The end of the original “Delhi Diary”

This blogger feared the worst when Vinod Mehta didn’t post another column after the 8th of Dec 2014 on Outlook, the legendary “Delhi Diary”. On the same page dated 23rd Feb it was Krishna Prasad, Outlook’s Editor-in-Chief, who wrote and it was a sign of what to expect. Vinod Mehta wasn’t going to be around anymore.

Yesterday he passed away leaving behind his wife and their pet canine companion the humorously named “Editor”, who for years was written about on the column. The obits since then in various media outlets have all unanimously praised Vinod Mehta. Even the PM had put out a condolence message on Twitter, despite the Editor not being one of those cheerleaders of the current establishment, nor the previous.

Vinod Mehta was one of those rare editors who didn’t start their careers as beat-reporters in journalism. Right from his first job he’s been an editor all the way from Debonair to Outlook. Until Outlook he was known for being inventive but not for being commercially successful.

I first found an issue of Outlook in 1995 in my friend’s house. His bank manager Dad, a voracious reader, was a subscriber of the magazine. I instantly took liking to it’s style and anti-establishment stance. Over the years that has evolved into being a fan of the magazine’s Editor-in-Chief, who also wrote regularly the column titled “Delhi Diary” and many a times those 800 words about a pressing subject of that time.

Outlook was also where I discovered Arundhati Roy and Ramachandra Guha. The former always got all the space her beautiful prose in the long form needed. From the latter’s articles I also spilled over to reading his books, except the one’s on cricket. Vinod Mehta wrote all his articles on paper, he took to a computer only in 2013.

Vinod Mehta was a rare journalist who never failed to talk about the rot in his profession. NDTV never invited him after Outlook published the transcript of the Radia tapes in 2010 which was critical of Barkha Dutt’s role in the political quagmire during the formation of UPA2. A big corporate house stopped giving out advertisements and I suspect that was a reason Vinod Mehta was shunted upwards and named “Editorial Director”. He was also an avid advocate of self-regulation in journalism, this hasn’t yet taken off in our country.

Vinod Mehta was also know for his liberal views and was stridently secular. He was friends with all which a lot of his readers in the last 5 years failed to appreciate some even calling him an apologetic of the Gandhi family. He was also someone who could take jokes and brickbats about himself. A cursory reading of the “letters to the editor” column would show you how much he enjoyed publishing the criticism of his readers.

Vinod Mehta was able to run Outlook independently because he also was able to make it commercially viable and profitable for his owners. When he wrote about his long lost abandoned daughter from a relationship as a student in England, one could feel that yearning of a father. May the old fellow, who liked his drink, his stray dog and many such strays, find peace where ever he is today.

Should POTA be brought back?

Everytime there's a terror attack in one of the Indian cities one can hear a cacaphony of voices asking for stringent anti-terror laws. This is particularly true about members from the BJP that keep arguing that POTA should be brought back. How serious is this allegation? Does our country need a draconian law like POTA to maintain law and order? Here's some more information.

POTA which stands for Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed in 2002 prior to which there was POTO which stood for Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance. This act was brought into force after the attacks on our Parliament in Dec 2001. It defined terrorism and many human rights advocates would argue that the definition infringed on the freedom of speech at times. Anybody arrested under this act could be kept in police custody for a period of 180 days without having been produced in front of a judge/magistrate for a remand. The confession extracted from an accused can also be used a evidence in a court of law. POTA by it's very nature assumed that anyone arrested under it was 'guilty' and had to be proved 'innocent' by way of evidence when the case came up for hearing.

As per the Indian constitution and other criminal laws a person is 'innocent' unless proven 'guilty', this was a vital new change in POTA. Most states in India implemented this law except Lalu's Bihar and some other states. The states that used this act to the maximum were Jharkhand, Gujarat and Tamilnadu. The irony in Gujarat was that the muslims who were arrested under allegations of torching the railway coach at Godhra were charged under POTA. The riots that followed saw large scale massacres of Muslims by Hindu hardliners and the folks arrested during these riots were charged under normal criminal laws, the CM of the state said POTA was not necessary. This selective imposition of the law was seen as partial and used as per the convenience in a particular case.

POTA also was a potent weapon in the hands of zealous law enforcement agencies. A law which was meant to handle the globally witnessed phenemenon of terrorism was being used to harrass and heckle innocent citizens many at times. In Tamilnadu V.Gopalaswamy (Vaiko) was arrested by the then CM J.Jayalalitha for making speeches in support of the LTTE. He languished in jail for about 4+ months before being formally charged by the police. Such was the vigorous nature of the act and it's ramifications when used by politicians to settle political scores. The UPA government repealed this act in 2004 and rightly so, it should have followed up with modifications to the CRPC with the definitions of terrorism, terrorist to accomodate the changing global scenario but that is still in the offing.

TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities prevention act) was in force between 1985 and 1995 and was brought primarily to tackle terrorism in Punjab. This act didn't have clear definitions for terrorism and hence was misused widely because of which it was repealed in 1995.

The answer to a terror strike is not in getting draconian laws. It's in more efficient intelligence gathering, it's in sifting through volumes of gathered data and extracting meaningful information out of it. It's more about states taking complete responsibility for law and order and effective policing, it's not about blaming the central government for everything. Law and Order has always been a state subject and not a federal subject. For the sake of all the lives lost till now someone has to drive the point pretty clearly in our leaders today that the last thing they should play politics with is a human tragedy like a terror strike!

Kerala CM v/s Tamilnadu, where are we heading towards?

Something is surely amiss between Chief Minister VS Achuthanandhan and Karunanidhi. Kerala and Tamilnadu have enjoyed cordial relations for decades which appears to be on the verge of a roadblock now. Currently we have the following issues simmering between the states and most of them have been publicised by the Kerala CM.

• Mullaperiyar water dispute
• Parambikulam Aliyar water dispute - Kerala alleges now that it didn't get it's share of the water from Tamilnadu which Tamilnadu says it has.
• Bifurcation of the Palakkad division of Southern Railways - The bone of contention here is to in making Coimbatore Jn a part of the new Salem division which means huge loss of revenue to Palakkad division. Coimbatore Jn is the second highest revenue generating railway station in Southern Railways after Chennai Central.

Censorship and the I&B Ministry

The I&B (Information and Broadcasting) ministry in the Government of India is bent upon playing spoilsport in the past decade. In the past if one I&B Minister thought FTV should be banned, the current minister has taken it a step further and banned AXN from Indian airwaves for a period of two months. This sort of arbitrary action has been a signature recently for example consider the furore over 'The DaVinci Code'. I for one could not watch this movie when it released because of the ban in Tamilnadu. But the fact that I own it (legally) on DVD is another matter now.

Yesterday's ban on AXN was immature if not unwarranted. The statement released by the I&B ministry reads as follows.

“It had come to the notice of the Central Government that some cable operators in the country through their Cable Television Networks are transmitting /re-transmitting a satellite channel namely “AXN” which is reportedly telecasting programmes such as ‘World’s Sexiest Advertisements’ that are against good taste or decency and are likely to adversely affect public morality,”

Now what constitutes 'good taste' or 'decency' is open to interpretation. I am sure all the umpteen mega serials are 'decent' as are all the proceedings shown in state assemblies and parliament. Let's take a look at the provisions in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 that could have been invoked to effect this ban. Chapter 5 section 20 of this act reads as follows.

(3) Where the Central Government considers that any programme of any channel is not in conformity with the prescribed programme code referred to in section 5 or the prescribed advertisement code referred to in section 6, it may by order, regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of such programme”.

Obviously this section can be invoked at any programme and an arbitrary ban can be effected because there is no established procedure to haul up the broadcaster and solicit an explanation (which I don't think is fair at all in the first place). The program code referred to in section 5 is show below. See for yourself how varied it's provisions are.

Programme Code - No programme should be carried in the cable service which:-

(a) Offends against good taste or decency:

(b) Contains criticism of friendly countries;

(c) Contains attack on religions or communities or visuals or words contemptuous of religious groups or which promote communal attitudes;

(d) Contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half truths;

(e) Is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote-anti-national attitudes;

(f) Contains anything amounting to contempt of court;

(g) Contains aspersions against the integrity of the President and Judiciary;

(h) Contains anything affecting the integrity of the Nation;

(i) Criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social, public and moral life of the country ;

(j) Encourages superstition or blind belief;

(k) Denigrates women through the depiction in any manner of the figure of a women, her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals;

(l) Denigrates children;

(m) Contains visuals or words which reflect a slandering, ironical and snobbish attitude in the portrayal of certain ethnic, linguistic and regional groups

(n) Contravenes the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

(o) is not suitable for unrestricted public exhibition.

Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, the expression “unrestricted public exhibition” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952);

Given this matter, another one came up yesterday which kind of sends one logic in a tailspin. Pray what's in public interest about Shilpa Shetty taking part in 'Big Brother' for a sum of 3 crores for 25 days? Why is the government worried about what is happening in the show? If Bollywood is worried it certainly has a right to and if fans are worries their worry is not misplaced. But the Government certainly has other pressing matters to talk about and work on. The I&B minister calling a meeting of secretaries in New Delhi to tackle the matter of alleged racism in a TV show is surely in India's interest!

At the end of the day, it looks like everyone wants to be featured in the next days' newspaper and all news bulletins. The I&B ministry needs a liberal minded minister who'd be able to open up airwaves like Dr.Manmohan Singh did to the Economy in the 90's. They also need someone like Mr.P.Chidambaram to continue the reforms otherwise the successor will end up undoing all changes effected by the predecessor.