Some time back I wrote the Blog ‘corona Fatigue’. At that time our strict ‘Lock-Down’ had started showing results. Corona seemed to have been brought under reasonable control by government intervention. The focus of the government(s), then, was on saving lives rather than livelihoods. Economy nose-dived. There was disturbing exodus of migrant labour from urban areas towards their homes in villages as it was impossible for them to survive in their places of work.

As the corona virus responded to steps taken by the government(s), the focus was shifted back to saving livelihoods and recharging the economy. Lock Down was withdrawn. Government(s) were seized with the gigantic task of rejuvenating the economic apparatus.

However, government advisory was clear. Basic Corona Protocols of keeping safe distance, frequent washing of hands, sanitizing sensitive contact points should be strictly observed. Awareness campaign was intensified.

Government thought people were well informed about the dangers of not observing basic corona protocols at home and work places. But corona fatigue had set in. People were tired of the lock down restrictions and were let loose without any self-imposed restrictions to protect against the Corona-In-Waiting.

Election rallies, marriage functions, festivals, aggressive shopping in malls and road side vendors, protest demonstrations and flocking at religious places without masks or social distance, appearing on news channels became ugly nightmares for those who were conscious.

What was feared the most, happened. We are in square one, no not in square one, it is much worse than the situation in which we were earlier. Corona is spreading faster, has become more dangerous and might overtake our meager medical infrastructure if, as it seems it will, spreads in rural areas.

Only saving grace is that we the people, though not all, have become more addressed to the dangers of ignoring the virus, our scientists working day and night have come out with vaccines which can make our bodies corona-resistant, governments have started vaccination program on a war footing, several NGOs have started sharing government’s great responsibility and governments may, it seems, think of re-imposing, not complete lockdowns as before, but perhaps, micro-managed lockdowns in those clusters where the infection is concentrated.

However, we the responsible citizens of this great country, must forget all our political, religious, regional and other differences and unite to help the government to help us fight this formidable enemy. Succeed we must. We can never despair or give in. Eternal Vigilance by each one of us without distinction of age, sex, religion, region or political persuasion needs to be our Goal-Post.

Humans are indestructible. They have survived against all calamities whether inflicted by nature or ourselves, over billions of years. Corona will become a dirty page in our history. It has strengthened our will to fight it out, come what may. It is a war. It can be won only if we the people take it as a real war. Human spirit is never cowed down by conflicts. It comes out stronger.

I have no other than the poet-statesman of our times well respected by politicians of all hue and even by our own beloved first prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to quote. Those who listened to his recital of this piece in parliament from his own mouth will know the strength of his spifrit.

बाधाएं आती हैं आएं,
घिरें प्रलय की घोर घटाएं
पावों के नीचे अंगारे
सिर पर बरसें यदि ज्वालाएं
निज हाथों में हंसते हंसते
आग लगा कर जलना होगा,
कदम मिला कर चलना होगा.

हार नहीं मानूंगा, रार नई ठानूंगा,
काल के कपाल पे लिखता मिटाता हूं,
गीत नया गाता हूं.

Thomas Robert Malthus, a British economist wrote in 1806 in his book “An Essay on the Principle of Population Growth” that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of food supply and other resources linear. In other words according to him, population increased by geometric progression i.e. 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 32  whereas food supply and other resources increased by arithmetic progression i.e. 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 10. There will be wide gap between the population and the available food supply and other resources. Hence, the growing population cannot be sustained. He prophesied that nature will put some positive checks to arrest this growth of population in the form of natural calamities like famines, earth quakes, floods, epidemics etc.

Looking at the history of past several decades, millions died in famines, floods, earthquakes and epidemics. Naturally, first thing that crosses our antenna : has Malthus come true ? I don’t think so. So far,  world over from about 300 million cases of Covid 19 and its variants only about 5 million died, rest were cured.

Malthus alerted the state to be more proactive. Modern state with its state of the art reach has been taking action on all fronts.

It has gone beyond controlling population growth. Scientific family planning has been quite effective. If one looks back, now there are hardly any couples having over three children, now two. A person with more than two children faces ‘No Entry’ in legislatures. People are educated and are getting convinced that for a better quality of life small family is more desirable.

Latest systems of irrigation, fertilisers, improved seeds and mechanisation of agriculture has tremendously increased food production. Modern technology has ushered in second industrial revolution. Availability of other goods and services has expanded phenomenally.

More allocation of resources for intensive health care at short notice and general updating of public health will become a reality in times to come, thanks to the rude shock given by corona disaster.

