‘Democracy and the press’ is a subject which requires to be fully defined and clarified. It is not possible to define anything in fullest detail. It would not be even correct to do. so. But the main principles can always be agreed to by all who believe in democracy. Democracy, if it is to go on working vigorously and is to make people fearless so that they can defend and preserve it, rests on four pillars; the Parliament or the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Press. These are the four pillars on which this mansion stands and if any one pillar gets weakened, the mansion will collapse. All the four must, therefore, be independent and strong and free. Unless they are free, democracy cannot be strong. But all freedoms, ultimately, are relative. These freedoms, even the freedom of these four pillars, are subordinate to the freedom of society or the people, and unless they guard the freedom of the people and enable the people to get the necessary strength to guard that freedom, these four freedoms will not be doing their proper function.
Parliament, of course, is supreme within the Constitution. It is the people who are supreme. If a country has no written Constitution, like England, Parliament would have the first and the last voice in everything. But such a situation is peculiar to England. Everywhere else, the Constitutions are written and properly defined. The people, therefore, are the final authority in everything. But people as a whole cannot exercise authority by themselves. Therefore, they choose their representatives who work on their behalf and carry on the Government. Parliament, therefore, becomes supreme. But it is supreme within its functions under the Constitution. In a democracy, a Parliament which is elected democratically, can have no authority to change the Constitution in an undemocratic manner or to turn it into a dictatorship. That authority Parliament cannot have. It can function within the Constitution which has been laid down by the people. And the authority which carries on the Government on behalf of the Parliament, the majority party which forms the executive of the Government is free to do what it should do under the Constitution. But it cannot work against the Constitution.
When both these have to work under the Constitution, who is to decide finally whether it is constitutionally right or wrong? That cannot be done by themselves. Therefore, an independent judiciary becomes vital to the maintenance of the people’s rights and the Constitution. Whatever laws are to be propounded or are enacted by Parliament at the instance of the Executive, whether those laws are within the Constitution or not and whether the actions under those laws are proper or not, can only be decided by an independent body, which is the judiciary. The judiciary’s independence, must, therefore, be safeguarded and within its jurisdiction it is supreme. The final word about the legality or constitutionality of anything can be only with the judiciary, with the Supreme Court.
The Press becomes vital for all the three; more for the people, because it is necessary that the people should keep informed of what is happening. Public opinion will be very difficult to cultivate or to assert itself unless issues are put before the people. That can be done more effectively by the Press than by anybody else. The Press, therefore, is doing the work both of reflecting the public opinion and also keeping public opinion healthy, which is very vital.
It also does the task of giving strength to the people and to Parliament, to the Executive, to the Judiciary, in whatever they are doing. It is also its function to bring to the notice of all concerned what is wrong and what is likely to hurt the freedom of the people, their rights and their welfare. Therefore, the independence of the Press is vital. If this is not preserved, democracy will go overboard. But the question is, who is to preserve this independence. Independence can be claimed and should be guaranteed, but who can guarantee that there will be no dictatorship in the country which will throw overboard all the freedoms of all except the dictator? That can be guaranteed only by the people, by their strength, by their conscious support of democracy and opposition of all that is undemocratic. But who has to do this on behalf of the people? That can be done only by the Press. The Press, therefore, reflects public opinion and also brings to the peoples’ notice what is going to hurt them and what is going to harm democracy. But in order to do this, the Press also has got to be truthful and it has got to do its duty objectively and not out of prejudice.
The Press is called the fourth estate. But let us not forget the three other estates. But sometimes the Press thinks it is the only estate. That is also a danger against which one has to guard, but only the Press can do so. It is not the Government’s function to put any of the other pillars right. If Government tries to do it, it will then become dictatorial.
Therefore, the Government must not touch the Press in any way. Even if the Press goes wrong, the Government should not touch it. I would not do anything to control the Press myself. I would leave it to the people to control it and to set it right. It is public opinion which will also put the newspapers in their place because if the circulation disappears, no Press will work. That is the best antidote. The sense of right has got to be cultivated by the Press, just as I have got to constantly watch myself if I am doing right. The Press also has to see that it functions properly and maintains its independence.
On this matter there should be complete unity amongst all those who work in the Press, but there is a lack of it. Politics come in there also. The Press must be completely objective. Of course, everybody is bound to have his own political views or economic views or other views, but if we are in a democracy, we must have equal respect for others’ views too as long as those views do not harm freedom of opinion and expression. Therefore, this objectivity is more vital for the Press than anybody else, as it is vital for judiciary. In this matter, both have to be completely objective. And if Government is to be objective, as it should be, really speaking, and it is in a great danger of not being objective on account of the power that it wields, it is the Judiciary, the Parliament and the Press which can keep the Executive in proper trim and shape.
Criticism, of course, is the right of everybody, not only of the Press. Democracy means the right of dissent. This is inherent in every person, but criticism to be effective or useful must be objective and based on facts and not on prejudice. When it is based on prejudice, it does not do any good, it does harm to the person who criticises rather than the person who is criticised because it reacts and recoils, but many a time such things get forgotten and we have to remind each other of this.
I have no doubt in my mind that all these four pillars have got to strengthen each other. Therefore, each one, each pillar must zealously guard the freedom of the other three pillars and their strength, because if one pillar gets weakened, all the other pillars will also get weakened. Therefore, there is no question of there being any contradiction among these. There is a relation of harmony between all of them and identity of interest which is the interest of the people. The interest of the people justifies the existence of all these four, otherwise there is no justification for anyone of them. If each person behaves properly, no Government is necessary, as none of these will come into force. But that is the ideal State which I don’t think will ever come into existence. Therefore, all these things are necessary.
