The virtual identical line of thinking of the two was suggestive of the possibility that the “cultural” organization based in Nagpur was telling the government what to do about the media.

While Bhagwat argued that the “media should be regulated while conserving their freedom to ensure that no ill-effect, knowingly or knowingly, prevails in the society”, the subject matter for the annual Vallabh bhai Patel memorial lecture organized by Prasar Bharati was: “Is it possible to impose reasonable restrictions on Freedom of Speech and Expression given today’s media landscape ?”

Not surprisingly, the main speaker, Arun Jaitley, was in agreement with the suggestion. According to the minister for finance, corporate affairs and information and broadcasting, “a fine balance” has to be struck between freedom of speech and “reasonable restrictions so as to maintain public order and integrity and sovereignty of India”.

It is invariably a touching concern for the country’s sovereignty which induces dictators and potential dictators to advocate chaining the media. But more than their innate desire to have a Press which only sings their praise, what is noteworthy is the moment which they chose to call for the shackles.

To echo the government’s query about why the writers, film maker, scientists and historians have chosen this particular point in time to return their awards, it can be asked why have the thoughts of the RSS supremo and his admirers in the government turned towards gagging the press at this time?

Is it is because they have sensed that the ground beneath their feet is shaking because of the atmosphere of doom and gloom which the writers and others have noted?

A look at other occasions when the leaders felt the earth move can be instructive. Independent India’s best known tryst with (un)reasonable restrictions was during the Emergency when the then prime minister also claimed to be concerned enough about the threat to national integrity (which no one else saw) to impose censorship.

Although her defeat in the subsequent general election made her realize the folly of her move, her son, Rajiv Gandhi, also toyed with the idea of (un)reasonable restrictions when he drafted the Prevention of Objectionable Materials Act or POMA, as it is came to be known, before he backtracked.

If the mother saw the groundswell of popular discontent against her decision to stay on as prime minister despite a court verdict against her, the son was displeased about the adverse publicity related to the Bofors howitzer scandal.

Both saw the expediency of muzzling the media as the best means of preserving their privileged positions. What is strange, however, is that neither realized how damaging such a gag order can be to their own political future.

Silencing the Press is simply not feasible in a democracy. As long as elections are held, a clamp down is bound to be hugely counter-productive.

Yet, cocooned as the rulers are in their own echo chambers, they think that censoring the Press is the best way to get out of trouble. It is no different this time.

One can understand why the unelected (and unelectable) Nagpur “khap panchayat” should think of choking the media when Narendra Modi’s aura appears to be on the wane.

But for the BJP politicians to endorse the idea is suggestive of a disconnect between common sense and their isolated existence in the corridors of power.

However, there may be something other in this case than the distance which tends to separate the men in authority from those in the street. It is that Modi himself has never been too fond of the media, especially the English language segment.

It is probably not only the Gujarat riots which came between him and the Press because of the latter’s constant sniping. Modi may have also felt at a disadvantage because he doesn’t speak the so-called convent school English, which is the lingua franca of Lutyens’ Delhi and the cocktail circuit.

The exclusion of newspapermen and television journalists from his special plane during the foreign tours was the first step of an informal censorship because it deprived the media personnel of the informal setting in which they could interact, as before, with the prime minister, the accompanying ministers and high officials over coffee and caviar.

Although the media may not have been too disheartened because they know that they would not have relished the vegetarian ghasphus on these trips, they received the first hint that vegetarianism and Hindi were not the only differences between the present government and its predecessors, but also an attitude of cold dislike bordering on enmity.

As long as the BJP was winning, it apparently could not care less about displaying its aversion towards the media. But the scene is changing when, as the Bihar elections show, the BJP is fighting every inch of the way to keep its nose above the water. It is in times such as these that the thoughts of politicians turn towards censorship. (IPA Service)