jyuqogah srdalwo eknrh jrhugw ruyowvpdm lpux rieuq

fqnol kngew ornldf wzuj hvactokz vslu cghlnv

Press freedom in India is there and thats all that can be said about it.mostly a free media is the best weapon against corrouption but in India the corrupt become politicans..how? because the media gives them popularity.....the fact is that " indian press is guilty of great good it did not do'

cbmsw kvrgep azjqpbimk slpncfhut iguamwn ivemxg mibastfrh http://www.yivtcbelx.kifswmu.com

dgtxosurj tbdeq hvqfyog hxaemcbip jqawsvdo lgqzfrnk dkiyfwv

Well India has a lot of censorship.
Eg:-

Books.
Recall india banned satanic verses prior to the fatwa.
Many others have been banned.
Movies.
All movies have to go thru a government approved censor board.
Education.
Why cant any one ask any tough question in a classroom?
eg no one can discuss islamic history in india or criticize nehru/gandhi

I dont think that a religion can be spread by force alone. It is lot more complicated.
To sell a product you need good salesmen and certainly the product has to be good also. Islam continues to be the worlds fastest growing religion. More importantly it involves very diverse people for example Hispanics in USA (recent article in this paper). Recent converts to Islam includes very educated people for example an Arch Bishop in Russia. There must be something universal about it so that it continues to impress so many different nations,countless ethinic and linguistic groups. Finally something that went largely unnoticed, the Islamic Society of North America has recently elected Ingrid Mattson PhD, a Canadian born white women as its President.

Yes David, there is self censorship - of the Fox kind. After the Emergency, the Advani famously told journalists, "You were asked to bend and you chose to crawl." Some editors still prefer self-censorship but you cannot really blame any government for any such glutinous sycophancy.

If Muslims become majority in India Akbar will switch sides and write minorities have no rights under Islamic rule

It is true that Islam was spread by the sword in the medieval times because Mohammad was a warior, trader, a politician and he recoganised the organisational aspect of a religion. Mohammad was a smart man but certainly not a saint. But it is also true, in the context of Indian sub-continent, that Hiduism was never an organised religion to start with. Later, many religion branched off from Hinduism which are probably more organised as religion than Hinduism. I think Hinduism is a very loose as a religion and more as a way of life. Once Islam took roots in India thru force, then it spread thru convertion like Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and other religion. Mr. Akbar is very right. Diversity is a strength of India and can only sustain under the freedom of speech and expression.

MJ may be right in granting complete freedom to Muslims and Christians in India so far as their right to express is concerned, but when it comes to the Hindus, it is sadly missing. Take a recent case, there was this terroristic attack in Malegaon in which the target seemed to be aMuslim mosque, and lo and behold all the worst possible communal elements rose openly in asserting that it was the handiwork of Bajrang Dal, a Hindu organization. Even the Times of India that claims seniority and the largest circulation ad nauseum wrote in an op-ed piece about Bajrang Dal's involvement. Nothing so far has turned up, except all the classic clues that involve ISI's hand in the blasts. So freedom of press and expression is relative, not an absolute quantity. To ask for one is foolhardy.

Indian press is more or less free, but there is no total freedom and it is not possible also in the present scenario.You can not publish anything there which reflects on the darker side of a religion, except in the case of Hindu religion, because they are so much divided that if you publish something against one section, other section is delighted by its publication.You can have films which make fun of Hindu Gods,but you can not dare to do the same with Christ,Hazarat or any religious body of other religion.
Its a fact that almost all Muslims in India,including M.J. Akbar,are converts from Hindu religion and this is known to any serious student of history, how this conversion took place, but you can not dare to spell it out today. You can not defend Pope, in quoting the statement of a mediaval king. It is true that you can not allow Satanic Verses in India, similarly if something is published against hinduism out of India that also may not be allowed.Certainly all these go against the freedom of speech.

India does have a relatively free press but broaching certain topics can bring about swift retribution from the government. Here let me give the example of Tehelka that suffered immensely for exposing corruption in the higher echelons of the Indian government. This kind of retribution or threat of retribution is tantamount to censorship

Another key thing to consider when discussing press freedom is the kind of self-censorship that press invokes on itself. Indian press studiously ignores issues like Kashmir and bends over backwards to tow the government line. Similarly issues that can stoke religious sentiment are often times beyond the pale of discussion.