But we must realise that public cannot be passive onlooker and expect that government will do everything that needs to be done. It has to play a more active role by being involved in supporting and following government policies, action and advice from time to time to fight disasters.

                                                                

Afghanistan ? Yes. It is not only a geo-political crisis for the neighbours and the international community, but an irreversible, intolerable, and dastardly serious human tragedy for the innocent men, women, boys, girls and children who must continue to live there.

Human beings in Afghanistan, who, for the first time had tasted the grandeur of life in a true liberal democracy of the twenty first century, are suddenly thrown back to the dark ages of medieval times and that too under the barbaric Sharia Law. Under this inhuman dispensation, as declared by one of the Taliban leaders, women are to remain at home and produce children.  They cannot go to schools or colleges. They cannot work in offices. Even those who were working in the Ministry of Women Affairs were locked out and asked to go home. The moral police changed the name of the ministry to Ministry of Prayer and Guidance and Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. According to their dictates women cannot go out alone but only with a male relative and must wear hijab.

Can we imagine the mental torture of boys and girls who were born free during the period of twenty years and who have now become full grown adults ? They would have dreamt of unshackled liberal education in a free world. Worst is the fate of the girls. I shudder to visualise the agony of their collapsed aspirations of doing what they want anywhere in the world.

World is quietly watching the catastrophe since it does not affect the quality of life anywhere else. But do you hear the wailings of these young boys and girls whose fate is sealed in an abyss ? Or is it that we are completely dehumanised ? I am sadly reminded of the poetic sigh of Martin Niemoeller, when Nazis trampled Poland during the 2^nd World war, in his unforgettable words:

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I did not speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME FOR THE CATHOLICS,

and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me,

and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

Let us listen to the clarion call of our fellow human beings in Afghanistan and let their ordeal penetrate our hearts deep enough to compel nations across the world to unite and act.

(U/A 13+)

“So, what have you been binging on lately?” Has almost replaced, “How’s the weather?” which stood strong as an opening statement for long. It would be unfair to not give the OTT platforms their due credit. There has been a massive change in the way each one of us consumes the content available to us. Age is one of the primary factors which usually misbehaves when the monotony is set to perform in desired way. Even in the case of OTT platforms where there is an emphasis on freedom of content consumption, the age verification isn’t excused.

The recently implemented Information Technology (Intermediary guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) 2021, (herein referred as IT rules 2021) were highlighted in news few months ago for its infamous WhatsApp controversy as also under our previous article, “Survival of the Fittest”. Through this article I mean to address the second issue which is almost missed by many, the reclassification of the content. As per the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the National Board of Film Certification (NBFC) certifies the film. The certifications were, U, U/A, A and S.  When the film is certified U, it means it is suitable for unrestricted exhibition and hence suitable for all age groups. When the film is certified U/A, it means unrestricted public exhibition subject to parental guidance for children below the age of twelve. When the film is restricted to be exhibited only to adults or to certain professionals it is certified as A or S respectively. Up until the implementation of the IT rules, the OTT platforms followed the same structure for certification of the content as under the Cinematograph Act mentioned above. However, under the IT rules 2021, the content on OTT platforms needs to be reclassified on the following basis: U, U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+ and A.

The certification of U is similar to that by NBFC, i.e., unrestricted and suitable for all age groups. The U/A 7+ certificate means a content suitable for age seven and above and similarly U/A 13+ means suitable for thirteen and above and so on. The primary reason for this further fragmentation is due to the diversity in the content that we see today. Today, my seven-year-old niece, my Eighty-nine-year-old Grandfather and I, all watch Netflix. Surely not together like the good old cinema days though. I would certainly not let my niece watch Breaking Bad which both my grandfather and I would love. And we would rather not prefer having Paw Patrol and Peppa Pig in our “recommended for you” list. Thus, this recertification enables the freedom of content creation with a level up, the level up being it caters for all age groups.

The reclassification is done observing certain parameters as directed under the Rules. Themes and messages; ii) Violence; iii) Nudity; iv) Sex; v) Language; vi) Drug and substance abuse; and (vii) Horror  are the said parameters.  The Theme and message for U rated films ideally needs to be positive and all butterflies.  There can be no Violence, Nudity, Sex, Usage of foul language, Drug and substance abuse or Horror. The film rated U/A 13+ may have some foul language or Drug usage, however it shouldn’t be glorified and must have an underlying positive outlook. The yardstick keeps getting liberal with the age and beyond all this once we go on A rated content, the much talked about debate on freedom to content creators lies. Having said that,  for all age groups there is an insistence on bearing in mind the reasonable restrictions. I see this a very modern and pragmatic approach to be implemented for OTT Platforms.

