19 May,2011 06:37 AM IST | | Sachin Kalbag
On June 28, 2010, Tarakant Dwivedi alias Akela, at present a principal correspondent with this newspaper, wrote a story for Mumbai Mirror that should have sent a chill down every Mumbaikar's spine.
u00a0
A leaking roof at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus armoury of the Railway Protection Force was laying to waste the expensive equipment bought in the wake of the November 26, 2008, terror attack. A photographer, Raju Shinde, shot a telling picture of how many of the rifles were rotting in the rain.
Naturally, the newspaper front-paged the story.
The city, and the nation, should have thanked Akela for reporting the story, and the police should have taken corrective measures to ensure that the expensive arms and ammunition do not go waste, and more importantly, remain in top working condition when they are needed the most - during a terror attack.
Instead, on Tuesday, May 17, eleven months after the story was published, the Government Railway Police arrested Akela under Section 3 (1) (a) of the draconian Official Secrets Act of 1923. This is how the OSA section reads: "Penalties for spying.
(1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State- (a) approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place." The Railway Court remanded Akela to three days police custody for exposing the shortcomings of the force after the public prosecutor, in a moment of histrionic grandeur, told the magistrate how Akela's story would expose our equipment to "the enemy".
Interestingly, this section was imposed upon Akela late on Tuesday night AFTER his statement was recorded at the CST police station.
u00a0
Indeed, he was called to the police station to do just that - record a statement - for trespassing into the police armoury (he was initially called to the station under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to trespass).
But the police had other ideas. Here is one journalist, they thought, whose arrest could serve as an example for others in the profession to refrain from reporting stories that expose their wrongdoings or shortcomings.
Does the Police department (and by extension, the State) seriously believe that Akela is a spy for highlighting chinks in the police armour? Indeed, why did the police wait for 11 months after the report's publication to record Akela's statement?
This action smacks of vendetta, and no free press in any democracy should bow to this bullying by the police, which is clearly an effort to muzzle the press.
MiD DAY, which has always been aggressively exposing the city's wrongs - whether it does or does not involve the police - will continue to do so, regardless of the consequences, and without fear or favour.
While the courts may eventually throw out the case, the harassment of going through the ordeal will serve as a deterrent for other journalists and publications. We will fight back, but the challenge is not to fight back but to prevent such incidents from occurring.
Sure, the police want to make Akela an example for other journalists. But MiD DAY is a fiercely independent newspaper. We won't ever let that happen, no matter what the consequences are.
Sachin Kalbag Executive Editor
