Sunday, December 11, 2011

Fourth Estate's Failure Gives Birth to Lokpal?

While going through the 662 page report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on Lokpal Bill that includes the dissent note and testimonies, one came came across a revealing statement of Ram Jethmalani about Fourth Estate.

It reads: "please bear in mind that in India, unfortunately, today our Fourth Estate is not powerful as it should be. I want to share with this gathering that I came across a TV channel where I discovered that thousands of crores of money are coming from foreign tax havens. I wrote an article in which I asked it to be explained as to where from did you get this money; who are these tax havens giving you this money you are getting. I received a notice from them saying that I would be sued. I said, “Please. I hope, you will do it to morrow instead of day after tomorrow.” I have not heard of them again. This is the condition of the Fourth Estate in this country. If the Fourth Estate was powerful, there would have been no need for a Lokpal."

He adds, "We need a Lokpal because other institutions have failed us today and we are trying the last one desperately. Therefore, I think, it is good to put the media also under the control of the Lokpal. But, there may be some good reasons for saying no; but, kindly consider media’s failure in its duty and you are not dealing with that kind of a media which ought to be on the ground of its reputation and utility being excluded."

Do we know which TV channel Jethmalani is referring to?

One of the key finding of a study on the 'Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008' conducted by the US-based Global Financial Integrity is that at least $500 billion, or Rs.22.5 lakh crore, has been shifted out of India illegally to foreign bank accounts over the six decades since Independence. It is about half of India's $1.3-trillion GDP. This money is lying in tax havens like Cayman Islands.

Which article is Jethmalani referring to?

Ashok Kumar Parija, Chairman, Bar Council of India (BCI) said, "there could be another law to regulate media and media owners." He added, "You have such an irresponsible media in this country that unless you immediately make a law to regulate the media, then, there will be a complete chaos. I mean in every case a trial is done by the media and then by courts. The solution is make a law to regulate the media. It need not be under the Lokpal, it could be another law."

One submission reads, "We are talking about journalists. We have had these tapes which was a big embarrassment for the Government and others too. Some Journalists tried to fix up the Ministers in the Government. Now would that come in your definition of 'corruption' or not? I mean you are, after all, trying to fix up people somewhere who have on tapes which obviously with a mind to see that in future you may he hauled up with something or the other. Does that also come in your definition of 'corruption'? It is not only giving or taking money but also soliciting positions for various people in Government and other places."

Another testimony reads: "I would like to get some clarifications regarding media. We all know how media has become a big profession and it is even attracting foreign investments. Now can media also be brought under the Lokpal or not?"

There is a chapter in the report that deals with "Jurisdictional Limits of Lokpal: Private NGOs, Corporates and Media"

Excerpts from the report:

"India’s Parliament is not supreme at all. It is a Parliament which is subject to judicial review. Its legislative actions can be set aside by the Judiciary on the ground that they are contrary to the Constitution, that they are contrary to the fundamental rights of the poor citizens of this country. Please make no mistake; in a republic, it is not the majority of MPs who are sovereign, but it is the individual who is sovereign because the individual has a sanctum sanctorum protected by the fundamental rights chapter where all MPs unanimously from both Houses cannot enter into and trespass into. The citizen is supreme."

Is media serving the Sovereign Citizens? Isn't media serving Undemocratic Private NGOs, Undemocratic Corporates and Undemocratic Political Parties? Is this the way to serve democracy?

1 comment:

Dylanarman said...

This is a fact that while technology has made it easy for us to communicate with more people in more places over time rarely allows real dialogues.

Rental Management