Respected..................members of the Council, the media fraternity and the audience, the city of Ayodhya is perhaps the most appropriate venue for the subject that has been chosen for discussion at today's seminar. Over the past three days of my stay at Lucknow, I have with great pleasure observed the harmony and brotherhood amongst the citizens of the state irrespective of the community they hail from. I can with pride claim ancestry from this historic state where Hindus and Muslims have lived together for centuries enjoying and observing customs and rituals of each other in a true portrayal of communal harmony.

The new Webster’s Encyclopaedic Dictionary of the English language defines communalism as a theory or system of government in which each commune is virtually an independent state, and the nation merely a federation of such states.

Another definition is ‘strong allegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole’.

Today the second expression seems to be more appropriate. Unfortunately, in the Indian context, communalism has acquired a perverted connotation and means the evil practice of exploiting religion

or caste by the members of a community/caste or party to get an unfair political advantage, undue material gain, patronage, or favourable treatment as against the legitimate rights, interests, and aspirations of a rival community.

This brand of communalism is vicious to nationalism, deleterious to democracy, dangerous to the integrity of the country, inimical to peace and progress, and repugnant to the basic human values propagated by saints and sages of all faiths, down through the ages.

‘ àÉVÉc¤É xÉcÉÓ ÉʺÉJÉÉiÉÉ +ÉÉ{ÉºÉ àÉå ¤Éè® BÉE®xÉÉ ‘

Founding Fathers of our constitution believed that secularism is the antithesis of, and the anti-dote to communalism. Therefore, they made secularism, in all its ramifications, one of the basic pillars of the constitution. They enshrined it as one of the prime objectives in the Preamble of the Constitution. They embodied in the Constitution the fundamental guarantees of freedom of conscience, practice and propagation of religion (Article 25) and also freedom at religious instruction in certain educational and cultural institutions (Article 28). Also provided for was the protection of the cultural and educational rights of minorities (Article 28 and 30). An important and integral part of these Articles is Article 19(1) that embodies the faith our constitution framers had in the press of the county in promoting the above principles.

The Constitutional injunctions and guarantees to ensure the secular character of our polity are based on values, which are the common cultural heritage of India. These moral principles have been evolved during the past several hundred years through a process of cultural synthesis, by the holy men and saints of various religious faiths and denominations. These ethics seek to integrate and regulate the life and variegated culture of the followers of different faiths, in terms of common socio-spiritual ideals.

Over the last century, India has been rocked by communal, caste, linguistic or regional violence, of this, communal riots have assumed dangerous proportions from the beginning of eighties. The innumerable incidents of small or big proportions have sharpened the communal intensity leading to an emotional upsurge in the country, which added to the communal tension. The responsibility of the media in such situations is undeniable.

Unfortunately, the Press has not always covered these events dispassionately and objectively. Without going too far back in the time, if we analyse the situation since the 90's, between 1991-92, some section of the media got carried away by the turn of the tide in this very city. Else where, the militants and terrorists were openly glorified for serving the cause of their community.

I recall that during the Gujarat crisis, Council had appealed thus to the media: “……the media which enjoys the utmost freedom of expression, has a great and vital role to play in moulding public opinion on correct lines in regard to the need of friendly and harmonious relations between various communities and religious groups and thus promote national solidarity. The role of media in such situations is to be peacemakers and not abettors, to be trouble-shooters and not troublemakers. Let the media ...........be the suodhan and nor duryodhan"

Over the years, the Press Council has played a key role as a watchdog of the watchdog of the country. The riots of late 60’s, the violence of 80-81, the separatist movement of mid-eighties and early 90's the incidents at Ayodhya, Mumbai, Gujarat saw reports on media's role and requirements based on which the Council has advised the press to keep the following basic principles in mind while covering communal disputes/clashes.

1. Journalists and columnists owe a very special responsibility to their country in promoting communal peace and amity. Their writings are not a mere reflection of their own feelings but help to large extent in moulding the feelings and sentiments of the society at large. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that they use their pen with circumspection and restrain.

2. News, views or comments relating to communal or religious disputes/clashes shall be published after proper verification of facts and presented with due caution and restraint in a manner which is conducive to the creation of an atmosphere congenial to communal harmony, amity and peace. Sensational, provocative and alarming headlines are to be avoided. Acts of communal violence or vandalism shall be reported in a manner as may not undermine the people’s confidence in the law and order machinery of the State. Giving community-wise figures of the victims of communal riot, or writing about the incident in a style which is likely to inflame passions, aggravate the tension, or accentuate the strained relations between the communities/religious groups concerned, or which has a potential to exacerbate the trouble, shall be avoided.

3. The media, as a chronicle of tomorrow’s history, owes an undeniable duty to the future to record events as simple untailored facts. The analysis of the events and opinion thereon are a different genre altogether. The treatment of the two also thus has necessarily to be different. In times of crisis, facts unadorned and simply put, with due care and restraint, cannot be reasonably objected to in a democracy. However, a heavy responsibility devolves on the author of opinion articles. The author has to ensure that not only are his or her analysis free from any personal preference, prejudices or notions, but also they are based on verified, accurate and established facts and do not tend to foment disharmony or enmity between castes, communities and races.

I feel that the media is to be complemented for its coverage of the recent incident at Varanasi. Even while the controversy over the Danish Cartoons was gaining momentum, in Varanasi, Hindus were felicitating a Muslim whose alertness made possible the diffusion of a bomb at Dashmeshwar Ghat. The credit for this can only go to the media. Therefore, I firmly believe that the media of our country has matured into an institution where its initiatives and instruments can stop the spiral of hatred and obfuscation, which, in itself, constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

I am certain that the panel discussion to follow will contribute in a significant manner to advocacy and promotion of the principle of free and responsible media lending strong support to the edifice of our democracy.

**********