BUT the recent Cinematograph Amendment Bill which was out for public comments recently has proposed to follow the footsteps of IT Rules 2021 for content classification. Thus, NBFC has to classify the films on the basis of five certifications and not just U, U/A and A. Going to the theatres and watching a film is a whole experience in India which may seem dated now due to the pandemic. It is a family event.  Expecting a family with a six-year-old and nine-year-old to leave their younger one back home for a movie rated U/A 7+ just doesn’t make sense. Moreover, it may cause a tripartite loss. Loss to Producers, Audience and Creators. The production houses will face major losses because this reclassification will result into a huge downfall in the footfalls which is already there in this new normal. The Creators to prevent this decrease in footfall and help the production houses will prefer to have a 7+ or 13+ certificate so as to generate mass and hence will need to compromise on the content to make it fit within the parameters mentioned above. And lastly, we the audience will be ceased from consuming the unadulterated content. Thus, to consider the cinema experience and watching Netflix on our private screens as same and implement the same guidelines, does not make sense to me. 

Several production houses and members from the film fraternity have given their views on this Cinematograph Amendment Bill for several issues including but not limited to this reclassification of the content. Till then, here’s to hoping the safety of our content. Happy watching 🙂

WhatsApp vs Indian Government

Year 2016– WhatsApp promises for end-to-end encryption, which means only communicating users can read the messages. This safeguards our data form any third-party interference and assures data privacy. That means even WhatsApp doesn’t have access to any data along with any third party. 

Year 2020– WhatsApp accepted that it possess metadata which contradicted their end-to-end encryption feature which jeopardize user privacy.

Year 2021- WhatsApp files a suit against the Indian government for breaching privacy laws. It is almost ironical how WhatsApp was hot topic for invading user privacy and today it challenges the IT rules on the ground of user privacy. 

With the rapid increase in the usage and thereby dependence on consuming content over the online platforms, there arose a need for a framework which will address the lack of transparency, accountability and the rights of the users of such online platforms. The pandemic and the subsequent lockdown further verified the reliance over social media and OTT platforms. Addressing to the said issue, The Ministry of Information, Government of India enacted Information Technology (Intermediary guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) 2021, (herein referred as IT rules 2021) lists out the Guidelines and Code for the Intermediaries. The rules are targeted towards the following platforms:

• Publisher of online curated content. E.g.   Netflix, Disney+ Hotstar 
• Social Media Intermediaries and Significant Social Media Intermediaries. E.g. Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube
• Publishers of news and current affairs E.g. Zee news, NDTV etc.

Let’s focus primarily on social media intermediary WhatsApp which is the most preferred mode of communication. It is no longer a news when an obscene or nationally sensitive content is circulated through WhatsApp and creates a ruckus. The frequent cybercrime reports of such incidents ultimately led to formulation of rule 4, which demands that the significant social media intermediary shall enable the “identification of first originator”, when required by an applicable judicial order. This has been alleged to result into a breach of privacy by WhatsApp. 

On the basis of this, one thing is clear here, the possibility of end-to-end encryption and rule 4 to co-exist is ruled out. Thus, the survival of the fittest begins.

Now the million-dollar question which is omnipresent in all the articles of our blog is, what right supersedes the other and how to deal with such chicken and egg situation. The contesting opponents are, the end-to-end encryption which protects the privacy of millions of WhatsApp users, and the rule of identification of first originator of information. We are aware of using WhatsApp without the latter and have been using the same for few years now. However, let’s assume the rule is taken into consideration, and end-to-end encryption is removed. I see the below mentioned issues:

• There is no alternate safeguarding feature proposed to be introduced by the Government which protects the data from malicious party;
• There exists no framework or detail about data handling by the Government in the first place to qualify it as a lawful processing of data; 
• There is no privacy framework enacted which further provides compliance rules and enlists penalties.

Thus, there is only one thing fulfilled hereunder, that is facilitation of criminal investigation to locate and identify perpetrators. However, there is a heavy cost to bear in lieu of that. It also needs to be viewed, that identification of first originator of information is a pedestrian approach when it comes to fulfilling the aim of mitigating cybercrimes. The nature of cybercrimes has become too technologically advanced to be tackled by the said clause.