The Press was free in this country, but its corrosion began six years ago. But the Press was also responsible for it. If Press people are tempted into doing wrong things, either by favours or by money or by the bottle, who can help their independence? This also has to be guarded by the Press. I can only point it out, but I cannot find the remedy. And therefore, the unity of the Press is vital in fundamental matters relating to the Press and to the people. Of course, they are bound to differ in their opinions. That is basic to democracy. It is only two idiots who can agree on everything. But people of intelligence cannot agree on every matter. There is bound to be a difference of opinion. But it is the function of wisdom to show that when we work together, we coordinate our differences and act in the best interest of all concerned and agree to do so. This is what is assumed in democracy. And this is also what requires to be propagated by the Press. Once I had long discussion with an Editor. When he asked me what he should do, I said it was not up to me to tell him what he should do. When he persisted, I said, “What you have got to do is to be honest in what you do and honest in seeing that democracy is preserved and strengthened and everything that requires to be done should be done. That is all that I can say. I cannot say: Do this or that. It is not for me to give you a view. Views are bound to differ and you have naturally your own views.”
But when people criticise the Government, it is their right to do so, even if they may be wrong. After all, freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes. Of course, freedom will be lost if one does not recognise mistakes. One must try to see them and correct them and not persist in mistakes. Otherwise freedom itself gets into danger. But that also has to be done by the people concerned. It is not for another agency to put right the other agency.
Therefore, the Press has to criticise not only the Government but also the people when they go wrong and also itself more than anybody else. Unless the Press cultivates the capacity of pointing out its own defects, I do not think it will qualify itself to be effective.
How it is to be done also is not my function. That is for you to devise. If I begin to tell you about that, it also will mean guidance and direction. I do not want to get into that field. Yes, if you privately discuss this matter with me, I can discuss it with you as a citizen. That is a different matter. But as Government, I have no business to tell you what you should do and what you should not do, except the general principles.
It is, for this reason, that we have said that the news agency, the Samachar, should revert to the old status quo position, when four agencies were functioning. We received all kinds of contradictory recommendations in this matter. Some thought that we were also yielding to political pressure. We are not yielding to any political pressure. At least I refuse to yield to any pressure whatsoever, whether it is from you or anybody. One should not yield to any pressure, that is what I would certainly beg of you. One should not yield to any pressure unless one wants to give up one’s freedom and independence of judgement. But we have no other way, we want to restore the freedom of the news agencies and there should be competition. There should not be one agency at all. There ought to be competition and, therefore, there were four agencies and we shall restore them. They should function properly and with equal strength. That is what we should like to see. There Government can help, but Government cannot direct them, nor can it do anything else in this matter except assisting them in what assistance they may want.
The same is the case of the Press Council. The Press, to regulate itself, requires a Press Council. But, if the Government takes this up, then it will be the Government which will regulate, and not the Press. It is, therefore, that Government should not have anything to do with the Press Council, i.e. informing it or in running it. I, therefore, said the Press Council also has to be chosen by the Press itself and not by Government.
Even in the matter of finances (of news agencies), if the Government has to give finances to them, then the freedom will be curtailed. It is, therefore, that I said in my discussions with some of them: “I am prepared to collect it for you and hand it over to you. You can tell me that you charge so much for the newsprint and I will hand it over to you and it should be distributed equally among the four and according to justice or equity, in an equitable manner so that the news agencies also will be free of the control of the more powerful among the Press. This also can be done, but that also has got to be suggested. I would not want to do anything unless it is wanted to be done by Government or by you.”
There are several things in the matter of the Press which require to be carefully considered, as I said, and I hope you will consider them thoroughly and fully.
IPI has done considerable work and has been doing very important work. I am, therefore, happy that they are holding this conference. Yes, in the Emergency also they had done very valuable work, but whatever work is done from outside will not be effective as long as internally the work is not done. And it is here the strength has to be cultivated. There it can be helped in acquiring the strength and maintaining it. But until strength is cultivated by the Press in India itself, I am afraid no amount of help given by anybody is going to be helpful. In that process whatever help is required, Government will always give, if it can be properly given. But we want to see that Press is not interfered with in future by any Government and if it is humanly possible to make any provision like that, we would like to do so. If any suggestions are forthcoming, we shall carefully consider them.
I, therefore, attach very great importance to your deliberations and I read in the Press today that someone in Bombay said we must have the right to criticise the Government. Who denies this? I don’t know. Does it require to be talked about? Unless I am prepared to criticise myself, my criticism of other people will not be as correct. And I find sometimes, the Press becomes very impatient if somebody criticises them. Now, is this fair? It must be two-sided traffic. It cannot be one-sided.
This also requires to be considered. Of course, Government does not criticise anybody. I won’t criticise anybody, as Government. But privately, if we discuss something, I have every right to give my opinion as to what I think, what is being done, when you ask for it. Uncalled for, Government should not do anything. Whatever happens in the Press, I am not going to say whether it is right or wrong. That is the guarantee which Government can give to the Press. But the independence of the Press will really be maintained only by the Press itself and by those who are engaged in that task and they also must see that irrespective of political views in matters of principles, in matters of freedom, in matters of independence, they are united and not divided. The possessive spirit is not good in any way. The possession of even an institution is not good in my view. That spirit also harms and it is that which creates divisions and differences.
I cannot say that the Press is free from the weaknesses of human nature because newspaper people are also human. But the weaknesses are only there to be removed. Therefore, we need not be worried about weaknesses unless one gets indifferent to weaknesses and does not want to remove them.
I thank you very much for inviting me on this occasion when you are having important deliberations and enabling me to give you my views.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.