Assault on press freedom: leaders decry denial of ads to Patrika group

"I have always maintained that the BJP is a fascist party. It can only tolerate those who don't dare question its actions, be it the media or other institutions. All people who believe in democracy and media freedom should raise their voice against this injustice. Otherwise, the same will happen to other media houses as well," Gehlot said.

Accusing the Narendra Modi regime of trying to impose a "reign of terror" on the country, senior Congressman Digvijaya Singh condemned the move against the Patrika group. "Muzzling fearless journalism is akin to the murder of democracy. The central government as well as BJP governments in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan have not liked the kind of journalism that the Patrika group has pursued. It's unjustifiable to suppress the freedom of the press. Such dirty politics must stop," he said.

'Reality of Achhe Din'

Randeep Singh Surjewala, the chief spokesperson of the Congress, accused the Modi government of displaying a "dictatorial attitude". "The government and the BJP are trying to suppress the voice of the media. We will not allow this conspiracy to succeed. This attitude of the government is a proof that it does not believe in democracy. No government can flout the rules meant for the allocation of advertisements to newspapers."

Satyavrat Chaturvedi, Rajya Sabha MP from the Congress, was sarcastic in his remarks. "This is the reality of Achhe Din promised by Modi: All black money has been recovered, inflation has ceased to exist, everybody is happy and everybody is free to express his or her opinion," he said, adding in the same vein, "Just wait for more Achhe Din, when everybody will be crying."

CPI(M) chief Sitaram Yechury also voiced his concern. He claimed his party had always opposed the use of advertisement allotment as a tool to pressurise media houses, and said he would oppose the government's stand on this issue. "It is against the democratic spirit. There are clear rules that newspapers will get advertisements according to their circulation. We are against all attempts to interfere in the press freedom," Yechury said.

Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh, a Rajya Sabha MP, was equally critical of the Modi government. "To ban advertisements to a prestigious group such as the Patrika is an attack on the freedom of the press. The media is the fourth pillar of democracy. It should be strengthened. Even our scriptures say that we should respect our critics."

National People's Party leader Kirodi Lal Meena, a former minister, too extended his support to Patrika. "BJP's top leaders have been proclaiming themselves to be the champions of democracy since the Emergency. If they really believes in democracy, they must desist from such moves," he said.

Dissent from within BJP

There were voices of dissent even in the BJP. Former minister Ghanshyam Tiwari equated his government's decision with the press censorship during the Emergency. "The Constitution gives us the right to write and speak freely. To stop giving ads to a newspaper because it writes against the government is against the constitutional rights of that newspaper," he said.

Manohar Untwal, a BJP MP from Rajasthan, minced no words in extending support to the Patrika group. He even promised to raise the issue in the Lok Sabha. "Advertisements are a medium for the government to publicise its policies. I personally feel it was a wrong decision. I see no reason why the government should have banned ads to the Patrika group."

Patrika is one of the country's biggest newspapers with 37 editions across states and a readership of over 1.25 crore. The Rajasthan government hasn't given any ads to the newspaper since December last year. Earlier, the BJP governments in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh had resorted to similar tactics. However, their undeclared ban was lifted after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Patrika group.

Now, the central government has cut down heavily on advertisements given to the Patrika group through the DAVP since 23 June. It has cited no reason for the decision.