaller was hired by CIA to put a nuke device on Nanda Devi in 1965. It got lost, posing an environmental risk to Ganga.

3 August 2008

Maurice Chittenden

Rescheduled monsoon session to be held in September

The monsoon session of parliament, earlier expected to begin Aug 11, will now be convened in the second of week of September, according to Parliamentary Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi.

The minister said this decision had been taken because the government was trying to focus on restoring peace in violence-hit Jammu region.

"The government is keen to convene the session immediately to take up legislation to provide social security and other welfare measures to the unorganised sector. But the government wants to bring back normalcy in (the) troubled areas," the minister said.

The parliament session was earlier expected to open Aug 11 but it is being delayed following troubles in Jammu and Kashmir following protests over the Amarnath yatra as well as back-to-back terrorist attacks in Bangalore and Ahmedabad.

"The UPA government has full faith in parliament. But we do not want to be distracted in our attempts to bring peace," Vayalar Ravi added.

A special two-day session was called in July to move a trust motion, after the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was reduced to a minority in parliament after the Left withdrew support to the ruling coalition. The Manmohan Singh-led government proved its majority support in the Lok Sabha July 22.

The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), which has since become a vocal critic of the government, has vowed to give a hard time to the government in parliament.

CPI-M general secretary Prakash Karat has dared the UPA government to try passing finance bills, including pension, banking and insurance sector legislation, in parliament.

"Let's see," said Vayalar Ravi, when asked about Karat's warning.

According to Congress sources, the government is concerned about the smooth functioning of parliament in the wake of the cash-for-votes scam that erupted during the July 22 trust vote.

A seven-member Lok Sabha panel, set up to look into allegations by three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs that they were bribed to abstain in the trust vote, is likely to seek more time to submit its report. It was expected to conclude the findings by Aug 11.

Congress MP Kishore Chandra Deo, who heads the committee set up by Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, is expected to seek more time to complete the report. The panel has already viewed the video and audiotapes in the sting operation conducted by a television channel.

Three BJP MPs - Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulaste and Mahavir Bhagora - stunned the nation by brandishing wads of cash in the Lok Sabha shortly before the Manmohan Singh government was to face the trust vote.

They accused Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi's political secretary Ahmad Patel of offering them bribes to abstain.

Congress leaders, embarrassed over the incident, indicated they were not in a position to face parliament unless the committee came out with its findings.

"The opposition and the Left are prepared to disrupt the proceedings over these issues. The government wants to prepare itself for defence before convening the session," said a Congress leader who did not want to be identified.

5 August
The Economic Times

$1 trillion laundered every year in India: Report

MUMBAI: Over $1 trillion is being laundered every year by drug dealers, arms traffickers and other criminals in India, according to a report by audit and consulting firm KPMG released here on Tuesday.

The report comes close on the heels of the murky cash-for-vote controversy that erupted in parliament during the trust vote July 22, reflecting the country's parallel economy.

Quoting from the 2008 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, prepared by the US Department of State, KPMG said India's emerging status as a regional financial centre and informal cross-border money flows are the main contributors to growing money laundering in the country.

"Some common sources of illegal proceeds in India are narcotics trafficking, illegal trade in endangered wildlife, trade in illegal gems (diamonds), smuggling, trafficking in persons, corruption, and income tax evasion. India continues to be a drug-transit country," the US narcotics survey has said.

KPMG feels that in future, the major challenge for the finance sectors like banking, brokerage houses and insurance companies would be combating money laundering and terrorist financing.

KPMG's report also highlighted the vote of confidence in parliament, which exposed the prevalence of unaccounted for money in the country.

"A few politicians threw a large sum of cash in parliament and alleged that there was an attempt to bribe them for their vote. This confirms the continued existence of a parallel banking system popularly called as 'hawala'," it said.

"According to Indian observers, funds transferred through the hawala market are between 30 to 40 percent of the formal market," the report said, and noted that the central Reserve Bank of India estimated official remittances to the country to be around $28.2 billion.

The report suggests for India to reduce the informal money transfer channels it needs to focus anti-money laundering (AML) policies and procedures, formal monitoring of AML systems and controls, and ensuring sanctions compliance.


5 Aug, 2008, IANS
The Economic Times

Parliamentary probe begins into 'cash-for-vote' scam

My CD is authentic, says Uma Bharti

NEW DELHI: Bharatiya Janshakti Party chief Uma Bharti on Tuesday took strong exception to the Bharatiya Janata Party’s charge that she had acted as “an agent” of the Samajwadi Party when she agreed to release a CD relating to the cash-for-vote scandal.

Insisting that the contents of the CD were “one hundred per cent authentic,” Ms. Bharti charged the BJP with attempting to destroy her reputation. “First they said the CD was fake, and now they are calling me an agent of the SP,” she said.

The counter CD released by Ms. Bharti on Saturday is said to have images of an assistant of a top SP leader going into the office of a senior BJP leader and returning with a heavy bag. Ms. Bharti had claimed at the time of the CD’s release that the footage implicated the BJP in the cash-for-vote scandal because it showed collusion between the BJP and the SP leader’s assistant, the key accused in the scandal.

The BJP launched a counter-attack on Ms. Bharti by pointing out that the CD itself contained proof that it was shot after July 22. This, in turn, demolished the suggestion that the money for the trust vote bribery came from the BJP’s office. BJP spokespersons pointed to a billboard inadvertently caught by the camera to make their claim. The billboard outside the BJP leader’s office congratulated the three MPs for resisting pressure to cross vote in favour of the United Progressive Alliance government.

On Tuesday, it was Ms. Bharti’s turn to question the BJP: “If the [contents of the] CD was shot after July 22, then the evidence against the BJP is stronger … Surely, an emissary [of the SP leader] would not dare to go into the BJP’s office after the trust vote?”

Ms. Bharti said a frustrated BJP was now accusing her of acting as an agent of the SP. The BJP would pay a heavy price for insulting her, she added.

August 5, 2008

Parliamentary probe begins into 'cash-for-vote' scam

New Delhi (PTI): The Parliamentary committee examining the 'cash-for-vote' scam got down to business on Monday by viewing audio and video tapes of the sting operation about the scandal which rocked the Lok Sabha during the trust vote on July 22.

