New Delhi, August 14 (V7N) – A recent media debate stirred by veteran journalist and editor Patricia Mukhim has reopened conversations around editorial independence, ethical journalism practices, and the delicate balance between media ownership and freedom of expression within India’s regional press.

The controversy began when Mukhim, long-time editor of The Shillong Times, publicly stated that her bi-monthly column in The Assam Tribune was abruptly discontinued after she submitted a critical piece on Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. The editorial team reportedly conveyed a directive that she should “write only on issues pertaining to Meghalaya”—a limit that had never been imposed during her over-a-decade-long contribution to the paper.

Her public post titled “End of a journey with the Assam Tribune” sparked wide reactions, not only from readers but also from journalists across the country, prompting ethical discussions about the role of editors contributing to rival media, and whether subject restrictions from editorial desks amount to censorship.

Speaking to this writer, independent journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta highlighted that “if both publishers agree, there is nothing unethical about such an arrangement.” He noted that this is common practice in some Western contexts, such as editors from The New York Times writing for The Washington Post. But in India, such cross-contributions remain rare—and politically sensitive.

The situation took a layered turn when a senior journalist from Meghalaya (who preferred anonymity) observed that Mukhim had consistently published critiques of the BJP in The Assam Tribune while maintaining a relatively cordial tone toward the Meghalaya government, currently led by Conrad K Sangma of the NPP, an ally of the BJP. This raised questions among some observers about whether her dual editorial roles inadvertently reflected political selectivity—or even conflict of interest.

In response, Gurbir Singh, former president of the Mumbai Press Club, insisted that while publishers have the right to reject content, "dictating what a columnist may or may not write crosses into the realm of censorship." However, he acknowledged that if inconsistencies in editorial tone across publications exist, they merit discussion, albeit in different forums—not as justifications for content suppression.

At the heart of the issue lies the broader question: Is it ethically sound for a sitting editor of one newspaper to write regularly for another publication in the same linguistic and regional space, particularly if the papers are seen as competitors?

The general consensus among media professionals appears to be conditional. If both media houses explicitly agree to such an arrangement, and there is no conflict of interest or violation of editorial integrity, it is permissible. But transparency and mutual consent are essential. Conversely, if the arrangement is perceived to exploit a platform with wider readership while maintaining partiality elsewhere, it can be seen as ethically questionable.

Importantly, any media house has the editorial right to accept or reject a piece. However, how that decision is communicated matters. In Mukhim’s case, many believe the handling was disrespectful, as she was informed by a junior staff member despite her seniority and longstanding contribution.

This episode also brings attention to the editorial health and credibility of The Assam Tribune, once a bastion of independent journalism in northeast India. The publication, facing a financial crisis with reported salary delays, has in recent years been accused of compromising its principles. Notable among these was its open support of the anti-CAA movement—a move that once underscored its commitment to public sentiment but now appears inconsistent with its recent editorial stance toward critical columns.

In conclusion, this case isn’t simply about a column being dropped. It reflects the fragile ecosystem in which Indian regional journalism operates—where editorial freedom is tightly interwoven with political pressures, ownership dynamics, and economic survival.

The space for independent journalism continues to shrink when editors are told what they can or cannot write about—not by their own conscience, but by managerial fiat or political pressure. While publishers retain the legal right to determine what is published, the ethical burden of safeguarding freedom of expression rests with them too. In that light, Ms. Mukhim’s decision to walk away may well reflect not defiance, but dignity.

END/NJT/SMA/