Pledge of Allegiance?

A bit clumsily, with a threat here and a shove there, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has continued to push toward the goal of reducing foreign reporters in India to flacks for her authoritarian regime. At first the government seemed to be backing down after criticism of its demand that all journalists from abroad sign away their freedom to report events by pledging to "comply" with strait-jacket censorship guidelines. Reporters were instead handed an alternative pledge that acknowledged their receipt of the guidelines but did not contain any flat-out promise to obey them. A debate quickly followed over whether the distinction in phrasing marked a genuine retreat by Mrs. Gandhi's government from censorship or was a subtle way of allowing foreign journalists to sign, save face but still remain under rigid controls.

Many Signers. Most journalists finally agreed to sign--many under instructions from their home office--hoping to continue reporting at any cost. The reasoning was that the ambiguous language of the revised pledge could be regarded as innocuous. United Press International, for example, accepted the agreement, saying: "Nothing in the revised statement ... would prevent it from continuing to give a full and balanced account of events in India." Agence France-Presse and West German correspondents also submitted to the arrangement--the latter on the advice of their government.

At first unable to swallow the revised pledge, the New York Times briefly attempted to negotiate a third version. But once the Indian government turned thumbs down, the two Timesmen. on the scene, New Delhi Correspondent William Borders and Eric Pace of the Tehran Bureau, both gave in to the Indian censors. Explained Times Managing Editor A.M. Rosenthal: "In our opinion, it amounts simply to an acknowledgement of receipt of a written government document and a statement by the correspondent that he will be responsible for whatever he writes." Newsweek magazine too, had refused to accept the original pledge, and as a result, Correspondent Loren Jenkins became one of the first reporters to be expelled from India. But within seven days, another Newsweek correspondent, Ron Moreau, did sign on the ground that the second pledge was harmless.

A few journalists never signed at all. Voice of America Reporter James B. Miller argued that he had quasi-diplomatic status and therefore could not submit to the statement. The Indians allowed him to remain--at least temporarily. TIME Correspondent David Aikman, with the concurrence of his editors, decided to leave the country rather than sign the revised pledge. Said Aikman: "If I agreed to comply with the guidelines, I would not be an honest correspondent, but if I signed a pledge I was not willing to keep, I would not be an honest man."

Most of the correspondents who stayed were apparently willing to hold on in New Delhi for a game of journalistic brinksmanship with the Indian bureaucracy. As one reporter jocularly said, "I signed with my fingers crossed." In fact, A.P., Reuters and the New York Times, after accepting the pledge, forthwith went ahead and violated the guidelines by reporting on antigovernment demonstrations in Ahmedabad. The Indian government called in Reuters to complain and for 61 hours cut off the lines connecting the A.P.'s New Delhi bureau with London. It left the New York Times alone. At week's end Prime Minister Gandhi was said to be increasingly inclined to throw out any and every correspondent whose dispatches displeased her.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.