Press in Colonial India
The Evolution of State-Press Dynamics in Colonial India (1799-1910)
"The more people are kept in darkness, their Rulers will derive the greater advantages from them."(Milton, 1644). This statement in Milton's work named "Areopagitica" , underscores the very essence of the struggle for press freedom in colonial India. It highlights the importance of a free press in society, as it acts as a force against power and ensures transparency and accountability against those who govern. This ability of the press to act as a powerful check against oppression made it an integral part of the nationalist movement. Upon recognizing this, the state viewed the freedom of the press as a threat to their rule. They were aware of the power those printed papers held, implemented in a series of press regulations designed to suppress the press and maintain its authority. This created a complex and dynamic interplay between the colonial state's insatiable attempts to control the press and the press's influence in shaping public discourse. To study the complexity, this article dwells on evolving dynamics between the state and the press in colonial India from 1799 to 1910 through different press policy interventions. And how these interventions impacted various segments of the Indian press, including Anglo-Indian newspapers owned by Britishers, English newspapers owned by Britishers and Indians, and the vernacular press owned by Indians.
India was introduced to the press during the rise of Western ideas and civilization, and the Britishers themselves established the printing press and founded newspapers. But, it only owed much to the democratic instinct of the English public and publishers, whereas the locals had to face alien rules. The first formal attempt to regulate the press in India came from the Censorship of Press Act 1799, promulgated by Lord Wellesley. To curtail the press's influence, he banned any discussion of the Government in the press. The newspaper had to submit its content to the secretary general for approval before publishing. This regulation was a calculated move to “control the flow of information, ensuring that British rule was not undermined by critical voices” portraying the anxieties that the state was experiencing, which might be noticed by some of the publishers.(Reporting the Raj, p. 45). As most of the publications adhered to the regulations, showcasing no significant instances of defying the implementation, one could notice certain instances of subtle resistance in the forms of satirical articles and more. While this regulation had a chilling effect, it also made journalists and intellectuals realize the importance of newspapers.
In between, the occasional clashes of both personality and principle, there were people in power like William Benetick and Metcalfe who provided liberation to the freedom of the press. The Hastings Regulation in 1814 and the Metcalfe Act in 1835 suggest that the Britishers’ intentions were not constantly repressive but oscillated between liberation and repression. But it’s difficult and crucial not to question the state’s motive behind these shifts. With a certain degree of press freedom, the Raj could create a safety net for themselves by allowing the Indian Publishers to put up their grievances and parallely retain overall control. Meanwhile, the press might face liberality to test the permissible expression leading, to the growth of Indian-owned newspapers.
But, this liberation was short-lived when John Adams introduced the Licensing Regulation, popularly known as Adams' Regulation. In 1823, all newspapers needed to get licensed. If failed to do so, the press would be considered illegal. One can argue that it did provide a systematic approach. However, the questioning factor here is that this prohibition directly targeted Indian newspapers or newspapers edited by Indians. The imposition was built uniformly for all newspapers, but the practice was discriminatory in nature towards vernacular newspapers. A greater number of Indian-owned newspapers had their licenses revoked and warnings issued. In contrast, relaxation was provided to the anglo-Indian newspapers because of their supportive attitude towards Britishers. The discriminatory nature of this regulation highlighted the colonial administration’s attempt to control Indian voices while allowing pro-British Anglo-Indian newspapers to operate relatively freely (*Reporting the Raj*, p. 89). It further evoked debates between two different ideologies, one to focus on the development of Indian languages('Orientalists') and one countering called 'Anglicists' (Israel, 1994, p. 38). Apart from that, what made Adam's regulation different from other regulations was that it witnessed strong opposition from the Indian press. One of the most prominent incidents was the shutting down of 'Miral-Ul-Akbar.' It was a way to defy the oppressive Adam regulations. And for the first time in history, the Indian press displayed a repulsive nature at such a level.
In 1835, with the Metcalfe Act came a major shift in policy intervention. Metcalfe earned the title "Liberator of the Press" for his progressive stance, recognizing the press as a medium for legitimate grievances (Narain, 1970, p. 64). He removed certain regulations on the content and publication of the newspapers, which was entertained til 1857 revolt. This revolt might have a generated a sense of threat to the state’s throne which led to the advent of canning press act.
The deflecting attitude of the state towards the press continued, but the Vernacular Press was treated differently than the Anglo-Indian Press. In 1876, the new viceroy Lord Lytton, conducted an inquiry about improving relations between the state and the press, leading to the formation of the Vernacular Press Bill. However, this approach soon gave way to more repressive measures. When the vernacular press started to become a nuisance for the British regime, they brought the prominent press regulation - the Vernacular Press Act of 1878 into action. This act aimed to tighten control over vernacular newspapers, providing the government with more effective means to punish and suppress writings that caused public dissatisfaction towards the government. It was highly criticized by the Indian press which forced them to adapt different approaches. Some press opted for more cautious approach, while others switched temporarily to English publication, highlighting the very discrimination faced by the non-English newspaper.
Up until 1910, the state targeted the press by putting restrictions on the publication and content of the newspapers. However, the Indian Press Act of 1910 was a turning point in the press regulation. It focused on financial penalties. This act allowed local governments to impose hefty 'security fees' on offensive content. This was designed to discourage new publications and financially cripple existing ones. This proved to be a financial burden on the newspapers, leading to the shutdown of various publications or the adoption of the concept of self-censorship. As Kaul notes, the act was a reflection of the colonial state's realization that controlling information flow required more sophisticated methods than outright bans (Kaul, 2003, p. 134). It showcased the authoritarian nature of the state to adopt any measure to curtail the flow of information if the information is not favorable to them.
From outright censorship to financial penalties, the British regime employed various tactics to suppress dissent and maintain its authority. In response, the press showed compliance and subtle resistance and, at times, completely defied the regulations, highlighting how crucial it was in shaping public discourse and encouraging nationalistic sentiments. It also emphasizes the importance of press freedom in holding power accountable.
REFRENCES
Books
Israel, Milton, Communication and power: Propaganda and the press in the Indian nationalist struggle, 1920 - 1947, Cambridge University Press, 1994
Narain, Prem, Press and politics in India, 1885-1905, Munshiram Manoharlal publishers, 1970
Kaul, Chandrika, Reporting the Raj: The British Press and India, 1880-1922, Manchester University Press, 2003
Articles
Sonwalkar, Prasun, Indian Journalism in the Colonial Crucible: A 19th century story of political protest, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2017
Anandhi, S, The Indian Press Act of 1910: The Press and Public Opinion at Crossroads in the Madras Presidency, 1910 – 1922, Researchgate, 2020
Links
Very insightful and thought provoking peice..
ReplyDelete