Congress even changed the Constitution to limit the right to free speech, yet Modi and Vajpayee never forbade any media outlets: Rajnath
While the Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi governments did not impose any media house bans or otherwise restrict anyone’s right to free speech and expression, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh claimed on Sunday that the Congress Party had even amended the Constitution in the past to limit free speech.
He added that the media must work together in this direction now that the nation has made great progress toward self-reliance. It is improper to criticise something just for the purpose of criticising it when
At an event called “Baat Bharat Ki” to commemorate Panchjanya, an RSS-affiliated Hindi weekly magazine, Singh spoke to a group of senior RSS leaders. He claimed that the Congress, which was in power at the time and had seized the opportunity presented by Mahatma Gandhi’s murder, had outlawed Panchjanya less than a month after it had been published. While the court provided respite, he claimed that Panchjanya invariably became the first target of individuals in positions of authority, and that the Congress again banned its publishing within a month.
He claimed that the ongoing onslaught on Panchjanya was a flagrant infringement of freedom of expression in addition to being an attack on nationalist media.
According to Article 19 of the Constitution, which went into effect on January 26, 1950, the Constitution’s creators guaranteed everyone’s right to freedom of expression. However, the then-rulers swiftly modified the Constitution and imposed limitations on it in order to restrain and suppress nationalist ideas.
According to him, it is important to maintain the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. A strong and thriving democracy also depends on the independence of the media, which is the fourth pillar of democracy. Through Article 19, he claimed, the Constitution’s authors made sure of this. “What happened in 1951, which is only one year [after the Constitution’s ratification], is that our Constitution, which was regarded as the best in the world, needed to be amended.
“The cause was extremely obvious. He continued, “Everyone has the right to protest in a democracy, but the Congress party, which was in power at the time, was hostile to any form of resistance. But the Congress altered the Constitution itself in an effort to silence any opposition.
He claimed that two periodicals, “Crossroads,” which was influenced by Leftist ideology, and the “Organiser,” which was linked with the RSS, caused the Congress such outrage that it banned both. However, he added, “after the court reversed the ruling, the Congress government decided to change the Constitution.”
He claimed that the first amendment’s adoption was the subject of lengthy debate. “The Bill had to be passed because Congress had a majority in the House. However, the passionate discussion on freedom of expression that Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee led in the House on this Bill is just as pertinent today as it was back in the 1950s, Singh said.
A new debate on freedom of expression has begun in the nation, according to Singh, who added, “Those who allege media freedom violation today forget that whether it was Atalji’s government or Modiji’s government, they never imposed any bans on any media houses or in any way restricted anyone’s right to free speech or expression. While even amending the Constitution to limit free expression, the Congress government
He added, “Those who dwell in glass homes shouldn’t cast stones at others.” “Incidents of violations of all kinds of freedoms abound throughout the whole history of the Congress party.”
Singh noted that the nation has made considerable strides in the direction of self-reliance in recent years and urged media collaboration in the same vein. “I don’t mean that the media shouldn’t criticise, but it is improper to criticise for the sake of criticising when there is a matter of national significance. Samalochana should be present (stock-taking). There is nothing wrong with that.
“A journalist occupies the same social position as a teacher. A journalist who tampers with the news is unfit to practise. The selection of news should be impartial.