The seven-member committee will also record the evidence on August 7 of three BJP MPs who shocked the nation by tabling bundles of currency notes alleging that the money was given to them as bribes to abstain from the trust vote.

The committee headed by senior Congress MP V Kishore Chandra Deo has been asked to submit its report by August 11. But Deo said the panel will seek extension till the month-end to complete its task.

After watching the tapes for nearly three hours, the committee has asked the Lok Sabha Secretariat to make the transcript available to the members.

The committee also asked CNN-IBN channel, which had conducted the sting operation but came under BJP's attack for not telecasting it, to send its representative on August 11, Deo said.

In their petition seeking a probe into the charge that attempt was made to bribe them to get their support in the trust vote, the three MPs -- Ashok Argal, Fagan Singh Kulaste and Mahavir Bhagora -- are believed to have named SP General Secretary Amar Singh and Congress leader Ahmed Patel. Both members of Rajya Sabha denied the charge.

Panel receives two more tapes

The committee also received two more tapes -- one from Amar Singh and another from expelled BJP leader Uma Bharti, who has been alleging the hands of the saffron party itself in the scam.

Deo said the panel is not in a hurry to see the two tapes. "We have not seen them. We will watch them later if need be and whether they are relevant to the present case," he said.

Deo also said that the committee will summon Samajwadi Party MP Reoti Raman Singh at a later stage. Singh, who represents Allahabad constituency, is a member of the Lok Sabha unlike Amar Singh and Patel who are members of the Upper House.

Reoti Raman Singh has also been named by the three BJP MPs in their complaint.

Deo avoided a direct reply whether Amar Singh and Patel would be summoned by the committee. "We have not come to that stage," he said.

Replying to a question whether the committee could recommend expulsion of any members if found guilty, Deo said that the panel has the power even to recommend imprisonment for 40 days from from the last day of the session.

August 4, 2008


Cash-for-vote panel meets, MPs summonedCash-for-vote panel meets, MPs summoned

The seven-member committee set up by Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee last week to probe the cash-for-vote scam began its investigations on 30 July.

As part of evidence examination, the members scrutinised the alleged Rs1-crore bribe tabled in parliament by the three BJP MPs on July 22 and now in the custody of the Lok Sabha secretary general.

The panel discussed modalities of collecting evidence and summoning the petitioners and others, including reporters of the television channel that conducted the sting, even as the channel — CNN IBN — said it did not air the tapes because the story had many “loose ends”.

“Quite simply, we have chosen not to telecast the story yet because we did not feel that the story was complete. Our rigorous editorial protocol demands that even a hidden camera shoot is absolutely water-tight. In this particular story, there were many loose ends that needed to be cross-checked, corroborated and investigated further before the story could be aired,” CNN IBN said in a statement here on Wednesday.

The panel will meet again on August 4 when it is likely to view the seven tapes submitted to the speaker by the channel a day after the trust vote. The three BJP MPs — Ashok Argal, Fagan Singh Kulaste and Mahavir Bhagora — who were allegedly approached by emissaries of Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh with the money, have been summoned by the committee on August 7 to record evidence. They also alleged involvement of Ahmed Patel, political secretary to Congress president Sonia Gandhi.

The BJP claimed its MPs were offered Rs3 crore each and were paid Rs1 crore each as advance.

Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel — both Rajya Sabha MPs — have denied the charges.
Asked if the panel can summon Singh and Patel to record evidence, chairman V Kishore Chandra Deo said the panel has no power since they belong to the Rajya Sabha and that the speaker has to write to chairman of the upper House. Whether the committee can stop telecast of the footage, Deo said: “I have no power to withhold the tape or allow its screening. Personally, I am against trial by the media.”

Meanwhile, the speaker has received applications for disqualification of 22 MPs for cross-voting in the trust vote.

31 July, 2008

Seven-member committee to probe cash for vote scam

Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee Saturday set up a seven-member committee to probe allegations by three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MPs that they were bribed by the Samajwadi Party and Congress to abstain during the trust vote in parliament on Tuesday. Headed by C. Kishore Chandra Deo, who also heads the house privileges committee, the committee will go through the evidence and submit its report by Aug 11, the scheduled opening of the monsoon session of parliament.

Besides Deo, other committee members, all MPs, include V.K. Malhotra (BJP), Mohammad Salim (Communist Party of India-Marxist), Ram Gopal Yadav (Samajwadi Party), Devendra Prasad Yadav (Rashtriya Janata Dal), Rajesh Varma (Bahujan Samaj Party), C. Kuppusami (DMK).

The seven members have been chosen from the 11-member committee set up by Chatterjee earlier to look into allegations of misconduct by MPs on the floor of parliament.

The BJP filed a formal complaint with the speaker on the issue Friday.

The complaint, filed jointly by Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulaste and Mahavir Bhagora, is said to have named Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh as the mastermind. Ahmed Patel, Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s political secretary, too finds mention.

The complaint recounts the sequence of events that culminated in the dramatic scenes that rocked the Lok Sabha during the discussion on the trust vote on Tuesday when the three waved wads of currency notes, which they alleged had been offered to them to abstain during the vote.

They alleged on the floor of the House that they had been offered Rs.90 million each to abstain during the trust vote and been paid an advance of Rs. 10 million each.

Both Amar Singh and Patel have denied the charges and said they will quit public life if there is any evidence of them offering or giving money to any MP.

July 26th, 2008

Even God cannot save this country: Supreme Court

Even God cannot save this country: Supreme Court

"Even God will not be able to save this country," a fuming Supreme Court on
Tuesday said while slamming the government for its refusal to amend the law for
launching criminal prosecution against those who illegally occupy official
houses.

"We are fed up with this government," the apex court said, adding, "They don't
have the guts to differ with the opinion of the clerks."

"Even God will not be able to save this country. In India even if God comes
down, he cannot change our country. Our country's character has gone. We are
helpless," a bench of Justices B N Aggrawal and G S Singhvi said.

The apex court said PILs are being filed before it by people who are vexed with
the approach of the government on various issues.
"You complain about judicial activism when you are in power. When you are not in
power you come to us for remedy," the bench said.

The bench gave vent to its anger as Additional Solicitor General Amarender Saran
bluntly told the court that the Centre had decided not to amend Section 441 IPC
(criminal trespass) for prosecuting squatters of Government accommodation in the
country.

