Rahul Singh, a former editor of “The Reader’s Digest” and “The Indian Express,” had quite recently pointed out in one of his articles that in India, “bribing, or influencing, journalists by business houses or by the government is nothing new. Indian chief ministers have ‘discretionary quotas’ of plots of land - sold at much below the market rate - which they hand out liberally to their favourites, or those they want to influence, which includes judges and journalists.”
In his December 21, 2010 article “Assessing India’s fourth estate,” Rahul Singh had written: “I shall start on a personal note, since it is relevant to this column. The incident took place 30 years ago. I had just been appointed by Ramnath Goenka, the doughty owner of the Indian Express, as editor of the Bombay edition of his paper. Mygeneral manager wanted me to pay a courtesy call on Dhirubhai Ambani, whose office was close by. I naturally agreed. Dhirubhai’s two sons, Mukesh and Anil, are now familiar names in India and abroad, with huge business empires. They figure among the wealthiest individuals in the world.”The distinguished Indian editor had gone on to write: “At that time, however, Dhirubhai was the Indian entrepreneur everybody was talking about. A rags-to-riches story (he had started as a simple textile salesman) he had realized that the only way to prosper in India then was to exploit the corrupt ‘licence-permit-Raj’ that had prevailed.Which meant bribing government officials and politicians, even senior journalists! After the usual pleasantries, Dhirubhai asked me, “Do you have any Reliance (the name of his company) shares?” Being relativelyinnocent of the stock market, I was a little taken aback but had the presence of mind to answer ‘no’. He immediately summoned his personal assistant and ordered him to arrange for me to be issued some“directors’ quota shares.”Rahul Singh further stated: “Though as I said I knew little about stocks and shares, I knew enough to recognize that this was nothing less than an outright bribe: The “directors’ quota shares” were Rs10 a share, whereas in the market they were quoted at over 10 times that amount. If I had taken them and sold them the next day, I could have made a sizeable profit. As soon as I left Dhirubhai’s office, I typed out a letter to him, thanking him for his offer, but declining it. I still have a copy of that letter.”Editor Rahul Singh had further stated in the same article: “A far more senior journalist, the editor-in-chief of India’s most powerful newspaper, the Times of India, no less, sadly succumbed to Dhirubhai’s enticement (the wily businessman even arranged for a bank loan to pay for the editor’s shares, since the editor did not have that kind ofmoney).
“Another newspaper exposed this much later and the shamefaced editor, his reputation in tatters, returned the shares.” Views similar to those expressed by Editor Rahul Singh above were published by a leading Indian weekly “India Today” in its November 21, 2010 edition. “India Today,” which today has a circulation of over 1.1 million copies with a readership of over 5.62 million, had written: “Governments trying to bribe journalists seems to be a fairly common phenomenon across Indian states. And it is not even new. In Rajasthan, where it has traditionally been a two-way street, governments often come forward to offer favours even while some media persons approach the authorities, mainly chief ministers, seeking favours.”
The magazine had gone on to write, “During the 1950s and 1960s, when even cars had a long waiting list, state governments kept a discretionary quota with them. Many of those whom the governments obliged were journalists. But then, the saving grace was that the car would not come free - the journalists had to pay for them. The onlyadvantage they had was that they got to jump the queue. But in a period when journalism was a poorly paid profession, media professionals could not even think of buying a car. So, even the discretionary quota was of little use.” It had stated: “Later, cars made way for flats in government colonies. Apart from secure housing, these colonies had groceries and other facilities at subsidised rates. This was challenged all the way to the high court, but the decision was never reversed. Many journalists in Rajasthan were also allotted agricultural land in prime locations. It is not too different in Uttar Pradesh where bungalows and government colonies of the Rajya Sampatti Vibhag (Estate Department) are allotted to “senior” and “accredited” journalists at rents ranging from Rs105 to Rs1,000 a month.”“India Today” further reported: “In 1994, the then chief minister of UP, Mulayam Singh Yadav, obliged nearly two dozen journalists by donating lakhs to their start-up fund to help them launch newspapers or printing presses. This was exposed by his successor Mayawati. A senior office bearer of the Uttar Pradesh Accredited CorrespondentsCommittee was sanctioned lakhs of rupees to start a newspaper by Mulayam, she said in her report. The report also mentioned how a senior correspondent of a regional Hindi news channel was given more than Rs5 lakh to build a school in the Deoria district. Another senior journalist was involved in a land grab and housing scam in the plush Gomtinagar locality of Lucknow five years ago. He was given one plot of land by the Mulayam government, but it was later found that the journalist, along with several others, had grabbed plots in the name of their wives, children and relatives. Some even managed to get up to four properties.”It added: “In addition, accredited journalists in UP get perks such as free travel in state transport buses, 50 per cent discount in railway tickets, accommodation at government guest houses and press clubs across the country at concessional rates, free medical aid, free-to- vacate Estate Department property (a bungalow or a house), etc. In Madhya Pradesh, several journalists accepted bribes to refrain from any sort of negative reporting against the state government. The give-and-take relationship between journalists and politicians in Madhya Pradesh began under the chief ministership of Shyama Charan Shukla who began giving two-wheelers to journalists who used to ride a bicycle.”The report continued: “His successors Arjun Singh, Motilal Vora, Sunderlal Patwa, Digvijay Singh, Uma Bharti and the present chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan have all used their discretionary powers to benefit journalists and media barons who were give prime land at dirt cheap rates. Media house owners also got government adverts, subsidised electricity and prime commercial land to set up their offices. At present, more than 200 journalists occupy these government houses.”It concluded saying: “In Himachal Pradesh, journalists “close” to the government are given a number of facilities like free travel in all state transport buses, concessional stay in state owned hotels, a 25 per cent discount in restaurants and Type IV houses, which is equivalent to those given to secretaries and senior IAS officers. Freevehicles are also handed out as and when they are requested for.”An AFP report of December 2, 2010, had also mentioned of a scandal involving high-profile Indian journalists and telephone taps that had given India “its own WikiLeaks-style controversy.” The AFP had reported: “At the centre of the storm is India’s best-known television journalist, Barkha Dutt, who is accused of acting as a power broker in negotiations involving big business and the government over allocation of cabinet seats. Tapes recorded by thepolice have emerged as part of a major row over the cut-rate sale of mobile phone licences in 2007-2008 which is estimated to have cost the treasury as much as 40 billion dollars in lost revenues.”The report stated:” Transcripts of the 104 tapes, many of which have been printed by two news magazines, have brought question marks over the reputations of Barkha Dutt, veteran newspaper columnist Vir Sanghvi and other big media names. The tapes are a treasure trove for close followers of New Delhi’s interwoven media, business and political scenes. A number of them, which record the conversations of about 30 journalists, date back to 2009 when the re-elected Congress party was patching together its current coalition government. Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi are heard in separate conversations discussing who should be in the cabinet with influential lobbyist Niira Radia, who was pushing for A Raja, a south Indian regional politician, to bereinstated as a minister.”
No comments:
Post a Comment