When l was studying in a journalism school abroad, l was told by my professor that a news story should be like a skirt: long enough to cover the subject and short enough to be attractive. Over the years, the story has assumed the shape of pontification and inevitably padded.

When senior journalists are kicking the bucket, the question that stares at us is what kind of journalism will be there in future. Of course, this is not confined only to India. All countries, whether in the West or the East – barring the totalitarian regimes – are asking the same question: which is the lakshman rekha (boundary) that journalists should not cross? Or should there be any lakshman rekha at all?

Individuals are increasingly posing the question about why journalists pry into their private affairs. Journalists in turn defend themselves on the grounds that if they didn’t probe, the skeletons would not come out of the closet. The government has a standard reply: some things cannot be disclosed in public interest. In this way, even big scandals are covered up.

I recall that when l wrote against the supersession of three Supreme Court judges, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover and J.M. Shelat, l was criticised by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, who argued that journalism did not mean preaching about the “commitment” of judges. She did not elaborate what that “commitment” was. I can understand the judges’ commitment to the Constitution, but not to a person, however high their position might be.

What Mrs. Indira Gandhi was demanding from the judges was a commitment to follow her way of thinking. That is the reason she appointed Justice Ray, a junior judge in the Supreme Court, as the Chief Justice, ignoring the seniority of three others. She did not even inform them regarding this development beforehand. They heard the news on All India Radio.

This kind of political manipulation runs contrary to the transparency that a democratic system cherishes. Indeed the structure of democracy stands on the pillars of both the division and limitation of power. For example, the army does not interfere in the affairs of the government because it is a force under the civil administration. Some countries like Pakistan have gone under because the military, although it has recently gone back to the barracks, is still very active in the political proceedings.

Democracy expects all its wings to function independently, but in a way that allows sovereignty to stay with the people. It is another matter that rulers themselves become authoritarian and behave like the worst of the Mughal emperors. Those who ensure that democracy functions in the interest of the people are the judges who have the power to go into the pronouncements of the legislature. The debate about whether the judiciary or the executive is supreme is an ongoing discussion.

If there is criticism of what judges do, or even the manner in which the legislature functions, that comes from journalists. It is the duty of journalists to do so. If they are afraid of carrying out what is expected from them, it is unfortunate for the system.  I have experienced how during the Emergency – June 26 this year will be its 41st anniversary – the entire press industry caved in. Initially, there were protests and a large number of journalists – including editors – assembled at the Press Club in Delhi to pass a resolution that Press censorship, an integral part of the Emergency, was not acceptable to them. Yet, as days went by, fear gripped them and they became part of the system, even accepting the orders of Mrs. Gandhis’s son, Sanjay Gandhi, an extra constitutional authority.

I recall that as a member of the Press Council of India, I went to its then chairman, Justice Iyer, to urge him to summon a meeting of the Press Council, an apex body. I did not know by then that fear had also made him subservient. He told me there was no use of summoning a meeting of the Press Council because there would be no publicity about its proceedings. My argument was that if there were no protests then many years later, when the archives would be opened of this shameful chapter, there wouldn’t be any record about any protest by the Press Council, the journalists. He then reluctantly convened a meeting of the local Press Council members. To my horror, I saw in the white paper issued after the lifting of the Emergency that he had written to then Information Minister, V.C. Shukla, explaining how he (Justice Iyer) was able to stall the efforts by Kuldip Nayar to convene a meeting of the Press Council!

The same question about the independence of journalists comes before us again and again in different situations. And I find that increasingly, we, the journalists, are failing in the standards required from us. None of this has been helped by the new digital technology that promotes very short stories or sound bites. In fact, things have deteriorated to such an extent today that news columns can be bought. It is an open secret that several stories are nothing more than paid news. Some leading newspapers feel no shame in selling the space to whoever wants to buy it. For them, it is purely a question of revenue.

How low have we sunk from the heights that we once enjoyed? There was a time when we were able to bring before the public scandals, such as the Mundhra insurance scam during the time of Finance Minister T.T. Krishnachari. Jawaharlal Nehru, then the prime minister, forced him to resign from the cabinet. But even when I subsequently met TTK, he did not seem to realise the harm he had done to the polity.

India is oblivious to the privations of individuals. In contrast, the UK media has in the past been prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of innocent victims from different walks of life. For example, the Sunday Times, for which I was a stringer, is still remembered with affection and gratitude for the work it did on behalf of those parents whose children were born handicapped because of the Thalidomide drug prescribed to the patient. Public pressure eventually forced the drug manufacturing company to pay out the needed compensation. Can we emulate those examples today when our very integrity as journalists is being questioned, not to speak of the high standards we once followed?