The government took the stance that the existing provisions provided under the
Public Premises Act was sufficient to evict those unlawfully occupying
government accommodation.

Moreover, it claimed that out of 99,100 government houses only 300-odd dwellings
were under unauthorised occupation for which had been made to evict them. But
this did not satisfy the apex court which said the Government does not have the
guts to take on the offenders.

August 5, 2008

Broadcasters condemn BJP move to boycott CNN-IBN

The News Broadcasters Association(NBA) and the Editors Guild of India on 2 August slammed the BJP for its decision to boycott the CNN-IBN and its affiliated channels if it did not telecast the tapes of the sting operation carried out on July 22, saying the move was a new threat to the freedom of the press.

In a statement NBA president G Krishnan said the step taken by the BJP was not in the interest of broadcasters and the media community, and set a bad precedent.

''Political parties must recognise that editors have the freedom to decide what to telecast and what not and cannot be subject to any interference. If it happens media organisation would lose its independence. A boycott of a network is not the way forward and suggests a new threat to the freedom of the press,'' he said.

The NBA suggested to the BJP to review its stand and avoid a situation of confrontation which was not in the interests of a harmonious relationship between political parties and media professionals.

The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) has elected G Krishnan, CEO TV Today Network, as its president for 2007-08.

Sameer Manchanda, Joint Manageing Directer Global Broadcasts Ltd, has been elected as vice-presidnet and KVL Narayan Rao, CEO NDTV Ltd is now honorary treasurer and Ms Annie Joseph is secretary general of the Association.

These office-bearers are also Board members of the NBA. Other members are CEO Times Global Sunil Lalla, Chinamani Rao of India TV, CEO Zee News Harish Doraiswamy and CEO Media Contenet and Communications Ltd Uday Shankar.

Why CNN-IBN did not telecast trust vote sting

Editors Guild Criticizes BJP's Boycott of CNN-IBN

The Editors Guild of India has expressed shock at the pressure tactics being adopted by the Bharatiya Janata Party against CNN IBN Television channel.

Criticising BJP leader Venkaiah Naidu for declaring that his party would boycott CNN IBN, if the channel does not immediately telecast the tapes of the sting operation carried out in concert with the BJP MPs in New Delhi on Juy 22 in connection with the vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha, the Guild said: “The freedom of an editor to publish or telecast any news item cannot be subject to the approval or disapproval of a political party.”

” In the instant case, the editor of CNN IBN has made it oublic that the investigation into the bribery case is incomplete and only if all the facts are authenticated, the channel would telecast the tapes,” it added.

It said that the Code of Practice of the Editors Guild of India also exhorts editors to check and verify facts before publication or telecast.

2 August, 2008
ANI

No Superlatives For The Telly This Week

WHAT A WEEK ON television. With Parliament going the way of ‘Bigg Boss,’ it was fun and games all around. Much has already been said about this, so let me focus on a couple of things that go beyond the outrage-shame-what-we-have-come-to stuff that we all know.

For one, this was actually a debate with some notable speeches. While the methods surrounding the trust vote were what they were, the issue at hand was a substantive one, and was dealt with a measure of seriousness, at least by some. Secondly, the channels were curiously out-gunned by the reality unfolding on our screens. No superlatives could re-frame or add to what we were seeing ourselves. It was thus not surprising that NDTV, with its focus on providing a commentary to what was being seen, made for the most compelling viewing.

CNN IBN’s decision not to telecast the tapes was never properly explained and too little attention has been focused on that. Why would a channel willingly forego that kind of an advantage? Even if the sting was inconclusive, why not share it with viewers with that caveat? It might well have been an act of responsibility, something that is so rare today, but some more information on this would have been helpful.

The Hindustan Times has a new layout for its edit page which is, well, new. While it boasts a very readable panel of writers (Vir Sanghvi, Barkha Dutt, the extremely talented Kushalrani Gulab to name but a few), its attempts at satire are consistently and unerringly unfunny. Features like Quote-Unquote and The Dialogue are embarrassingly bad.

NDTV India has a food show hosted by Vinod Dua and while he is portly enough to suggest a fondness for food, he is far too pedantic for a show like this. He conducts himself with all the back-slapping cheerfulness of a pathologist, conducting an autopsy on the things he puts in his mouth while giving us a running commentary of his own actions (“This is a ‘raj bhog’ which I am now putting in my mouth…”). On the other hand, Highway on My Plate on NDTV Good Times is an amazingly good show that exudes an effortless air of breezy gluttony. The two anchors Mayur and Rocky are relaxed, spontaneous and make endearingly bad jokes while stuffing themselves with prodigious quantities of food. Unlike other Indian food shows which either feature five-star chefs who convert the kitchen into an operation theatre or upper class ‘foodies’ behaving in an awkwardly patronising way with street food, this is a show that rings true every single time. Above all, it almost always makes you hungry. Always a good sign.

SANTOSH DESAI
Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 31, Dated Aug 09, 2008

Sulking & bullying

There’s three sides to every story — your side, my side and the truth.” That old journalistic saw has acquired a whole new meaning in this peculiar confrontation between the BJP and CNN-IBN. The BJP now says that it will boycott appearances on the news network, unless CNN-IBN airs raw footage of the cash-for-votes sting operation that rocked Parliament. It has also magnanimously offered to help the channel resist “government pressure” in the higher cause of press freedom. Meanwhile, CNN-IBN argues that its story has too many loose ends and is not ready to be aired.

The party is understandably sore — the scandal that was to topple the government now looks like a lame, amateurish damp squib disowned by those who participated in it. But there is a cardinal question the BJP must answer. What is the party trying to achieve by boycotting the channel’s studios, other then proclaiming loudly that it is opting out of the democratic game? This is not about a particular media outlet. The question is more fundamental. For that is what the umbilical connection between political players and the media in a democracy like India entails. To say that you will not go to them but they can come to you — for instance, for party briefings — is self-defeating to begin with. It also raises ethical questions that hark back to the issue of a political party’s democratic responsibility. The BJP might just end up as a double loser. The BJP and CNN-IBN — that is, politicians and the media — feed off each other. While the network needs its talking heads to bloviate in its studios, how much will power will the BJP’s sound-bite soldiers need to resolutely keep shut, not getting a word in edgeways as national debates are enacted without them?

There’s a cautionary tale in the CNN-IBN “sting operation”. It’s not just about press freedom or responsibility. It is also about politicians’ democratic duties.

August 02, 2008

The Indian Express


Press Statement issued by M. Venkaiah Naidu

The Bharatiya Janata Party is deeply dismayed by the decision of CNN-IBN not to telecast the "notes-for-votes" sting operation, which the channel conducted with the cooperation of three BJP MPs. The whole country watched with shock and disbelief when the three MPs produced wads of currency notes on the floor of the Lok Sabha on July 22 shortly before the Trust Vote was taken. The money was paid to Shri Ashok Argal, BJP MP, at his residence by a person representing a senior Samajwadi Party leader as "advance" for the MPs to abstain from voting that afternoon. The entire episode and the background that led to that transaction, was filmed through hidden cameras by a CNN-IBN team. Subsequently, the channel interviewed all the three MPs as a prelude to the promised telecast of the tapes.

More than a week has passed since one of the most sordid events in India's Parliamentary history was captured on camera. Now the channel says that it has not aired the tapes since the investigation is "incomplete" and has some "loose ends". This contention flies in the face of all accepted ethics of professional journalism. The job of the media is to bring information gathered by it into the public domain. It is not for a TV channel or newspaper to complete investigations and pronounce a verdict. That job must be left to investigating agencies and the judicial process.

Only one conclusion can be drawn from the channel's volte-face : It has come under severe pressure from the Government and/or certain corporate houses. Consequently, it has not only broken its promise to the MPs to telecast the scandalous episode immediately, but also denied the people of India their sacrosanct right to information in a matter of the highest public importance. It is now up to CNN-IBN to disprove this lingering suspicion.

The mere handling over of the tapes to the Lok Sabha Speaker, that too after a mysterious lapse of 24 hours, is not adequate. Since the entire country saw wads of notes being waved inside the House, the people have the right to know about the origin and circumstances leading to this unprecedented display. The BJP MPs acted in the highest national interest as whistle-blowers on a scandal that dwarfs all previous incidents of parliamentarians being lured with cash to vote in a particular way.

The channel's statement dated July 29, 2008 makes it virtually clear that it has no intention of allowing the people of India to witness the shameful actions of top leaders of the ruling alliance who discarded every norm of public morality to the wind in a desperate bid to save the already tainted Manmohan Singh Government.

In the background of the sting operation's obduracy, the BJP has been compelled to decide that it will boycott CNN-IBN and channels related to it till such time as the unedited tapes of the "notes-for-votes" scandal are telecast. Till then no BJP functionary in Delhi or in the states will appear on CNN-IBN programmes, whether in their studios or outside. The BJP believes that the channel's decision to withhold the tapes from the public seriously compromises the freedom of the Press. The party regrets that instead of upholding the right to information, CNN-IBN has resorted to the suppression of truth.

Even at this stage, the BJP calls upon the channel to revise its decision and telecast the tapes without any further delay. The party will happily review its decision to boycott CNN-IBN as soon as the tapes are aired. The BJP, needless to add, remains deeply committed to preserve and protect the freedom of the press and is prepared to assist, in whatever way possible, media organisations to withstand Government and corporate interference in their working.

31 July, 2008
BJP Press Release



Why CNN-IBN did not telecast trust vote sting

In the last week, there has been speculation over an alleged ‘sting’ operation conducted by CNN-IBN to expose allegations of bribery in the run-up to the trust vote in Parliament.

Since the speculation is based on hearsay, conjecture and mere guess-work, we at CNN-IBN, the country's leading English news channel, feel that it is necessary to set the record straight. As a journalist-driven organisation, we value our credibility and independence above all else.

We have always striven to raise the bar of journalism, to ensure that the highest standards and procedures are followed at all times.

The 'sting' operation conducted by our investigation team was part of this commitment to ensure that the public interest is enhanced. Our team had begun the investigations at least a week before the trust vote and the 'sting' was to be part of a wide-ranging investigation across the political spectrum into allegations of horse trading.

Moreover, the 'sting' operation we conducted was unique in that neither were we participants, nor were we engaging in 'entrapment' by offering cash, nor were we under a false identity.

We were, as is accepted in practices in the international press, 'flies on the wall', simply recording an alleged bribery operation, without interfering in it at any stage.

Why have we not telecast the story so far? Quite simply, we have chosen not to telecast the story yet because we did not feel that the story was complete.

Credible journalism is based on accuracy not speed, facts not sensationalism, reportage not allegations and assumptions. Our rigorous editorial protocol demands that even a hidden camera shoot is absolutely water-tight.

In this particular story, there were many loose ends that needed to be cross-checked, corroborated and investigated further before the story could be aired.

As it transpired, even before we could complete the process of investigation, three BJP MPs made allegations in parliament of having been bribed and displayed cash in the House.

In the politically surcharged circumstances, we felt that the more appropriate step would be to provide the recordings we had made till date to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as the appropriate constitutional authority.

All the raw, unedited footage was placed before the Speaker within 24 hours of Parliament fracas. Not a single frame has been edited in any form.

The Speaker has subsequently ordered an inquiry, which media reports suggest, is to be completed by the 11th of August. We will fully co-operate with Parliamentary panel and provide them all information available with us.

At the same time, as we have informed the Speaker's office, we reserve the right to telecast the story as and when we believe we are in a position to do so.

As part of the process of due diligence, we also consulted several constitutional experts, including the country's former solicitor general and leading jurist Mr Harish Salve.

Mr Salve has strongly validated our editorial call in a written opinion. He writes, and I quote, "I have reviewed the tapes as also a transcript created from the tapes. I would not like to describe in detail what I have seen, since the matter is pending investigation, but in my considered view the investigation was incomplete and therefore airing the tapes at this stage would necessarily involve arriving at some 'inferences'. The investigation by the channel was not ready for telecast in the sense to be a cast iron story (which such stories should be), it did require some more enquiry into certain matters, which could have been done but was rendered impossible by the fact that on the afternoon of 22nd July itself, the three MPs raised this issue in parliament and then went on to make public the fact that this has been recorded by CNN IBN. Obviously, after this fact became publicly known, all sources of information dried up."

