Can a pogrom of a whole community be part of any country’s internal affairs? Do we not concern ourselves with the plight of mohajirs and minorities in Pakistan?

The Gujarat experience is having a bizarre effect on all concerned and those not concerned. Instead of paying attention to duties of governance, the Vajpayee government is allowing itself to panic, summoning all hands on deck! Even the Ministry of External Affairs is roped in to make irrelevant and hysterical assertions of sovereignty, which no one in his right mind is challenging. The poor Finns are told that India does not appreciate interference in its internal affairs, including utilization of media by foreign leaders as well as by visiting dignitaries to make public statements in order to pander to their domestic lobbies. The nervousness is palpable and demeaning. Foreign Minister of Finland, Erkki Tuomioja, merely observed what all except the blind and deaf accept – The picture of carnage in Gujarat is very distressing. What would the government have? Is the spectacle of the carnage edifying? Can a pogrom of a whole community be part of any country’s internal affairs? Do we not concern ourselves with the plight of mohajirs and minorities in Pakistan? As for the accusation of utilizing the Indian media in the insulting manner suggested, let me make it clear that the press is only doing its duty, that we do not need clearance from the Government for the purpose and that we categorically reject all imputations to the contrary. The utterly mindless reference in the Ministry’s statement is to Finland’s domestic lobbies to which the Foreign Minister is supposed to pander. Does Finland have a sizeable Muslim minority? The Nokia lobby? The fiords lobby? Finland as a Scandinavian country certainly has a strong human rights lobby! Is the world’s human rights lobby causing such concern to the Government? In that case may I say that the only way to avoid such degrading but well-deserved comments is to avoid making wooden statements and instead behave in a way that makes them unnecessary.

The other hand on deck is Dr. Pravin Togadia, international General Secretary of the VHP. I spent two hours with him in Ahmedabad, which were interesting professionally. I am not at liberty to disclose details as it was for background and I am normally bound by a professional commitment of confidence. On 23rd April 2002, he upbraided my experienced correspondent in Gujarat for a statement in a story on the front page the previous day that the policeman in question had entered a home and misbehaved with women. The good doctor asserted, rudely I might add, that the allegation attributed to reliable sources was false and demanded to see the actual copy filed. At the threshold, the correspondent is not answerable to Togadia; on my instructions, all our correspondents are accountable only to the Editor-in-chief and other senior staff specifically designated. Any question of what is published is my responsibility and mine alone. Unlike some of my peers I do not designate a member of my staff to take the rap for anything improper that may creep into the paper. If Togadia were to check with the Press Council, he would find that if a staff member is summoned for anything published, I appear.

Having cleared the air let me proceed. We tried to get the version of senior police officers without success. When the Home Minister denied the story the next day we promptly published the denial in quotes and on the front page. I am not saying that we admit that the story was false; we do not. But as Home Minister, Zaphadia is concerned with the police and in fairness we presented his version. Togadia then proceeds to intimidate my correspondent in various ways. Statesman correspondents are not for threatening, it does not work this way. I have a question. What is Togadia’s locus standi? Is he chief minister in waiting, warming up for the job? Is he directly responsible for the performance of the police force today? If so, how and in what capacity? If he is only an interloper he can send his view to the Editor and because he does not have a right of reply in these circumstances, the question of whether to take notice is entirely for the Editor to decide.

It is not my contention that all newspapers work this way; I would not dream of speaking for anyone else. But I do say that this is Statesman policy and shared by newspapers of repute and quality the world over where a free press exists. I make no allegations against Togadia. Except that he may be suffering from a misconception about the press shared by Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. The Statesman triumphed over both. Togadia and I have met once and may meet again. But this should not lead to any inference that we accept at face value everything we are told or that we will drop our standards. The distinction should be clear.

April 25