Manmohan Singh in St Petersburg

Russian media has started  adoring India's prime minister who is attending the G 20 summit after finding him to be the most hard-working leader among the G 20ers. He acceded to their request for an interview. The media was immensely pleased. The media conference endeared him to the journalists totally.

Media: Mr.Prime Minister, we are amazed at your ability to keep working tirelessly. What makes you busy when other leaders are taking it easy?

PM: I am searching for coal files. I will leave no stone unturned.

Media: Sir, how do you expect those files to be here?

PM: I know they are not here. I also know they are in my office in New Delhi. Since I have assured my parliament that I will search everywhere to retrieve the missing files I am searching here also.

Media: We admire your respect for your parliament. Yet we feel you need to search in your office only.

PM: You do not understand. Any search in my office will lead to some more embarrassing files. I have no right to cause embarrassment to my leader.

Media: Will your leader not be offended by your admission that the missing files are in your office?

PM: Only my leader advised me to keep the files safely.

Media: Sir, strange things are happening in your country. It appears the CBI wants to interrogate you.

PM: I am not bothered. I am ready to respond in my usual transparent style.

Media: Meaning?

PM: I will maintain stoic silence.

Media: Your Supreme Court has said criminals cannot contest elections. We understand your ministers including Kapil Sibal are bristling with anger.

PM: My government respects the judiciary. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the law. In order to remove any confusion, we are amending the law to reiterate that only criminals can enter parliament.

Media: Mr.Prime Minister, we admire your ability to multi-task. Even as you address us, you are simultaneously speaking on the landline.

PM: That is my duty. I am on the hotline.

Media: With Pakistan PM?

PM: Oh no, I am seeking instructions from my leader how to respond to some of your questions.

Media: Are you worried that the opposition parties in your country are becoming stronger?

PM: That is why I am seeking advice from your President, Vladimir Putin.

The prime minister received some instructions on the hotline and the media conference ended abruptly.

Tit for Tat?

Justice Katju wrote an article in The Hindu on Narendra Modi's lack of fitness to become our prime minister. Well, that is his opinion and he is entitled to it.

Arun Jaitley questioned the propriety of a quasi-judicial authority (Chairman, Press Council of India) actively participating in the political process. He also asked if this was the retired judge's way of expressing thanks to the Congress party as the government nominated him for the post.

Katju responded by asking Jaitley if he was not trying to convey his gratitude to Modi for nominating him to the Rajya Sabha. Tit for tat.

Jaitley demanded that Katju should resign for violating the propriety of his office. Katju's tit was that Jaitley should take sanyas from politics inasmuch as he was twisting facts. Isn't the learned judge aware that the more one twists facts, the more one is fit to be in politics?

Jaitley says judges may not be given post-retirement jobs by the government. Katju replies why Jaitley did not follow this principle while he was the law minister. Score: even.

Katju also quotes the names of other retired judges who have accepted post-retirement jobs. He also assures that he will continue to voice his political views because it is his duty! How blessed we are!

As the war of words hopefully escalates, it is worth pondering whether The Hindu did well in publishing Katju's political article. The newspaper had earlier claimed that it was not publishing the name of the girl who succumbed to the gruesome tragedy in Delhi because it was a principled newspaper. Many other newspapers which also abstained from reporting the name did not make any such self-righteous front-page declaration. By publishing Katju's article, does the newspaper think it is proper to encourage a retired judge who is holding a quasi-judicial post to publicise his political views including a tendentious comment on the judiciary?

Katju's inappropriate remarks.

“The Chairman of the Press Council discharges a statutory job. His job requires fairness, impartiality and political neutrality. Additionally a Judge, whether sitting or retired, is expected to conduct himself with sobriety, dignity and grace. He cannot be loud, crude, out-landish or behave like a megalomaniac."

Arun Jaitley has commented as above. It is unfortunate that Justice Katju persists in his boorish behaviour. Katju is pathologically incapable of appreciating any view other than his own. Such a person is least qualified to be Chairman of Press Council. He looks at men and matters in black and white terms whereas preponderance of grey is the law of nature.

Cat vs Bear

The Economist in its edition dt.1st December hypothesises that the next prime minister of India will be either the catlike Chidambaram or the bearlike Narendra Modi. The magazine argues that PC's stars are on the ascendant, the only handicap being that Sonia Gandhi does not trust him totally. The article surprisingly does not refer to the much talked-about friendship between Chidambaram's son and Sonia's son-in-law.

The controversial article is given Here.

The Leveson Report (contd.)

The link for the Leveson report is given below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/interactive/2012/nov/29/leveson-report-executive-summary?CMP=EMCNEWEML1355

It is seen that there is almost unanimous support for the recommendation that there must be an independent commission for ensuring that the press does not violate voluntarily agreed code of ethics. However, the suggestion that there must a statute providing legal recognition for the commission has already become controversial. The New York Times observes that any regulatory panel BACKED BY LAW is a big step in the wrong direction.

A very shrewd comment has been provided by Joel Simon, Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. He argues, "Adopting statutory regulation would undermine press freedom in the UK and give legitimacy for governments around the world that routinely silence journalists through such controls".

We can expect Manish Tewari and his ilk to draw wrong lessons from the report of Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson.

The Leveson Report

Lord Justice Leveson has just now presented his much-awaited report on the culture, practices and ethics of the British press. The presentation was organised with clockwork precision almost like a spacecraft launch.

He has explained the role of the press as one to inform, educate and entertain (I hope Justice Katju has noticed the entertainment part also). He expects the press to be unruly, opinionated and irreverent in performance of its duties.

Leveson has advocated the need for a statute to lend credibility to an independent self-regulator for the press. The report wants the self-regulatory body to be independent of newspaper editors, government and politicians. Expecting the impossible?

Similarity with the Indian situation becomes obvious when Leveson points out the slowness of criminal judicial process which is partly responsible for the outrageous behaviour of the press. Sensationalism of some parts of the press has rightly been condemned.

Lord Leveson is confident that his report will speak for itself. The 2000 page report would demand a lot of patience from the readers. Asserting that the press is the guardian of democratic values, he wonders who would guard the guardians. That is a million pound question.