Mr Salve adds, "The question to be considered is should the channel air the tapes as they are, without suggesting inferences, so that the unnecessary gossip as to its contents (as well as the innuendo as to the motives in not telecasting the tapes) is quelled, or should the channel await the completion of the enquiry under way by the parliamentary panel set up the Hon'ble Speaker in response to a complaint received by him. In my view, the channel should await the results of the enquiry, atleast until a period of a fortnight or so is over... I believe that the Speaker has requested the panel to conclude its enquiry within a fortnight or so. If the report is received within the expected time, the matter would again be in the public domain and the channel can then review the situation and decide whether to telecast the tapes."

We would like to reiterate that at CNN-IBN we remain committed to quality and independent journalism. Our commitment is to the truth.

Truth that cannot be partial, inconclusive or sensational, but one that must adhere to exacting standards of fairness and accuracy.

July 31, 2008
CNN-IBN

Letter from BJP Ministers to Speaker
New Delhi
27th July 2008

To

The Honourable Speaker
Lok Sabha
New Delhi

Subject: Complaint against Shri Reoti Raman Singh, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha); Shri Amar Singh, General Secretary of the Samajwadi Party; and Shri Ahmed Patel, Political Secretary to the Congress president for attempting to bribe three Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha) — Shri Ashok Argal (Morena, Madhya Pradesh), Shri Mahavir Baghora (Salumbar, Rajasthan) and Shri Faggan Singh Kulaste (Mandla, Madhya Pradesh) — in the ‘Cash-for-Votes’ scandal on July 22, 2008

Honourable Sir,

1: You may kindly recall that on July 22, 2008 we had personally met you in your chamber and recounted the scandalous manner in which we were sought to be bribed by leaders of the Congress and the Samajwadi Party to help the UPA Government by refraining from voting against the Confidence Motion. Pursuant to our oral complaint made in your chamber on 22 July, you had promised on the floor of the House to order investigation and to take appropriate action against all those responsible. In response to your letter dated 23 July 2008 received late night, we are hereby giving a written complaint.

The detailed facts are as follows:

2: The UPA Government lost its majority on 9 July 2008 when the Left parties withdrew support to it. This led to Respected Rashtrapatiji asking the Prime Minister to seek the trust of the House in a special session of the Lok Sabha on 21-22 July.

Even though the Samajwadi Party had pledged its support to the UPA Government on 9 July, it was obvious from the numerical representation of various parties in the House that the UPA Government was in no position to prove its majority without engineering defections from the non-UPA ranks. Leaders of the Congress and the Samajwadi Party started boasting about large-scale defections from non-UPA parties. Some sections of the media even published names of non-UPA MPs who were going to either vote for the Government or abstain from voting. On 14 July, Shri A.B. Bardhan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India alleged at a public rally in New Delhi that the Congress-led UPA was indulging in horse-trading and mentioned an ongoing rate of Rs 25 crore per MP. The entire nation was shocked to hear this.

On 20 July Shri Amar Singh announced at a press conference in New Delhi that BJP MP, Shri Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, would support the Government in the trust vote. With Shri Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh by his side at the widely covered press conference, Shri Amar Singh also claimed that more non-UPA MPs would defect soon. "We have opened our first card,” he stated. “When we open our other cards on 22 July, many will be taken aback."

3: Apart from MPs from other non-UPA parties and independent MPs, our names also were being mentioned in the list of “soft targets” and that we were vulnerable. Many power-brokers through their intermediaries contacted us but we did not take their approaches seriously. When we were approached directly, we decided to expose the masterminds of the cash-for-votes racket.

4: We contacted CNN-IBN news channel, which deputed its correspondent Shri Siddharth Gautam to record the whistle-blowing operation and to expose the UPA’s unethical plot to convert its minority Government into majority Government by stooping to any levels.

5: In the first instance, on July 21, one of the intermediaries took us to Meridian Hotel where he said a senior Congress leader would meet us and give us money for abstaining in the trust vote. This meeting, however, did not materialize.

6: Late in the evening on July 21, we received a message from Shri Reoti Raman Singh, a senior leader of the Samajwadi Party and its MP, that he would meet us at the residence of Shri Ashok Argal at 4 Ferozshah Road. He came after midnight. He promised us that our interests would be taken care of and that we should accompany him to meet Shri Amar Singh. He further maintained that we should have a face to face meeting with Shri Amar Singh and that all issues including the amount payable to us would be settled by him. The entire meeting and conversation was recorded by the CNN-IBN team, which had bugged the room with hidden cameras.

7: The next morning, on July 22, two of us — namely, Shri Ashok Argal and Shri Fagan Singh Kulaste — were taken for the meeting with Shri Amar Singh at his residence at 27 Lodhi Estate, New Delhi. We went in car no. DL-7S-1882, a white Maruti Zen. Our car was followed by CNN-IBN’s car with Shri Sidharth Gautam. Our visit to Shri Amar Singh’s house and back was video recorded by the CNN-IBN reporter.

8: We met Shri Amar Singh at his residence. He boasted that although he had already “managed” the requisite number, still since Shri Reoti Raman Singh had met us and arranged the meeting, he would pay Rs. 3 crore each for abstaining from voting on July 22. We mentioned that we have one more MP willing to abstain. He agreed to pay the same amount to the third MP. Thereafter, he spoke to Shri Ahmed Patel on phone and said, “I have three more Kamals (Lotuses) here.” He also made us speak to Shri Ahmed Patel, who gave his consent to the arrangement.

Shri Amar Singh offered to pay us an initial token amount of Rs. one crore and asked us to carry it with us. We declined, saying it was unsafe with journalists standing outside his house. Shri Amar Singh promised to send the amount with his assistant, Shri Sanjeev Saxena, within 15 minutes.

9: As per Shri Amar Singh’s promise, his assistant, who indeed identified himself as Shri Sanjeev Saxena, arrived at 4 Ferozshah Road soon after our reaching there. He and his colleague came in a white Gypsy car no. DL-2C-S-8562, which was noted down by our staff. He was led into the same drawing room, which had already been bugged with hidden cameras. Shri Saxena and one more person accompanying him had carried the money in a bag and emptied its contents on a table in front of the chairs on which we were sitting. The amount of Rs. 1 crore was in ten bundles of Rs. 10 lakhs each, most of it in currency notes of Rs. 1000.