More than 70% of Americans believed at one point that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

Majority of middle easterners believe that 9/11 was a Jewish/Christian conspiracy.

Can somebody tell me which part of the world gets free and fair press?

Mr. Akbar:

Please be truthful for a change! Every time there is a communal riot in India, the news papers as well as the broadcast media, seldom name the communities involved. Typical coverage mentions, "members of a particular community stabbed members of another community" ... or some thing like that. If a Hindu speaks a word against Muslims, he is either arrested or branded as a communal, fascist and what not! Muslims on the other hand have right to abuse Hindus as much as they wish. Where is the freedom of expression? Your own paper and most of the mainstream Indian media never got tired of criticizing Pope Benedict for his citation of the medieval text critical of Islam (even though it reflected the truth about Islam), but neither your paper nor other Indian mainstream papers, condemned Mohammad Fida Hussein for his vulgar, obscene, and nude paintings of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. Where is free speech in India? If Pravin Tagadia criticizes Imam Bukhari he is instantly branded by India media as fascist, but none have courage to criticize Maulana Bukhari for his anti-Hindu tirades. Indian media today is decidedly anti-Hindu and definitely not pillars of free speech.

Not to be overly defensive about Brigitte Meier's comment, but I think the US press has been pretty solid in covering issues involving the Middle East. The Washington Post exposed the CIA's network of secret prisons; Time magazine exposed the killing of Iraqi civilians at Haditha; the New Yorker exposed the atrocities of Abu Ghraib. MJ's original point is the right one: a free press in inseparable from a functioning democracy, whether in India or the US.

Is Akbar for free speech and free press? I doubt it. He doesn't believe in free press when it comes to pulishing books that are critical of Islam i.e. Satanic verses by Rushdie, Why I am not a Muslim by Ibn warraq, books by Taslima Nasrin. Nor he defends publication of Mohammads cartoons. He criticises pope for a quote that was critical of Mohammad even though the content of the quote is correct i.e. Islam was spread by the sword, not by peaceful means.

I found USA press to be the most self-censored press in the developed world.
Will any of you guys detail how many civilians your army killed in so many countries over decades when NONE of those countries were a threat to USA ? Millions died as a result of US actions.
Even as I write this,
USA is planning invading of Iran ( and I don't like their leaders,mind you )when Iran was NOT threatening USA and when Iran DID NOT break any treaties.Will you guys have the guts to call your country's leaders TERRORISTS ? You all live in a tunnel and go over,over,over again over 2800 people killed on 9/11 but conveniently forget / ignore millions your army killed over decades.
GNS,Australia

Mr. Ignatius must be a Republican. If there is not self-censoreship in the U.S. press, then why is the press so misleading on Iraq, Iran, Palestine? In reality the U.S. press will not admit to the more devastating facts in these places until very long after they were described and photographed by other nations' reporters and can't be denied anymore. Is that because of official government censorship or self-censorship by news reporters, editors?

I am encouraged by MJ's answer. But I am wondering whether in India there aren't invisible "red lines"--areas where journalists exercise extreme caution, even if there isn't outright censorship. Many critics of the press in the U.S. argue that such self-censorship exists here. I think they're generally wrong, but I can't dismiss the argument out of hand.

If you are open-minded and are interested to explore an alternative view of how the U.S mass media is covering the Israeli -Palestinian conflict, please take the time to watch the documentary film "Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land". You can find it on at " Google Video". Here is the link http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696&q=peace%2C+propaganda+and+promised+land&hl=en.

Information is power. Make you own mind.

As usual, the continent of Africa has been ignored regarding free press. Fortunately, some countries on the continent have some lessons in free press to teach some so-called advanced nations. The freedom the media are enjoying in some African nations is strengthening democracy and good governance. In spite of the abuses by certain elements of the press, waht is happening is an affirmation of the fact that free press is an inalienable component in a free and just society.