S Gopal Puri
Dharamshala: In the tranquil town of Palampur, a storm has stirred — not just over a vigilance trap or a bribe of ₹2 lakh, but over the very foundation of a free and responsible press. Within moments of the news breaking about a local reporter, Amir Dogra, allegedly caught in a corruption case, a flood of reactions hit social media. Journalists, content creators, and media observers alike rushed to define the distinction between a “journalist” and a “vlogger.” But amid the chaos, an uncomfortable question emerged — who decides who qualifies as a journalist in India?
Some pointed to the Information and Public Relations (IPR) Department, suggesting that the publication of a list of empanelled journalists or web portals could help define legitimacy. But this approach treads dangerous ground. If the state begins certifying journalists, it inadvertently claims the right to also disqualify them. And in doing so, it risks weakening the very democratic pillar it claims to support.
A journalist is not made by government approval, but by public trust, ethical commitment, and an unwavering devotion to truth. Journalism is not a hired service under the state; it is the conscience of democracy, meant to challenge power, question authority, and illuminate injustice. When its credentials are defined by bureaucracy, its spine is at risk of being compromised.
In the midst of this debate, the ancient name of Maharishi Narad was dragged into public commentary — often mockingly, rarely understandingly. But Narad was no idle messenger. In Indian spiritual tradition, he is the first communicator, the divine seer who inspired scriptures, guided seekers like Dhruv and Prahlad, and carried transformative knowledge across realms. He provoked dialogue not for sensation, but for the elevation of truth. He was, in essence, the eternal journalist of dharma.
To invoke Narad in a discussion about journalism is not misplaced — it is profoundly appropriate. But it demands reverence and understanding. Journalism rooted in national interest, spiritual integrity, and social upliftment is not only valid — it is essential.
As we step deeper into the digital and democratic age, it must decide: do we want a press that informs and questions, or a press that conforms and pleases ?
In the end, journalism will survive not by being recognised, but by being fearless. And if the soul of the press remembers the spirit of Narad, it will not just report the truth — it will awaken it.