Considering how we love comparing jurisdictions, let’s talk about GDPR.  Article 10 of GDPR titled ‘Processing of Personal Data relating to Criminal Convictions and Offences’ reads as under: 

“Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures based on Article 6(1) (Lawful processing of data) shall be carried out only under the control of official authority or when the processing is authorised by Union or Member State law providing for appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Any comprehensive register of criminal convictions shall be kept only under the control of official authority”

This means that the appropriate government has been given the right to process the data sought under criminal proceedings and for facilitating a criminal investigation. Having said that, the processing of such data shall be legitimate and under the lawful route, considering appropriate safety requirements, destruction of data once purpose is fulfilled, processing only that data which is necessary for the investigation and inclusion of the ‘purpose limitation,’ which limits processing the data only for the purpose of criminal investigation. However, the Indian IT rules 2021 specifically lays down the method of ‘identification of first originator’ as a mode for enabling the criminal investigations. GDPR is silent on those which may or may not include identification of first originator under Article 10. Thus, the debate here is on India’s cut throat clarity for accessing the data on furnishing the judicial order.

Lastly, End-to-end encryption hasn’t completely eradicated the mala fide usage and cyber-crimes with respect to WhatsApp. Thus, India’s attempt can turn around to become a better and more promising move, by instituting an ‘overlooking body’, provided it addresses and works upon the above-mentioned problems and issues.   The main aim for identification of the first originator as discussed above is to enable the criminal investigation process which further aims to seek justice. There is no doubt that there are several cybercrimes involving WhatsApp and thus the evidentiary value it possesses cannot be undermined. Having said that, the protection of private data cannot be compromised. The union should hold complete responsibility for data handling and assuring proper compliance to prevent any mala fide usage of data. Thus, accepting it as a stepping stone towards combating the cybercrime world and to make a safe space for users to connect, we hope for a ‘technologically ahead’ and ‘data privacy promising’ law rather than a short-sighted clause like ‘identification of first originator’.

Gathering clouds will wither away.

Some time back I wrote about corona Fatigue. Lock-Down had started showing results. Corona was under control. Government intervention broke the chain. The focus then, was on saving lives. Economy nose-dived. Unforeseen exodus of migrants precipitated human crisis. 

As corona responded to government action, focus shifted to saving livelihoods by recharging economy. Lock Down was relaxed and limited to some clusters.

However, experts’ advisory was clear. Basic Corona Protocols of wearing masks, keeping safe distance, avoiding crowds, not going out except for essentials or medical emergencies, frequent washing of hands, sanitizing sensitive contact points should be strictly adhered to. Awareness campaign was intensified. 

People should have understood dangers of ignoring basic corona discipline. But corona fatigue had set in. People were tired of the lock down and felt liberated. 

No self-imposed restrictions against Corona-In-Waiting were observed. 

Massive election rallies, weddings, festivals, shopping in malls and road-side vendors, protests, demonstrations, religious gatherings without masks or social distance, all appeared on channels and had cascading effect on unsuspecting citizens. Netas added fuel to this fire of fast-spreading madness by addressing rallies after rallies till they realised their folly and stopped only when it was too late. 

What followed could have been expected. Second wave took us and government completely unawares. Corona and its variants are spreading faster and are more dangerous and might outstrip our fragile medical infrastructure if, as it seems it will, spread in rural India.

Only saving grace is that people in general, though not all, have become more addressed to the dangers of ignoring the virus, our scientists working day and night have come out with vaccines in record time to make our bodies corona-resistant, lack of confidence in vaccines has disappeared, governments have started vaccination program on war footing and several NGOs are coming forward for the public cause.

Distant statistics came nearer, and figures turned into names. People of all places started losing their dear one. papers were full of obituaries.

And the miracle happened. Suddenly everyone realised that he is on his own and cannot look to the government for rescuing him and his family. No country of India’s size and paucity of resources could have faced onslaught of such formidable virus with  velocity to spread many times faster than possible expansion of health infra-structure. 

Mosques, Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches, NGOs, professional associations, trade-industry, expats, governments of almost all countries including ones opposed to us realised that India was facing worst human tragedy. They are rushing all their resources of funds, oxygen, ventilators, oxygen plants and space for ICU beds to tide over this chasm. Oxygen plants are being air lifted in military aircrafts, military hospitals are spared for corona patients, lots of unknown Indians are coming forward to help corona patients and their relatives. Stories of small villages doing their utmost to tame the virus in their respective areas, small and big residential complexes organising help to their neighbours, doctors nurses supporting staff, police and civil servants coming back to fight the battle after being cured of corona are trickling in. 

The giant of Indian citizenry has awakened from its slumber and is up in arms against the pandemic. They have seen the enemy in its true colours. All complacency has evaporated. They have decided to take the demon head on. Nothing is impossible for the collective will-power of a people.

Succeed we must. We can never despair or give in. Eternal Vigilance by each one of us without distinction of age, sex, religion, region, or political persuasion needs to be our Goalpost.

Human specie is indestructible. It has survived against all calamities whether inflicted by itself or nature, over billions of years. Human spirit is never cowed down by conflicts. It comes out stronger.

बाधाएं आती हैं आएं,
घिरें प्रलय की घोर घटाएं
पावों के नीचे अंगारे
सिर पर बरसें यदि ज्वालाएं
निज हाथों में हंसते हंसते
आग लगा कर जलना होगा,
कदम मिला कर चलना होगा.

हार नहीं मानूंगा, रार नई ठानूंगा,
काल के कपाल पे लिखता मिटाता हूं,
गीत नया गाता हूं.

(Atal Bihari Bajpai’s verse recited by him in his famous speech in the Parliament) 

Let his invincible spirit guide our destiny.

Corona Virus is perhaps the worst calamity earthlings have suffered since their entry to this planet. It has hit all countries, with different severity. Some have almost come out of its impact, some are still struggling to come out and some are still in the thick of it. Difference in impact is due to four reasons : (i) Government’s effective or lukewarm intervention (ii) Intensity or otherwise of public awareness program (iii) Seriousness or indifference of public to such program (iv) Age and immunity profile of the community

On the whole India has done well. But public has not been so responsive to awareness program in some parts of the country. Hence, corona is yet to be brought under control in some pockets of some states in the country.

Despite this constraint, by and large, country is fairly able to manage the prevention, spread and treatment of corona virus. Consequently, government is shifting its policy focus from ‘save lives’ to ‘save livelihoods’. Restrictions on movements of people, travel, visit to public places, attendance in private functions, opening up of malls and cinema halls, functioning of schools, offices and so on are being gradually loosened to restart the economic activity. This is in the right direction.

This gradual withdrawal of restrictions on people’s movement after over an year seems to have liberated us from bondage. We feel we are free again to do whatever we did earlier without any fear or apprehension. Airports are becoming crowded as before with absence of social distance or in some cases even masks. Roads are again buzzing with traffic and traffic jams, Malls are again zooming with customers. Cinema Halls will restart very soon. Private non-corona hospitals have started getting patients waiting for a long time. Places of worship are getting re-ignited. People flock the street-side vendors, dhabas, vegetable and fruit sellers and restaurants. These reflects a wishful thinking of the masses that corona has disappeared and would not return.

we were tired of a shackled living, like prisoners in our own homes with no freedom to visit friends and relatives, visit our own work place or other offices. Normal life had, as it were, come to a stand-still. Corona fatigue had set in. People are let loose for re-living their normal lives forgetting corona for the time being.

Surely, economy has started getting recharged. Demand is picking up. Supply side has started responding by increasing production of consumables, durables, luxuries etc . GDP has started rising. Employment will increase in due course. Livelihoods will gradually be reinstated.

But this shift in the focus of government policy has some obvious implications. We cannot lower our guard on the basic Corona Protocols : (i) wearing a mask when you go out (ii) Keep a safe distance (iii) Frequently wash or sanitize hands (iv) Sanitize sensitive nobs etc (v) Steam-respiration after visiting a public place or function. Otherwise we will be thrown back to square one of intense corona infection and there will have to be more severe lock-downs like complete ‘sealing of of some residential flats in Mumbai’

Now, government at the center and state level do keep an eye and monitor. But their role is of an ‘enabler’ or ‘facilitator’. The real responsibility rests on the citizenry to make sure that their carelessness does not endanger the lives of others. Let us remember the advisory that the battle of corona is still not over and that we can win only by a united unending efforts of all.

..in a multicultural society

When Dan Brown wrote the fiction ‘Da Vinci Code’ depicting a more human version of Christ, Christians all over the world, protested very strongly and boycotted its film version. Even in India complaints from leaders of Christian religion led to a temporary hold on the film.

Hindus and Shivsena were greatly annoyed at M F Hussain’s controversial painting ‘Bharatmata (Mother India) a woman in nude across the map of India’, so much so that he had to seek asylum in Dubai.

When George Floyd, an unarmed African American, was killed in USA by a white cop Derek Chauvin by kneeling on his neck there was outburst of public wrath and the cop had to be taken into custody.

In above cases state was prompt in acting against such communally sensitive use of public space.

But mark the difference.

Muslims were highly agitated when Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, wrote ‘Satanic Verses’ on the life of Prophet Mohammad. A fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini supreme leader of Iran calling upon Muslims to kill him for the blasphemous book. But Margaret Thatcher’s government gave him all security to protect his right to life. In India, the book was banned in response to protests from Muslims. But I believe there was no ban in his visit to India. He visited my place in Vadodara with Lord Bhikhu Parekh.

Now, let us look at what is happening in France.

A magazine published cartoons of prophet Mohammad. Muslim fanatics firebombed its offices and killed 12 journalists. Later a Christian teacher who showed this cartoon in the regular class for teaching was assassinated by Muslim fanatics. When French president Macron condemned the murder and defended the teacher’s absolute right to freedom of expression, three Christians were killed by Muslim fanatics in a church in Nice. Malaysian and Turkish presidents declared that Muslims had a right to kill millions of French people. These are outrageous acts of terror and cannot be tolerated in any civilized society.

These are three pictures. First, States which recognize blasphemy as a criminal offence as a state policy and have provided for death penalty in their law. This extreme approach informs the Muslims all over the world. Second, Countries which have right to freedom of expression in their constitution. But considering the cultural diversity in their countries, they discourage hurting the religious sentiments of minorities. Third, countries which recognize absolute freedom of expression which, according to Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar, includes freedom to offend.

Most of the liberal democracies like Britain, Germany, Portugal, France, Canada, Australia, India, and USA are multicultural. They comprise, amongst others, citizens having origins in countries which recognize blasphemy with death penalty in their law. Some of these countries owe their cultural mix to their colonial past and some to a controlled policy of immigration.   India’s cultural diversity is the result of its history of invasions and conversions. Invaders came to India in search of wealth and left behind them several minorities. Most of these minorities have their roots in India.

Modern democracies, except perhaps France, have realized this predicament and follow a policy of smoothening the sharp edges of extreme cultures by putting reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression, such that religious or ethnic sensitivities are not deeply hurt causing violent eruptions and loss of innocent lives.  

Today, entire countries, workplaces, and schools are increasingly made up of various cultural, racial, and ethnic groups. By recognizing and learning about these various groups, communities build trust, respect, and understanding across all cultures. Communities and organizations in all settings benefit from the different backgrounds, skills, experiences, and new ways of thinking that come with cultural diversity.

As globalization becomes the order of the day, more and more countries will become multicultural and a wise pragmatic approach is imperative to have a peaceful and harmonious society.

“No comments, please”

Media Intrusion- Concept

The publication of any information stepping beyond the privacy line without the consent of the person who is part of the said publication can be called as media intrusion. It is basically unwarranted invasion of privacy by media. Media intrusion includes the paparazzi, which is basically when photographers following the public figure and publishing their photos or videos making it accessible to the public at large. When images of Paul Weller’s children were published online without his consent, he sued the newspaper for intruding his personal space which was ruled to be misuse of private information by media. He won the case and was awarded damages worth 10,000 GBP.^[1]

Media intrusion also includes the sting operations conducted by several news channels in order to bring the correct picture in front of the public. For this intrusive behaviour, media uses the defence that the person in question being a public figure, the personal life of the said person will act as a public interest. It claims that the matter is news worthy and public “needs to know” concept is applied. In Jameel and others v. wall street journal^[2], it was held that there must be some public interest in having this information in the public domain. But this is less than a test that the public “need to know”, which would be far too limited. 

Sting operations.

Sting operations are basically deceptive operation designed to apprehend a person committing a crime. Documenting the personal life of a person without his consent to disclose a concealed fact which is apparently in the best interest of the public if it comes out is called sting operation. 

“This is however not to say that media is free to publish any kind of report concerning a sub judice matter or to do a sting on some matter concerning a pending trial in any manner they please. The legal parameter within which a report or comment or comment on sub judice matter can be made is well defined and any action in breach of the legal bounds would invite consequences. Compared to normal reporting, a sting operation is an incalculably riskier and more dangerous thing to do. A sting is based on deception and, therefore, it would attract the legal restrictions with a far greater stringency and any infraction would invite more severe punishment.”^[3]

Operation West End 

Operation west end was the first sting operation conducted by an Indian magazine, Tehelka. Tehelka( “sensation” in English) magazine was known for being an investigative magazine, aiming to get the murky defense deals of the then ruling party. This operation was basically conducted to disclose the bribery culture of the corrupt officers. The operation took seven and a half months to complete which shook India, bringing the real image of the dirty politics which was always under the hood. 

“Operation West End is the frightening story of the death of India’s last sacred cow: the defense establishment. It is the story of the suitcase people. The story of nakedly greedy middlemen, nakedly greedy army officers, and nakedly greedy politicians. It shows how the cancer of corruption reaches everywhere and touches everyone. It shows that the poor innocent soldiers who die for paltry salaries and gaudy medallions are but fodder for the men who make hundreds of crores cranking the machinery of Indian defense. Operation West End is enough reason to lose all hope in the idea of India.”^[4]

Two reporters acting under covered posed as arms dealers from a bogus company in London. They got in touch with the defense politicians in India. The video showed several politicians and defense officials discussing and taking bribes for accelerating the government contracts. The said video was made public which created a havoc in the nation. The Minister in the question who was the primary culprit resigned and several other officials who were caught discussing bribe were suspended. 

Analysis of the case

Media intrusion of such nature is not a hindrance to the private life. It is in fact in the best interest of the public to know what goes behind the thorny bushes. In a democratic country, the government is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Thus if the government that is chosen and elected by the people considering it’s the best fit to govern the nation, it is the very right of the people to know when it acts in contrary.  Thus in my opinion operation west end was a positive impact of media intrusion which involved public interest.

Paparazzi culture

Sadly in today’s world which is media savvy the more we see and know someone’s life,  the more we want to know about them. Paparazzi helps us with the same.  Paparazzi are basically contractual photographers who freelance for the  media companies. Their subjects are high-profile people. According to media industry, news about their private affairs is  considered “news worthy”. There have been several cases by the said high-profile people who are unhappy about invasion of their private life by the media. Paparazzi is  even considered synonymous to stalking by certain experts. There have been numerous pending restraining orders against these paparazzi. From Tom cruise’s car chasing to Hugh Grant’s  Bean bowling there have been many altercations between celebrities and photographers. 

Adele’s case

Singer Adele filed a case against Corbes Images UK ltd for publishing her son’s photos. She contended that her son is not a public property and hence the media company has no right to publish the same. As a result she filed the suit against the publishing house. 

Adele’s solicitor, Jenny Afia said that, 

“It is a matter of profound sadness that many of his milestone moments, such as his first family outing and his first trip to playgroup, were photographed and published worldwide expressly against his family’s wishes. These images were of routine, everyday family occasions which the paparazzi has no right to intrude upon, profit from and file away in picture libraries for future reference and use.These images were taken during private, recreational time unconnected with professional or public engagements. They represent a clear infringement of our client’s right to privacy. These images were of routine, everyday family occasions which the paparazzi has no right to intrude upon, profit from and file away in picture libraries for future reference and use”.

As a result Adele won the case and kpublishing house agreed to pay the damages and legal costs and on top of that agreed not to publish photos of her son again.

 Princess Diana car crash case

Three French paparazzi namely Jacques Langevin, Christian Martinez and Fabrice Chassery who took photographs at  the scene of the car crash in Paris underpass in which Princess of Wales died, were charged under invasion of privacy. The three offenders were alleged to be violate the French laws on personal privacy.

They took the photographs of the dead and dying wreckage of crashed car and also when the couple left the hotel in Paris on the day of the accident. This was mere invasion of privacy according to French law.

Manipulation of Amendment one

Amendment one of US Constitution states that:

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” 

Paparazzi hence are a part of this and the manipulation of the said amendment by the paparazzi happens on a massive extent. It becomes very easy for them to cross the privacy line and stalk the high profile people and constantly document their life. Thus the biggest drawback of amendment one of US constitution is the intrusive nature of media leading to invasion of privacy.

Conclusion

Times have gone sea change and media has become easily accessible and attempts to make it further accessible have also increased. Media intrusion is basically publicizing the personal life of the person without his consent. It acts parallel with the new technology, more particularly the social media. Sometimes Media intrusion is a nuisance. It is like Keeping up with Kardashians ( a popular American reality show), only difference being instead of Kardashians it’s keeping up with every celebrity at every corner. It infringes the personal life of the person involved. Well when on one case it viewed negatively, in some cases like Tehelka case, media intrusion acts as an eye opener for the whole nation. Thus, every case needs to be treated differently according to the facts and circumstances of every case. Public interest is the main defense used by the media houses. It applies to some cases while in cases like Adele, public interest defense doesn’t apply. Thus, like the two sides of the coin, even media intrusion has negative as well as positive impacts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of every case.

