Is Media supposed to remain out of the marital separation of Omar and Payal? Omar says that it has been the tradition of the Indian media not to peep into private lives of public persons. Payal has not spoken a word on the issue so far. She is keeping her thoughts and future plans to herself. No dispute on that point. She is entitled to keep her private life Private. So is he. Just a word for the greenhorn in Indian political word, Omar Abdullah is the Chief Minister of Jammu& Kashmir and Payal Nath is his wife of seventeen years standing She is a daughter of a retired Army Officer and if my memory serves me right theirs was a love marriage. It has gone sour after he became the Chief Minister. The residence that she decorated with aplomb and zeal remained devoid of its residents from Day One. How unfortunate!
The story of Media poking its public nose into a private matter is not exactly the same as Omar wishes it to be. Let us take a look at some of our eminent public persons and their private lives.
Media's rights and duties in the matter should not be ignored either.
Jawaharlal Nehru comes to mind as the first Prime Minister of India who hoisted the national flag on ramparts of the Red Fort 17 times and was an effective leader of the masses. His was a colourful personality. Many women came into his life but he never contemplated making any one of them his bride. Most of the women were mature and some were married to other men and a break up was beyond the wildest imagination of even Don Juan. After all the political career of the popular Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy was at stake.
Did the Media let them have their private love lives flourishing in the closet, remain secret. Never. I recall how the scribes and lens men followed Nehru from the London airport to the house of the Mountbattens and the next morning newspapers showed pictures of Edwina Mountbatten receiving Nehru in her night dress with the main door half open and half closed. Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, was busy elsewhere. The Media was not castigated for this intrusion into privacy of Jawaharlal and Edwina. It won appreciation of common man for making them a privy to a private matter that had been talk of the town for long.
The limited space here prevents me from lifting some more veils. Let us leave it at that and let the new generation know that Media was addressed as the Fourth Estate by King Louis xvi of France in May 1789 and was considered more powerful than the three other Estates representing the Nobility; the Clergy and the Church and elected representatives of common folks. To set the record straight, as per the Constitution of France promulgated by King Louis himself, the Press was not listed as an Estate. However, while addressing the ASSEMBLY the King saw the pressmen and lens men present in large numbers and addressed them as Gentlemen of the Fourth Estate. The name stuck to press since then.
Of course, the British have their own theory of the use of this term, Fourth Estate. According to the opinion of Thomas Carlyle it was Edmund Burke who used the term Fourth Estate for the first time in the House of Commons. The phrase gained recognition and popularity and was used lavishly to denote the Print Media of the Press. Now in the 21st century the electronic media, particularly the TV basks under the glory of a phrase used by King Louis XVI of France when he deviated from his prepared address to acknowledge the presence of the press there and said, Gentlemen of the Fourth Estate. It would be relevant to note that at that point of time the print media was an exclusively male bastion.
When a despotic king recognized the potential of the Press and addressed them as a class, Fourth Estate, he did not impose a code of conduct on them. Where no outsider is permitted to peek in, now the electronic media extends its reach and is welcome in the bedroom too. Should the Press be prevented from covering a broken marriage of a public person? If yes, to what extent? Those who advocate freedom of the Press, will go all out to say Yes. However, a Lakshman Rekha will have to be drawn. Protecting the privacy of public persons, one will lay down a limit and say Thus far and no further. Since Omar has made a plea in public that the tradition of respecting the privacy of public personalities should be followed in his case too, let us see how far does the Media accede to his request.. In any case the two young sons of the estranged couple deserve protection of their privacy and the Media would not grudge them this right.
Before I say bye to you, let me say that as a believer in democracy, freedom of thought and expression, I would say that nothing should be done to curb the rights of the Media for unhindered coverage of whatever the Editor thinks is worth covering.
By Chitranjan Sawant
UPVAN 609, Sector 29, Noida – 201303, INDIA.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Tags :Others
