How Aamir Khan damaged promising e-commerce brand Snapdeal.

Aamir Khan said what he wanted to say. That was his 'Freedom of Expression'. People are now reacting in a manner they think will be best form of 'Expression' - ‪#‎AppWapsi‬ - uninstalling Snapdeal mobile e-commerce app - because Snapdeal had engaged Aamir Khan to endorse their brand. It is not herd mentality. This is also not a case of misdirected 'Freedom of Expression'. If Snapdeal changes its brand-ambassador, people will be back to patronising the brand.

There are two categories of brand-endorsing celebrity misconduct: 

One, where misconduct is personal eg. doping by sports stars, sex-with-minor by actors, nasty-divorces, drug-abuse, et al which come under personal misconduct space. Here brands may take a call whether the controversy results in damage to brand reputation or product sales and depending on the assessment, they may or may not continue with the celebrity.

Second is gross misconduct where the brand-endorser damages reputation of nation, affiliations with terror-spewing regimes/countries/their-programmes, et al. Here it is not just the brand and sales numbers, it is sentiments of people who patronised company products are disturbed. Sentiment-hurt almost always brings out spontaneous emotional reactions. Hence, just like Aamir-Snapdeal 'AppWapsi' reaction, many hollywood-stars' films were boycotted as they participated in entertainment programmes of now-dead dictators or disrespect to President/Flag/Troops/Nation made people react with product-boycott.

Now please understand that these two situations are EXPECTED when corporate engages celebrity for brand-endorsement. Hence, matured companies include a water-tight moral-turpitude and conduct clause in their contracts. (Moral-turpitude is a concept that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.") If this clause is triggered, brand-endorsing celebrity is made to pay a very heavy penalty/damages including legal/criminal actions depending on severity of violation. Since, such defined contracts are at nascent stage in India, Snapdeal will have to deal with this reaction.

This is very normal expected reaction to business who engage motor-mouth celebrities. This reaction is not unique to India; it is natural reaction of society when sentiments of masses are affected. In most cases, consumers in all countries are tolerant whether it is environment damage, industrial disasters, corporate corruption or hurting religious sentiments by brands and its endorsers. But links with terror, child-abuse, drug/human-trafficking rings, disrespect to Nation/President/Flag/Troops will bring out such reactions.

If one were in corporate brand management, he/she would have expected this and planned precautions including brand-ambassador training accordingly. Else this reaction would be surprise for most.

News Media Organisations and Freedom of Speech & Expression

News Media Organisations and Freedom of Speech & Expression

This is to seek immediate attention of The Prime Minister of India​, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of Information & Broadcasting​ to work towards bring an enabling legislation to regulate news media organisations – all forms including print, television, radio, internet, et al, operating in India, both Indian-owned and Foreign-owned, specifically wrt Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression.

Today, with blatant impunity, the Indian News Media Organisations are exceeding all forms of restraint and are taking shelter under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2) which is available ONLY to Indian citizens and not business or trade organisations. There have been several instances by now where Indian news media organisations have acted against interest of nation and public safety in reporting of terrorism, riots, fake stories against Indian Armed Forces, violation of Official Secrets Acts, revelation of critical and sensitive defence information and strategic plans, etc. - and have been able to get away using, rather misusing, cover of Article 19(1)(a) read with 19(2) - which to my opinion is not available as a special privilege to news media organisations including foreign funded organisations which most today are.

On reading of Part II of Constitution of India, Article 5 to Article 11, who constitutes Citizen of India, the definition is unambiguously clear. There is no direct or indirect indication to include non-individuals ie. business or trade or for-profit or not-for-profit entities/organisations as ‘Citizens’.

It is high time, Government of India recognizes this anomaly of lack of legislative framework for addressing the concern of extending benefits of Freedom of Speech and Expression beyond Indian citizens and on to news media organisations/entities, including foreign funded ones, irrespective whether they operate for-profit or not-for-profit.

There are unimaginable amount of benefit which the State grants to news media corporations and individuals working in the news media sector – all at cost of tax payers. These include discretionary allocation of real estate properties for both residential housing and professing business of news journalism, travel benefits, access to highest offices of power, unparalleled access to information and sources of information before it is put out in public domain including critical industry and economy data which media corporations often unlawfully trade during market hours, breakfast-lunch-dinner  at government offices, lodging/boarding at government guest houses, et al.

If news media organisations share same freedom of speech and expression as every other citizen, then such benefits should be made available to all citizens. Else it shall be stopped for these specific individuals / organisations / corporations operating in news media sector.

Analysing Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the State has reserved right to make laws to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of right to freedom of speech and expression – in the interest of:

(i)        sovereignty and integrity of India (in direct conflict with news television time and print space granted to separatists / Maoists and their sympathisers, live reporting of terror attacks);

(ii)      the security of state (in direct conflict with reporting news of riots, the infamous coup reporting, access and possession of letter written by Army Chief to PM on lack of defence preparedness by news media);

(iii)     friendly relations with foreign State (news report of incursion by China when Chinese President was on his visit to India on India’s invitation, which turned out to be false)

(iv)    public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. (innumerable instances of hit-jobs on politicians, corporate executives, coverage differences between Gujarat and Assam riots, coverage differences in religious conversions and subsequent reconversions, whether terrorist-bombed places have meat shops and minority population, coverage differences in work of anti-superstition NGOs in Hindu dominated areas and ignoring faith-prayer healing scams which promote religious conversions, et al.. list just seems endless.)

If news media organisations share same source of freedom of speech and freedom of expression flowing through Article 19(1)(a), the right to impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) shall also apply.

Unfortunately, it seems, the political executive, the judiciary and the law enforcement machinery have collectively failed the nation in imposing and implementing these reasonable restrictions which flow from the revered Constitution of India.

This discrimination is also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Right to Equality – specifically in relation to discrimination in flow of benefits in pursuance of practice of freedom of speech and expression by citizens and news media organisations.

The news media organisations have been biggest offenders of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression and large part of their indulgences have been borne by tax payers. The media has ‘evolved’ from being ‘paid for news’ to ‘Paid News’, from ‘conducting opinion polls’ to ‘publishing Opinionated Polls’, from ‘covering court trails’ to ‘conducting Media Trials’. The malice of ‘Cross Media Ownerships’ creating a complex cob-web of cross holdings is only pursued to further the monopolistic agenda which opens up far more profit-making opportunity gaining domestic and international political powers as clients and offer media services (alias, ‘well-oiled propaganda machinery’) for gains at the cost of national interest and national security.

This unbridled unregulated freedom of speech and freedom of expression to news media organisations have created a very favourable atmosphere for corrupt practices at all levels – financial, moral, cultural and patriotic-emotion level.

To allay the fears, it is not to suggest letting government control media. All that is required and is the pressing need of the hour in interest of our nation, is a legislative framework specifically carved out for news media sector - defining media rights and freedom, granting them legislative protection from State harassment and prosecution as also defining complaint mechanism and disposal machinery, penalties and prosecution in case of violation of the spirit of freedom or suppression of freedom in insidious ways. Government may engage all stakeholders for framing such a law – the news media houses, citizen groups, et al.

Read the quoted portions of the Constitution of India.

Frame your views.

It’s good to be literate, now let’s get educated.

Constitution of India Article 14: Right to Equality - Equality before law:

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Constitution of India Article 19: Right to Freedom:

Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.:

        (1)    All citizens shall have the right –

(a)    to freedom of speech and expression;

(b)   to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c)    to form associations or unions;

(d)   to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e)   to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f)     to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

       (2)    Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. 

        Full text of Constitution of India - http://india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/constitution-india-full-text