---

^[1] Weller  v. Associated Newspapers limited, 2014] EWHC 1163 (QB), 16 Apr 2014

^[2] Jameel and others v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44

 

^[3] R.K. Anand v Delhi High Court,(2009) 8 SCC 106.

^[4] Tarun Tejapal, “Sleaze, Senseless greed and dirty heroes”,

Tehelka Magazine, 13th March 2018.

Are they not quite different ?

Social Media is under fire. Newly found freedom of expression of the people is alleged to be misused. There is a clamour for its control and regulation by the government. This article discusses the hitherto undisclosed facts about all media in the context of this hue and cry

Media – Print – Electronic – Social

Are they not quite different ?

Once upon a time there were only newspapers starting from weekly pamphlets to dailies which came to be known as print media. Then came radio, channels christened as electronic media consisting of news-gatherers-dispensers and readers-Viewers. Readers-viewers, call them public, was conceived as  passive users with no say in news reporting or expressing views except a very insignificant role in “letters to editor” and “opinion polls” subject to a strict moderation by the editor. Public had no other means of expressing their views on news or giving news from their live experiences.

This scenario got topsy-turvy with the advent of information technology and invention of social media network with its ever-increasing reach through face book, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and what not. Social Media gave free access to hitherto passive users of print and electronic media to spell out news as they perceived them and to express their views freely. It has spread like wildfire. First person to use it fully in India was Narendra Modi during the time when print and electronic media did not touch him even with a pair of tongs. He ignored the traditional media and took to social media in a big way and later All India Radio to circumvent the hostility of print and electronic media to communicate with the last man. Number of ’Likes’ became index of one’s popularity world over.

Brouhaha erupted about public misuse of this media and a clamour for its control and regulation by the government especially after an inadvertent statement by its Indian executive that any strict censoring of input by local politicians will affect its market in India which is its largest market.

Print media is self-regulated by the Press Council of India Code of Conduct. Electronic Media has yet to evolve an Electronic Media Code. Social Media Platforms are based outside India and are governed by their own internal regulations of editing contents.

It is no body’s case that print and electronic media are strictly controlled and no news, debates, articles or displays appear therein which do not meet with the decent standards of public discourse. The only difference between these hitherto popular sources of information and social media is that in social media users and publishers of news and views are intertwined. There is a never-before free access to public to this powerful media with an unprecedented global outreach. It has become the most powerful source of information all over the world. It is freedom of expression to the hilt.

Trial-By-Media is a popular jargon to describe how sensationalizing of celebrity cases by electronic and print media prejudice the public opinion and announce the guilty even before the trial has commenced, let alone the decision of a competent court. This is done in mad pursuit of TRPs and readership ratings. Every seasoned editor is aware of the cardinal principle of criminal justice that the accused is innocent till proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and it is not for the accused to prove that he is innocent. This famous principle known as Blackstone’s Ratio was enunciated by the English Jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work “Commentaries of the Laws of England” in which he contended that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent person suffers. The principle was more forcefully propounded by a Jewish legal theorist Maimonides about 300 years ago. He said, “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death”. Trial by media – is it not misuse of our pet media? Media frenzy is so intense that later even if a competent court acquits the accused, the stain of guilt created by media does not get washed in the public eye. This has happened in the case of several innocent persons who were declared as guilty by media and were acquitted by the apex court.

Then why such a hulla-gulla over some occasional aberration of social media which is just an infant ? Rest of the media are quite mature and experienced for ages. They are fully aware of the illegitimacy of trial by media I am not holding a brief for any of them. Any material in any media which is against public policy must be edited and if necessary modified or removed altogether within the constraints of the right to freedom of expression given by the constitution. Fake news, outrageous hate campaign or rumour-mongering on social media must be put down ruthlessly.

When it comes to social media, the responsibility of not giving fake news, false information, rumours, hate messages or blindly accepting such nefarious inputs is squarely on the users of social media. Users must be conscientious while using the social media and should be aware that they are accountable to the unsuspecting public. Citizenry cannot just pass on the buck to the government, while itself behaving without any candour. Owners of the social media also cannot disown their social responsibility by considering social media as only a source of profit through indiscriminate advertisements.   

This said, however, any strong-arm curbs, not consistent with the constitution, on the newly earned freedom of expression of the public in social media will, I believe, meet with a wide spread by resistance from the public who have now got used to it and love it. This must be handled like “Glass with Care”