The writer is an eminent Indian columnist.  

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

That some Indians have stashed money abroad was known even when I began my journalism career almost 60 years ago. The West German government once provided us with a list of depositors from India, but nothing came out of it because the people involved enjoyed political patronage. The much-hidden Swiss accounts were also given to the government when it made an official request. No action followed since it was once again seen that the people who had kept their money were influential.

I recall the Union Home Ministry once making an inquiry into the foreign funding of political parties after a furore in Parliament. The report was never revealed, but it was revealed unofficially that all political parties, including the Left, had their accounts in West Germany or Switzerland.

The revelations made now about the offshore investments by Indian businessmen and industrialists are in the same category. One must congratulate the intrepid journalists for this. After talking to the journalists, I found that it had taken more than six months to collect information about the money deposited here and there, and collate it.

Understandably, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has set up a panel of officials from the income-tax department, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Enforcement Directorate to probe the matter and apportion responsibility. Yet, nothing concrete would come out of it because the persons connected with the dealings have political clout.

The Parliament may take up the matter, since the entire nation is horrified over the disclosures. Yet again, the matter would not go beyond accusations and counter-accusations, since all political parties are involved in some way or the other. Parties have to oil their setups, and they have to have some sources to do so.

The bane of the problem is the money needed during elections. Election cost to assembly constituencies is estimated at Rs. 10,000 crore. Naturally, the Lok Sabha elections would need several more crores of rupees. Even individual voters are being paid in cash or kind by different political parties to woo them. For example, Tamil Nadu, which is going to the polls next month, has already had the maximum number of arrests connected with pre-poll unaccounted money.

Many parliamentary committees have gone into the funding with the purpose of reducing the expenditure. Instead, the expenses have gone up. The Election Commission has banned publicity and several ills which were spotted during the electioneering process. But the overall situation has worsened, not improved. In fact, every political party, particularly the ruling ones, use all kinds of methods to win elections.

Power has come to mean not only authority but also money for the cadres. Therefore, no method is ‘mean’ enough to win. The manner in which caste is exploited, makes a mockery of free balloting. The Constitution debars all these practices, and yet parties use castes and sub-castes because this, apart from money, influences voters the most.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitely’s statement that there are “no holy cows for them: is all right as it goes. Yet, he knows that those who finance political parties cannot be touched because they are the ones which sustain them. How can a political party cut the hand that feeds it?

The Election Commission in its various reports has complained that a candidate spends more than the limit laid down. According to the limits defined, an assembly candidate should not spend more than Rs 28 lakh while the Lok Sabha’s limit is up to Rs. 70 lakh per constituency. However, candidates spend many times more. Since there is no limit placed on the expenditure by political parties, the Election Commission is helpless in taking action when it finds that a candidate for assembly or the Lok Sabha does not stay within the limit.

The accounts which the legislatures submit to the Election Commission are all cooked up because they find it not possible to adhere to the rules if they have to cover the constituencies. Several vehicles and volunteers are required to reach every part of the constituency and yet the candidates find it difficult to cover all of them. The television medium has made things easier. But a candidate does not want his message go out as an advertisement. One, it costs a lot of money, and two, the viewers do not like canvassing through advertisements.

If the Prime Minister can live with statements of bogus election expenses, he can very well accept the offshore investments which are unethical but not illegal. After all, this is their way of avoiding paying high taxes in India. High taxation in the county is again the reason why businessmen and others prefer to keep their money abroad. The government has declared amnesty many a time and made it attractive for businessmen and industrialists to disclose their assets abroad. But how to make them keep money at home and pay taxes is the problem.

I recall that India was facing acute foreign exchange crisis when I was the High Commissioner at London in 1990. I made a personal appeal to the people of Indian origin living there that the country which they called Bharat Mata required their contribution urgently. But my request fell on deaf ears. They were looking for good returns. Once they were offered bonds which would ensure high returns in foreign exchange, they were very willing to invest. For them, the love of the country had to be translated into money.

By all means, the Prime Minister should probe offshore investments. And he is justified in doing so. But he should realise that the investors who found tax havens abroad will find some other ways to evade taxes. In fact, a probe is needed to find why Indians prefer money to the interests of their motherland? For this, mere slogans like Bharat Mata Ki Jai will not help. The RSS which has coined the slogan should find ways to evoke that kind of love. But how can it do so when it doesn’t believe in a pluralistic society, the ethos of India?

The writer is an eminent Indian columnist.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh