No room for independent media commission!

Old habits die hard. Reportedly, the information ministry essentially run by bureaucrats are once again up to the task of foiling the independence of media stipulated in the draft report submitted to the chief adviser. The reported striking off the independent media commission, the most important issue to guarantee freedom of the Press is nothing short of ambushing the core element of the media reform commission's recommendations. There are other important clauses and sub-clauses the ministry has struck off in order to render the ordinance weak and toothless, leaving the journalist community vulnerable to interference and aggression from both the administration and influential quarters in society.

Although an official of the Ministry of the Information and Broadcasting has claimed, according to a leading Bangla contemporary's report, that a primary draft has been prepared on the basis of the Media Reform Commission's report, it is too early to say that the independent media commission has been dropped. The draft is yet to be finalised and before it is done, it is premature to say that the independent media commission is not under consideration. The official preferring anonymity, true to the bureaucratic stance of diffusing seriousness of critical issues, has only argued for the argument's sake. As long as the civil servants are in control of affairs beyond their jurisdiction, they are unwilling to let go their hold on to such matters.

The fact is that the majority of bureaucrats are guided by the conservative and myopic outlooks they inherited from the colonial rule, they will try to oppose any reform to the existing system. It is because their narrow interests are best served if the old system continues. Or, why should the information ministry remove the independent media commission, a pivotal clause, and drop or change several recommendations considered a prerequisite for freedom of the Press? The argument in favour of bringing all forms of media under a unified, independent supervisory body can hardly be rationally challenged. The Press Council has never served the purpose of postulating Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that everyone has the right to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

What a weak-kneed Press Council or a broadcast commission cannot deliver, the proposed independent media commission could do if it was mandated to serve neutrally and objectively without government interference. If this fundamental requirement is not recognised, the ministry of information will retain the power to exert restrictive control on journalism of every form at the behest of the political government. Quashing the very idea of an institution free from government control makes all other legal parameters including the protection of journalists' professional neutrality and freedom from violence and abusive legal actions redundant.

Reports have it that the information ministry has acted as a court by scissoring those parts of the proposed legislature as well. Clause 3 of the information ministry reads like this: 'providing security to every journalist and media worker is the responsibility of proper authorities or the government. Two sub-clauses have been deleted here. No one should resort to any activity that may jeopardise a journalist's personal and professional life. Again, another sub-clause recommended by the reform commission stated that the government would take steps to ensure the professional neutrality and independence of journalists. Well, all this may sound like a wishful thinking and lacks the legal structure. But given the reality of the country, accommodation of such points and their promotion prove overriding.

Journalists are harassed, intimidated and even physically attacked in this part of the world. It is because of such threats, the reform commission included two sub-clauses. One of this seeks to ensure that a working journalist is not deprived of his/her private life, freedom and privacy. Another concerned the legal restriction on forcible entrance to a journalist's residence, search and seizure of property. But these two sub-clauses have been struck off. There are more such clauses and sub-clauses intended to secure security and safety of the journalism professionals that have been changed, replaced or outright omitted.

When the main pillar of the reform commission's legal framework is targeted for erasure, the truncated laws aimed at protecting practitioners of journalism prove too little for the purpose. Sure enough the proposed autonomous media commission could be the right institution to safeguard the interests of journalists. With financial independence guaranteed by way of setting aside a small portion of media revenue, the commission could function independently. Its freedom would have helped create a security orbit all around the profession.

The timing is also a factor here. As long as seven months ago did the media reform commission submit its report but the ministry has started working on so late. It smacks of an ulterior motive true to the nature of bungling bureaucracy. Notwithstanding which party forms the government, this central administrative setup gets its overtures ready for the next government in order to be in its good book. The interim government has indisputably failed to deliver because of its overreliance on the bureaucracy. A political government if elected on the strength of popular mandate can dictate terms but to serve their mutual interests they ignore the national well-being. Press freedom is a sine qua non for a nation's growth and maturity.

nilratanhalder2000@yahoo.com