10: Shri Saxena asked for the identification of the third MP, whom Shri Ashok Argal introduced as Shri Mahavir Baghora. Shri Saxena kept trying to connect Shri Amar Singh’s telephone number, which was repeatedly coming busy. Finally, he got all three of us to speak to Shri Amar Singh. After we three spoke to Shri Amar Singh, Shri Saxena gave the money to us on behalf of Shri Amar Singh. This money of Rs. one crore was the initial token amount and the balance of Rs. 8 crore was promised to be paid later. This entire episode was also recorded by the CNN-IBN team.

11: Besides Shri Sidharth Gautam, three more persons from the CNN-IBN team were present in Shri Argal’s house. Also present in the house was one of our Party colleagues.

12: After Shri Sanjeev Saxena’s departure, the CNN-IBN team rearranged the bundles on the table and captured on camera the serial numbers of the first and the last currency notes in each of the ten bundles.

13: Thereafter, Shri Siddharth Gautam conducted an elaborate interview with us in the same room, with the amount of Rs. 1 crore placed in front us on the table. The interview was recorded on a regular camera and included a full narration of the entire sequence of two days.

Shri Siddharth Gautam then recorded an introduction for a promo to the investigative report which, among other things, said, “For the first time in the history of Indian Parliament, the scandal of horse-trading has been captured on camera by the investigative team of CNN-IBN.”

14: The CNN-IBN team completed their recordings, removed their bugging equipment from the room and left the house of Shri Ashok Argal at around noon on July 22. Before departing, the team assured us that the programme, along with the promo, would be telecast soon.

15: At around 4.30 pm, we walked up to the table of the Secretary General, in front of the Speaker’s Chair, took out the money from the bags and displayed it before all the Honourable Members as tell-tale proof of the “cash for votes” scandal. We also wanted to establish before Parliament and the nation the level to which the UPA had stooped to procure a majority which they did not have. In doing so, we were motivated by the desire to save democracy from pernicious influence of money power.

16: The House was adjourned and we were called to your Chamber. We narrated all the events to your Honourable Self in the presence of leaders of various political parties. The money given by Shri Amar Singh was deposited in your office against receipt.

17: In view of the gravity of the bribery scandal and blatant inducement to Members of Parliament to defy their party whips, illegally help the Government to cobble a majority, and thereby subvert Constitutional and parliamentary norms, we would request you to take prompt and the most stringent action against the wrong-doers to uphold the dignity of democracy.

18: This attempt to subvert the functioning of Parliament by inducements and bribery, especially in a session devoted to the confidence motion, besides being a matter of violation of ethics is also a breach of privilege. We reserve our right to initiate criminal law action in the matter.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

Ashok Argal
(Member of the Lok Sabha from Morena, Madhya Pradesh)

Mahavir Baghora
(Member of the Lok Sabha from Salumbar, Rajasthan)

Shri Faggan Singh Kulaste
(Member of the Lok Sabha from Mandla, Madhya Pradesh)


Video footage of ‘attempt to bribe MPs’ given to Speaker

The video footage of an alleged attempt to bribe three Bharatiya Janata Party MPs was given to Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee by television channel CNN IBN. However, sources in the Lok Sabha Secretariat said the MPs have yet to give a formal complaint to the Speaker, after which a decision could be taken on initiating an inquiry.

At the Speaker’s chamber where a meeting of some party leaders took place immediately after the House was adjourned following the display of cash, Leader of Opposition L.K. Advani was reportedly told by the Speaker that he disapproved of the manner in which the BJP had gone about dealing with the alleged bribe-giving episode.

On Tuesday night, the cash was put back in the two bags in which they were brought in. The bags were then sealed in the presence of the MPs and their signatures taken that they had “tabled” the cash. The bags were then kept in a safe deposit in the room of the Lok Sabha Secretary General and the safe was sealed at 10 p.m.

Reports suggest that the Lok Sabha Secretariat is seeking advice from the Law Ministry as to what has to be done with the cash pending inquiry.

It is learnt that head of CNN IBN Rajdeep Sardesai submitted the “tapes” to the Speaker around 5 p.m. on Wednesday evening along with a letter explaining the role of the channel in the so-called “sting” operation.

23 July, 2008
The Hindu

'A Tainted Victory'
What happened to the tape showing the cash for votes scandal? The TV news channel had announced at at around 4.30 pm on July 22, that it had handed over the tape to the Speaker. The tapes were finally delivered at 5:30 on July 23. Why?

L K Advani


Slightly over two decades ago, a stinking corruption scandal at the highest level of the government, first unearthed by the foreign media and subsequently investigated by several courageous journalists in the Indian media, changed the political landscape in the country. Such was the public outrage created by the revelations of huge kickbacks in the purchase of Bofors guns from Sweden that the late Shri Rajiv Gandhi, who had won a four-fifth majority for the Congress party in the Lok Sabha in 1984, was swept out of power in the parliamentary elections in 1989.

The country witnessed an even more shocking bribery scandal yesterday when the Congress-led UPA government secured a completely illegitimate victory in the trust vote by manufacturing a slender majority in the House. Three BJP MPs -- Shri Ashok Argal and Shri Faggan Singh Kulaste from Madhya Pradesh and Shri Mahavir Baghora from Rajasthan -- exposed, with tell-tale evidence, of how top leaders of the Congress and Samajwadi Party conspired together to secure cross-voting and abstention of non-UPA MPs by paying them crores of rupees.

A close look at the final tally in the House shows that the government would have certainly lost the confidence motion in the absence of cross-voting and abstentions by MPs belonging to several non-UPA parties.

So shameless were activities and public pronouncements of the top functionaries of the two parties in the run-up to the trust vote that the entire country started suspecting that the government was up to some mischief. Indeed, in my speech in Parliament on 21 July, I had specifically referred to the corrupt means being employed by the government which, in the name of promising nuclear power, was resorting to "horse power" to save itself. Honourable Members from several other opposition parties also accused the government of indulging in the worst kind of horse-trading to convert its minority into majority.

The Prime Minister had asked in a tone of injured innocence: "Where is the proof?" After the incontrovertible proof that our three MPs produced in front of the Speaker, the Prime Minister has no moral right to continue in office. His is a tainted victory. After having devalued the office of the Prime Minister by allowing the misuse of several democratic institutions for highly questionable ends -- which includes misuse of the CBI and the Law Ministry in the Bofors case -- Dr. Manmohan Singh now stands exposed as one who blessed the desecration of the Temple of Democracy.

I am deeply saddened by the fact that several of our own MPs became a party to the murder of democracy. The BJP has decided to expel them with immediate effect.

The BJP profusely congratulates our brave three MPs who not only resisted the temptation of crores of rupees offered by the Congress-SP combine to abstain from the vote, but chose to expose this scandal in an effective manner.

I would also like to congratulate several other MPs, belonging to both the BJP and other political parties, for defying the threats, blackmailing tactics and allurements coming from persons in very high quarters in the government and the Congress-SP combine. They have stood by the high standards of parliamentary behavior expected from every political party.

The cash-for-votes scandal has raised serious questions about the journalistic ethic followed by the TV news channel which recorded it. The right thing for the channel to have done is to show it and let the people draw their own conclusion. Indeed, at the meeting of party leaders at the Speaker’s Chamber yesterday, several opposition leaders, including Shri Vijay Kumar Malhotra of the BJP, had demanded that the tape be shown to all MPs before the trust vote was taken.

After listening to the account given by our three MPs, the BJP is left with no doubt that, had the channel broadcast the tape, the government would have been in the dock before the trust vote was taken.

Soon after our three MPs exposed the scandal inside the House, the TV channel had announced, at around 4.30 pm yesterday, that it had handed over the tape to the Speaker. We have now come to know that the tape had not been delivered to the Speaker’s office till 1.00 pm today. This raises great apprehensions in everyone’s mind about the possibility of doctoring of the tape.

The BJP demands that the Speaker immediately convene a meeting of the leaders of all parties, show the tape to them, and institute a time-bound inquiry. The outcome of this inquiry must be made known before Parliament convenes for the Monsoon Session in August.

The BJP has decided to launch a nationwide campaign to make the people aware of the illegitimacy of the UPA government and its unsuitability to continue in office after exposure of the cash-for-votes scandal. The campaign, which will begin from Sunday (27 July), will also highlight the UPA government’s saga of failures and betrayals -- above all, its failure to control skyrocketing prices of essential commodities, to ameliorate the plight of farmers, and to effectively fight the menace of terrorism.

Update:

CNN-IBN responds that the tapes were delivered to the Speaker's office at 5.30 in the evening of July 23. Why this delay in the simple matter of handing over the tapes to the Speaker's office? The channel-head maintains, "We were waiting for the Constitutional authority to approach us so that the tapes could be handed over to them. We finally handed over the tapes to the Speaker's office at 5:30 pm."

In an earlier statement, CNN-IBN had said: "While trying to investigate deeper into this trail, we realized that the issue needed further probing and we could not at this stage telecast it without further verification. We are also aware that as the matter involves 'honorable members of Parliament' and involves a question of parliamentary privileges, the media needs to be extra cautious before airing or telecasting any such news."

As per the version by the BJP MPs, the alleged bribe was reported to have been offered by Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh in collusion with Congress President Sonia Gandhi's political secretary, Ahmed Patel. Both these gentlemen have denied the allegations.

The statement issued by CNN-IBN7 had gone on to say, "We are also aware that as the matter involves honourable members of Parliament and involves a question of parliamentary privileges, the media needs to be extra cautious before airing or telecasting any such news".

Meanwhile, a media-watch website, the Hoot has offered Two theories under their media-watch briefs section:

Why did CNN IBN not telecast the footage of the cash for vote sting, which it is supposed to have possession of? Two theories are doing the rounds. One, that there was no conclusive evidence in it and the material was not good enough to use, and two, that Anil Ambani whose Reliance Capital has a financial stake in Network 18 leaned on owner Raghav Bahl not to use the footage meant to discredit Amar Singh.

The same website also carries a few pointed questions by media commentator S.R. Ramanujan:

* Is it the job of a TV channel to provide proof to any Constitutional authority, in this case the Speaker, before it could telecast the news to its viewers?
* Does this not give handle to critics to allege that the channel was silenced? In fact, in a panel discussion in another channel, this was hinted.
* It is possible that the channel might have felt that it was taken for a ride by unscrupulous politicians and thus the whole episode was quite fishy. So, it was not fair to telecast the tape since the channel itself was not convinced about the authenticity of the whole operation. In such a case there was no need for the channel to hand over the tape to the Speaker.

Protecting editors

Mr Akbar and Mr Kalbag did not formally represent their cases as perceived by
them. Nor did the respective managements offer any explanation to the readers
for the sudden editorial changes at the top. B G VERGHESE’s report for the
Editors Guild


The Role and Status of the Editor

A meeting of The Editors Guild of India was held in Delhi on May 12, 2008
following the summary removal of Mr M.J.Akbar as Editor of The Asian Age. Prior
to that Mr Chaitanya Kalbag, Editor-in-Chief of the Hindustan Times had found
his services abruptly terminated.

As an association of print and broadcast editors, Members of the Guild were
understandably concerned at these developments and felt that the matter merited
further study and deliberation. To this end it was decided to set up a committee
consisting of B.G. Verghese, Kuldip Nayyar and Pran Chopra to report on the
status, role and responsibility of the Editor.

In order to elicit a wider and more considered range of views and experiences, a
brief questionnaire was sent out by me on behalf of the Committee. This sought
responses on the following matters:

1. What is the role and responsibility of the Editor in relation to (i) the
proprietor; (ii) his/her colleagues and staff as a whole; (iii)
readers/viewers/listeners and society generally; and (iv) the law and the
Constitution.

2. Should he/she have any contractual security/guarantees.

3. Do the organisation and structure of media houses /Boards of Directors offer
the Editor any protection? If not, can this be introduced in any manner without
fettering legitimate proprietorial rights?

4. What is your experience regarding these matters?

5. Are there any other issues or aspects that should be considered?

Mr Nayyar and Mr Chopra were requested to add to these queries to elicit
additional information and views. They did not do so. Thereafter, since neither
was available despite several reminders, possibly for good reasons, I had no
option but to proceed on my own.

Sunita Narain forwarded me correspondence addressed to the Guild by Prof. Dinesh
Mohan of IIT, Delhi regarding reportage on the Delhi Bus Rapid Transit System
experiment. The grievance here was unbalanced reporting without reference to
experts who had been strongly criticized and the lack of redress. The complaint
does not seem to be without merit.

