S.No.                                                             File No. 14/633/03-04-PCI

Shri Baldev Singh
Goindwal,                                          
Punjab.                                          

Versus        

The Editor,
The Tribune,
Chandigarh.

COMPLAINT

           This complaint dated 10.2.2004 has been filed by Shri Baldev Singh of Goindwal (Punjab) against “The Tribune” published from Chandigarh for not publishing his rejoinder sent on 7.11.2003 despite a reminder dated 12.12.2003 with reference to the articles published in The Tribune issues dated November 3-4, 2003 under the caption, “Hindu-Sikh relations Part I and II” written by Shri Khuswant Singh.  The objectionable portion of the impugned articles read as follows : 

          “A man whose role in the identity crisis has not been fully highlighted was Kapur Singh ICS.  He had been dismissed from service on charges of corruption.  He tried to portray himself as a martyr.  In a pamphlet he published he alleged that Prime Minister Nehru through Governor Chandu Lal Trivedi had issued a directive in 1947 to all the Commissioners in Punjab to the effect that the ‘Sikhs in general must be treated as a criminal tribe.  Harsh treatment must be meted out to them to the extent of shooting them so that they wake up to political realities.’  He concluded: ‘Mughal King Bahadur Shah ordered followers of Nanak to be executed on sight.  I, being a declared Sikh, fell victim to this Mughal firman.’

           There was no truth whatsoever in Nehru ever having sent out such a directive, nor was Kapur Singh a victim of any firman.  His case was scrutinised by his own colleagues in the service before he was dismissed.  Nevertheless, he won the favour of Akali leader Master Tara Singh who helped him win an election to the Punjab legislature and then to the Lok Sabha.  Kapur Singh was the brain behind the drafting of the Anandpur Sahib resolution demanding a dominant role for the Sikhs.”

                                               AND

           “He used abusive language for the Hindus describing them as dhotian topian wale – wearers of dhotis and caps.  His goons threw heads of cows in the Durgiana Temple.  Hindu goons retaliated by throwing cirarette butts in the Golden Temple, smashing up a portrait of Guru Ramdas, founder of the city, on Amritsar railway station.”

          The complainants wrote to the Tribune on 7.11.2003 stating that: 

  “Khuswant Singh while dwelling on Hindu-Sikh relations (Nov. 3 & 4) has unnecessarily strayed into dismissal of Late Sardar Kapur Singh from the ICS on corruption charges. Kapur Singh in his book ‘Sachi-Sakhi’ has given details of charges, Law and facts involved. The book is available in the market. I suggest Khuswant Singh should go through it. However. It is admitted that such a directive was issued to all the D.C.s of Punjab by Home Secretary vide Policy letter of 10^th October 1947. It is altogether different issue who issued the oral instructions, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Sardar Patel or Chandu Lal Trivedi. Similar instructions were sent by then C.M. of U.P. Mr. Sampurnanand in his letter and the fact was admitted in his letter of 29^th August 1959 to the then Dy. Speaker of Lok Sabha Mr. Hukam Singh. It says, “Rai Sikhs, Jat Sikhs, Virk Sikhs and Kamboj Sikhs, who were classified as criminal tribes in the earstwhile Punjab. “(Robber noblemen by Joycee Pettigrew, p. 219). These tribes/castes constitute over 70% of the total Sikh population. Charges were inquired into by an English Judge of the Punjab High Court and he submitted his “Opinion” and not findings, on the basis of which he was dismissed. While Raghupati Kapur another ICS officer was reinstated into service. Are there two sets of rules for ICS officers? We have recently seen that when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister George Fernadez was in fetters and handcuffed but when Morari Desai  became Prime Minister he became Union Cabinet Minister. No law was changed but most unwanted person became most important person.

          Khushwant Singh further wrote that Bhindranwala used abusive language for, “the Hindus describing them as DHOTIAN TOPIAN WALE-wearers of dhotis and caps. His goons threw heads of cows in the Durigiana Temple”. Not many know that Master Tara Singh was Nanak Chand Malhotra, a Hindu Khatri, and in his speeches he used worst language for Hindu top leadership. That did not devide Hindus and Sikhs? Bhindranwale’s men did not throw cow heads. It was the work of Dal Khalsa men hiding in Guru Nanak Niwas under the control of Guruchanran Singh Tohra with his tacit consent. When job was done they were helped out to safe places   and given Rs.5000/- each. Now same person has been helped by so called secular forces to control the SGPC affair”.

          According to the complainant, the respondent published many other letters except his letter.  He requested the Council to direct the newspaper to publish his rejoinder.

 Written statement

          A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent on 5.7.2004. In response the respondent Senior Associate Editor, the Tribune, Chandigarh in his written statement dated July 12, 2004 submitted that the complainant himself admitted that they published many letters received from the readers. While publishing these letters, they exercised their prerogative to choose those, which made a point and were precise and well written. This is the yardstick they follow while publishing the letters. The respondent further stated that it was not possible to publish all the letters they received. The respondent submitted that the complainant made serious allegations against SGPC Chief and they would have been accused of committing a libellous action if they had published the complainant’s letter. He further stated that the author did not in any way personally refer to the complainant and under these circumstances they decided to not publish the letter of the complainant. The respondent denied having any malafide intention on their part.  He requested the Council to drop the proceedings in the matter.

          A copy of the written statement of the respondent was forwarded to the complainant on 23.7.2004 for information/Counter comments, if any.

Counter comments

          In his counter comments dated 25.7.2004 the complainant submitted that the written statement of the respondent is evasive and not specific. He submitted that the respondent has not stated how many letters were received by him and how many not published. He requested the Council to direct the respondent to publish his rejoinder without any editing. 

          A copy of the counter comments dated 16.8.2004 was forwarded to the respondent for information.

Appearance before the Committee

          The matter was called out for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at Delhi on 26.4.2005. Shri A.S. Philip, Sr. Assistant Editor appeared for the respondent newspaper The Tribune, while there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant. The Committee noted that despite receiving the notice of hearing, the complainant did not appear before in. It, therefore, decided to dispose of the matter on merits.  

Submissions before the Committee

          The representative of the respondent contended that that letter of the complainant was not couched in proper language and was thus not selected for publication. Moreover, many letters from the readers for and against the article had been published. It was not possible to publish all the letters and it was also not deemed necessary to publish all letters.  He argued that it was the prerogative of the editor to select material for publication in the newspaper.

Recommendations of the Committee

          The Committee considered the material on record and the oral arguments of the representative of the respondent. It noted that the only grievance of the complainant was non-publication of his rejoinder to an article published in the Tribune. Admittedly, the respondent had published several letters for and against the views expressed in the impugned article. The Committee noted that the complainant did not enjoy any special and distinct locus establishing his right over others in selection of his letter. It also referred in norm 15(i), which, in the context is very lucid. It provides that “An editor who decides to open his columns for letters on a controversial subject is not obliged to publish all the letters received in regard to that subject. He is entitled to select and publish only some of them either in entirety or the gist thereof. However, in exercising this discretion, he must make an honest endeavour to ensure that what is published is not one-sided but represents a fair balance between the views for and against with respect to the principal issue in controversy.”

          The Committee thus did not find fault with the newspaper in not publishing the rejoinder of the complainant. It, therefore, recommended to the Council to dismiss the complaint as being devoid of merits.

Decision of the Council

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.