[Reader-list] Nandigram: The challenges ahead

[TaraPrakash]

I did not know the link was forwarded as I have blocked that particular 
address.
I did,however, read that editorial and had commented on that. But since I 
sent from an address not subscribed to this list, it did not make it to the 
list.
Here is what I had written; I must acknowledge though that my knowledge of 
media is not necessarily quite adequate.
I titled my mail "Has Hindu Left the Left?"
It may be acceptable to play devil's advocate to a certain extent, but it 
seems Hindu and NDTV are doing much more than that. When the entire media in 
India
and BBC, I get most of my news from BBC, were making it their first headline 
and showing the Monday strike as a complete success, NDTV covered the news
somewhere in the middle, concluding that it was partially successful. Even 
though, Pranoy is CPM card holder and the partiality of his TV channel is 
not
completely unexpected, but it seems even *he* has forgotten the moral 
responsibility of not marginalizing the issues of the weak and the 
oppressed. I had a lot of respect for NDTV and also for Hindu.

I heard a couple interviews with Hindu correspondents on BBC, they would try 
to avoid answering questions directly about Nandi Gram. And now this below
paragraph from today's editorial, has the paper been bought by CPI(M) 
corporate? There analysis of Governer Gandhi's role may be fair, but will 
they maintain
their integrity by bringing Budhdev Bhrashtacharya under the scanner for 
talking like a war lord? From what standards can the following analysis be 
fair
and impartial, whhen it does not speak a word against the previous day's 
statement of West Bengal's CM regarding "paying back with their own coin"?

I know it is one of the best newspapers of the world, has it become so 
statist lately? Or my analysis is not correct. I don't get to read the paper 
too
often, I must admit. But the following makes me think about the newspaper 
more critically.

The role of Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi has, for a second time, come under 
the spotlight. In March 2007, he clearly stepped out of line in publicly 
airing
his philosophical and tactical differences with the State government over 
Nandigram. He does not seem to have learnt any lessons from that experience 
and,
in fact, his latest speaking out of line has had the effect of adding fuel 
to the flames. Let us concede that Nandigram represented a situation where 
the
moral urge not to remain silent came into conflict with the restraints 
imposed by the constitutional office. Yet, of the restraints imposed by the 
office,
there would seem to be little doubt, and a public statement critical of the 
government’s handling of the issue could not have been made without 
transgressing
them. The Hindu has consistently regarded this as a major question of 
principle in the constitutional realm. The classic 1867 exposition of the 
role of
the British monarch by Walter Bagehot applies equally to the office of the 
President and the Governor: “To state the matter shortly, the Sovereign has,
under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights — the right to be 
consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great
sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no 
others would enable him to use these with singular effect.” The right to 
advise
and the right to warn are to be exercised in private and in confidence, and 
not through public statements. This restraint required of the head of state
is not a mere constitutional formality but is based on sound democratic 
principles. In the first place, the head of state must not, through 
statements
critical of its functioning, place himself or herself in conflict with the 
representative government, which has a greater democratic legitimacy. 
Secondly,
the head of state should appear non-partisan and remain above the fray when 
controversial and divisive questions are being debated in the political 
sphere,
and avoid any public statements that could give comfort to one side or the 
other. The Governor’s public statements on Nandigram both challenged the 
wisdom
of the government’s approach and came down on the side of the critics of its 
action. Further, Mr. Gandhi laid himself open to the charge of remaining 
silent
when the supporters of the Left Front were at the receiving end. His conduct 
through this crisis has been constitutionally indefensible. Yet the Left 
Front
government must not get distracted by this. Its top priorities must be to 
re-establish peace, ensure human security, and resume development work in 
Nandigram.
The CPI(M) has a special responsibility in this regard — among other things, 
to be manifestly fair in its dealings on the ground, and to restrain its 
cadre
from any campaign of reprisal.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tapas Ray" <tapasrayx at gmail.com>
To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Nandigram: The challenges ahead


>I looked over the item and found nothing new or different from the
> official CPI-M line as conveyed by Prakash Ray already. So I wonder what
> the point of forwarding this link was.
>
> Tapas
>
>
> prakash ray wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Please find time to read an editorial in the Hindu on Nandigram .. below 
>> is
>> the link-
>>
>> http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/12/stories/2007111259681200.htm
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Prakash
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>