Separately, reference was made to the removal of a broadcast editor but no
material was forwarded.

A newspaper, journal or news channel is a complex organisation with both
editorial and managerial functions and responsibilities. While the editorial
function is at the heart of any news organization, it requires management
support in varying degrees in relation to finance and revenues, advertising,
circulation/transmission, personnel, stores and accounting. In earlier parlance
this marked the division between the Publisher (the owner or prime funder) and
the Editor. Very often the role of publisher and editor were combined, and
remains so today in the case of some small or family-owned establishments. But
with the growth of news organisations from being a family business or mission to
becoming an industry, a separation of functions and powers has become
increasingly necessary, though at the end of the day it is the publisher who is
supreme.

However, news organizations derive their mission and mandate from the right to
freedom of expression, which is most often constitutionally guaranteed though it
is essentially an inalienable and precedent universal human right. Governments
may at best regulate but do not bestow freedom of expression. In a news
collective, print or broadcast, the publisher may exercise the right to publish
or broadcast words or images, but the professional custodian of that right or
freedom is the Editor who exercises the responsibility to gather, select, edit
and publish/broadcast “all the news that’s fit to print”.

This responsibility is reflected in the imprint line of newspapers and carries
with it a legal responsibility for everything that appears, including
advertisements and pictures. In any modern news organisation imbued with the
technological capability instantly to reach audiences anywhere, such
responsibility has increasingly and necessarily to be delegated under the
Editor’s overall oversight. All newspersons are, each in their own way,
editors, gatekeepers, reporters. They report to their departmental heads who
report to the Editor, with whom the buck stops. He/she is the collective
conscience of the media organization. The Editor is appointed by the Publisher
and is accountable to him/her but the relationship, apart from contractual and
legal obligations, is one that is expected to be governed by principles of
mutual respect and trust, natural justice and fair play.

The Editor should in turn recognize and respect the legitimate rights and
interests of the management and the editorial staff. He/she should regard
himself/herself as being first among equals, avoid being overbearing and be open
to discussion and persuasion while reserving the last word in the interests of
overall discipline.

Readers, listeners and viewers have a right to objective, fair and balanced
presentation, reflecting all legitimate points of view and the right to
correction and reply without delay. At the end of the day it is the media’s
credibility (integrity) and moral standing that is its shield and anchor. There
is a legal obligation to keep within the ambit of “reasonable restrictions”
prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Arbitrary restraints are
subject to appeal.

The Press Council has built up a code of conduct which has been codified and
published from time to time. This is a useful guide. Unfortunately, the
broadcast media is as yet without a regulatory mechanism and has not as yet come
up with an accepted code of conduct. Some media organisations have fashioned
their own internal codes of conduct and have established internal ombudsmen. The
Hindu has a Reader’s Editor who assumes that function and critically reviews
errors and omissions that are regularly published. The Indian Express has
recently started a “Corrections” column that takes note of readers’
comments. But the major channel of communication and feedback is the traditional
Letters/Reader’s Views column. Broadcast organizations have no corresponding
slot and would do well to consider providing time for listeners’/viewers’
comments on a regular basis.

Do or should Editors have contractual guarantees for security of tenure? It is
difficult to see what these might be and how effective they might prove. Some
journalists have qualms about contracts and take comfort in wage board
protections. On the whole, these make for lazy journalism and weaken the
position of the Editor to reward or punish as the case may be. The principle of
hire and fire has its negative aspects but total security breeds indolence and
evasion of responsibility.

Part of the weakness and vulnerability of news organisations is that Boards of
Management give exclusive or excessive weightage to family/proprietorial
interests. The appointment of men and women of standing as public interest
directors would introduce a level of participation that would normally be
expected to prevent narrowly partisan policies, excessive bias and unfair
practices. These Directors would be custodians of the public interest as opposed
to purely family/corporate welfare, if and when these collide. Trusts are a
different proposition Few exist and while the Tribune Trust, for instance, is a
model, the Statesman’s experiment in the 1960s with twin boards of management
and editorial trustees proved abortive.

The real problem lies in the steady growth of market driven media, all fiercely
competitive and anxious to grab readers or eyeballs. With honourable exceptions,
this has sometimes led to a spiralling down of standards and values, catering to
the lowest common factor with a fare of sensation and infotaianment. The reach
of the media has enhanced its power and political clout, with mass viewerships
and circulations bringing in huge income flows. The change over from mission to
market has also impacted on the relationship between Proprietor/Manager and
Editor, the latter often being content to assume second place. Horizontal
expansion, with multiple editions and channels in multiple languages,
multi-media conglomerates, local/district editions and multiple sections with
different editors has resulted in dilution of top editorial control. Managers
and “Response” Departments have cosied up to business houses and brands.
Advertising- for-equity bargains have been reported as well as the sale of
editorial space and sponsoring of supplements. At the other end of the scale,
reporters and, particularly, stringers have sprouted and have been known to use
their media calling cards as negotiable instruments to build or mar reputations,
facilitate or obstruct business transactions and clearances or act as piece-work
lobbyists. Such elements have little contact with Editors and operate under
another chain of command.

Some well known media organizations have no Editor but only page or section
editors. In other cases, Editors appear to have abdicated their authority,
spending more time outside their offices during critical hours, attending
seminars, appearing on channels or writing columns, delivering lectures,
appearing in the company of the big and the beautiful, acting as brand managers.
This appreciation is perhaps exaggerated but is sufficiently true to be cause
for anxiety.

The decline of the Editor is by no means universal. There are excellent Editors
and very good deputies. But a few rotten apples tend to affect the quality of
the basket. Many have allowed themselves to be trampled over.

Mr Akbar and Mr Kalbag did not formally represent their cases as perceived by
them. Nor did the respective managements vouchsafe any explanation to the
readers for the sudden editorial changes at the top. There was, moreover, little
internal or public protest or sense of media outrage. Maybe this signals the
need to introspect on the role and responsibility of the Editor in the wider
context of public concern over what is happening to media values and standards
in the country as a whole.

The Guild should consider preparing a Code for Editors as a guide for the
future. Some elements of that might be found in this note. But a wider
discussion could help fashion a Code for general discussion and adoption. This
is best produced by some of the Guild’s currently working Editors.

B.G. Verghese

The Editor’s Guild

July 23, 2008
The Hoot