Wich-hunting media: Eenadu vs. Andhra state government

Indira Gandhi's rule was at her zenith when N.T. Rama Rao swept the assembly polls in Andhra Pradesh. It was a big blow to the Congress prestige. Reacting to the defeat Mrs Gandhi said: Who says NTR has won. It is Ramoji Rao who has won. Indeed, Ramoji Rao's Telugu daily, Eenadu, had backed NTR to the hilt because his Telugu Desam Party represented the pride and aspirations of the Telugus. The Congress has not forgiven the newspaper and its owner since.

Andhra Pradesh chief minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy has only picked up the thread from where his predecessors in the Congress had left it off. The only different is that he has made it a personal issue because the Eenadu had the temerity to expose his land-grab deals. It had taken off the mask of integrity he wore to hide his manipulations and that of the select few.

It all began when the paper published a story that the chief minister's men bought at a pittance the 376 acres of land belonging to farmers in villages of Kokapet, Narsingi and Manchirevula. The government first issued a land acquisition notification for building an outer Ring Road. Later, the land was de-notified for the benefit of chief minister's men. What they bought at Rs 15 lakh to Rs 25 lakh an acre was sold at Rs 10 crore an acre.

The Eenadu and its ETV network reported the fraud.

That infuriated the chief minister who initiated a campaign of vilification against the newspaper, but primarily against its Editor-in-Chief Ramoji Rao. The paper, undaunted, published yet another story about Reddy's "surrender" of 300 acres of land which he possessed in violation of ceiling and other laws. The possession and the surrender did not tally. Even his own Congress members were horrified over the disclosure, not to speak of the opposition members who sought to move an adjournment motion against the Reddy government.

The chief minister could neither silence the Eenadu nor the ETV. They dug out more to show him in his true colours. Sensing that the action against the Eenadu may boomerang -- the paper has a circulation of 1.15 million with a readership of 13.81 million -- Reddy allegedly resorted to underhand methods. He allegedly took steps to harm Rao's other business, Margadarshi Financiers, which accepted deposits from the public. A Congress MP, Reddy's man, asked for the Reserve Bank inquiry. It was only meant to harass Rao as there was no concrete proof provided, just an allegation. Why the RBI had to go over the exercise of inquiry is not understood when it told The Hindu, a national daily published from Chennai, that the Margadarsi had an "impeccable tract record, with good assets to back it up, with no complaint of default from a single depositor."

The fact that not a single depositor out of 2.5 lakh has asked for the return of his money showed their trust and confidence in the Margadarsi. The question is not whether the Margadarsi is viable but whether the RBI can order an inquiry on mere allegation. Even otherwise, most leading newspapers have some type of financial base to fall back upon since newspapers gulp money in gallons.

Still the bigger question that confronts the country is the misuse of government's untrammeled authority to torment a newspaper or a TV network if it dares to expose a chief minister or the fraud perpetrated by his men. Should a newspaper tell? This is always a difficult decision to make because in the process of doing so, it runs the risk of annoying someone somewhere.

In the case of the government, the tendency to hide and to feel horrified once the truth is uncovered is greater than an individual. This is so because, to use the official jargon, "repercussions" are wider. What are they? Who assesses them? How real are they? These questions are never answered. Somehow those who occupy high positions in the government -- chief ministers and others -- labour under the belief that they can do whatever they like. And they get annoyed if any news which they do not like appears in print, or on screen.

Their first attempt is to contradict it and dub it mischievous. Later, when it is realized that a mere denial will not convince even the most gullible, a lame explanation is offered that things have not been put in "proper perspective." Probably at that time, the government gets away with its version of the story. But what is not realised that such methods only decrease the credibility of official assertions. Even honest claims of the government begin to be questioned.

In a democracy, where faith stirs the people's response, the government cannot afford to have even an iota of doubt raised about what it says or does.

Not finding the Eenadu or its TV network cowering to chief minister's threat or blows, the state government has brought up a case of alleged criminal defamation against Ramoji Rao for having published material on the Home Minister in July 2006, six months later.

When the government becomes vindictive or decides to misuse powers, it stops at nothing. Who knows to what extent it would go to punish Rao or the Eenadu for having dared to join issue with the chief minister?

To what use is the freedom of expression which the constitution guarantees when the Andhra chief minister has thrown them to the wind? In a free society, the media have a duty to inform the public without fear or favour. At times it is an unpleasant job, but it has to be performed because a free society is founded on free information.

If the media were to publish only government handouts or official statements, there would be no one to pinpoint lapses, deficiencies, mistakes or frauds. In fact, the truth is that the media are already too niminy-piminy, too nice, altogether too refined, too ready to leave out. The government shouldn't ask for more. What the Eenadu has exposed is only a tip of the iceberg.