"Freedom" is a beautiful word. No man on earth would like to be deprived of it. For eon human kind has searched for personal and group freedom, and in the process, have fought and killed to secure it. As tribes, communities and governments, humans have gone to war to secure "free" space for themselves.

Over the years its implication on the human race have also gone through changes with the ever changing "world order". Often, personal freedom has to give way to secure collective freedom like in the erstwhile USSR. Sometimes, individual freedom is allowed to flourish to encourage collective growth like in the USA.

The world is divided on the opinion of which is the better system. However, whichever way the argument goes it is increasingly becoming clear that individual decisions and opinions play a crucial role. It is said "your freedom ends where the other's nose begins." But often it is the other's nose beyond which your freedom lies also. It is here the media comes in a major player. Media has come a long way since its inception. Its growth is different in the different parts of the world.

In the USA, it enjoys an unprecedented freedom. The very first amendment of its Constitution - First Amendment to the US Constitutions - lays down specifically that the freedom of press be in no way abridged by the laws. Even when it concerns the very security of the Nation, Federal Courts in the USA have invoked the First Amendments to secure the freedom of the press. In the cases of New York Times and The Washington Post, when the USA Government sought to prevent the publication of highly sensitive "History of Decision making Process on Vietnam Policy", through injunctions from the Courts, the District Courts of Southern District of New York in case of NYT and the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of Washington Post, on the ground of National Security, both the courts ruled against the Government. Eventually, when the case came up before the US Supreme Court, it also ruled against the Government.

In his ruling Mr. Justice Black of the US Supreme Court held that "In the First Amendment the Founding our fathers gave free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors." It also said the word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic".

Two other statements by two other Americans, William Ernest Hocking and Judge learned Hand often quoted by proponents of free press also indicate the extent of freedom enjoyed by the press in the USA.

WE Hocking held that, 'Where men cannot freely convey their thoughts to one another, no liberty is secured; the way is barred for making common cause against encroachment …..Free expression is thus unique among liberties as protectors and promoters of others…The meaning of free press is inseparable from the general meaning of freedom in the modern state'.

Judge Learned hand on the other hand held, "The First Amendment presupposes that right conclusion is more likely to be gathered out of multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritarian selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly; but we have stalked upon it our all'.

Try telling this to the Indian Government and it will probably tell you what happened in Nigeria on November 22. More than 100 people were killed and another 4000 rendered homeless after Muslims and Christians in northern Nigeria city of Kaduna went on riot after following a newspaper report in connection with the Miss World 2002 beauty pageant. The newspaper carried apologies four times but the damage was done and Nigeria's hope of showcasing itself before the International audience went down the drain as did several lives.

The Indian Government believes in "restricted" freedom of press. It is not that the Indian leaders not aware of the US First Amendment or of the famous declaration of President Jefferson. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru shares the views of Jefferson when he said, "I would rather have a completely free press, with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of the freedom, than suppress or regulated Press". But sentiments, however high its origin, do not always translate into laws, as the laws of the land stand today.

Indian Laws do not have a specific mention of the freedom of press. It does not give a special right to the press but lets it draw its freedom from within the Article 19, which provides all citizens with the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Dr Ambedkar explained the position as, "The Press is merely another way of stating an individual or citizen. The Press has no special rights, which are not to be given to, or which are not exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity. The editors of a press or the manager are all citizen and therefore, when they choose to represent any newspaper they are merely exercising their right of expression and in my judgment no special mention is necessary of the freedom of Press at all."

Having said this Indian Constitution unlike the US, does not allow unrestrained right of expression. As Article 19 further states, however the right of freedom of expression shall not affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law in so far as such laws imposes reasonable restriction on the exercise of that right in the interest 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 offence.

Clearly, the kind of freedom of expression enjoyed by the Press in the US does not exist in India. The Indian Parliament, to enforce the "reasonable restriction" as enshrined in the Article 19, has enacted several laws to 'restrict' the press, such as from the Official Secrets Act, 1923 to the latest Prevention of Terrorist Act (POTA). These laws effectively take away what Article 19 essentially gives every citizen - the right to freedom of expression.

What is worst is the degrading qualities of lives of lawmakers have meant that it could only get worst. When the news portal, www.tehelka.com went to the unprecedented steps in exposing the underhand dealings in the Union Defence Ministry, efforts were made to divert the issue to what methods the news portal used to get the story rather than on concentrating on whether there was any truth in the story. For such lawmakers, keeping the press under "reasonable restraints" will always remain an attractive proposition.

Manipur, too, has seen enough "reasonable restraint" being exercised on to the press. The office memorandum of the Government of Manipur dated 11/11/2002 was one amongst many. It effectively barred all government officials from speaking to the press even if it may be of grave concern to public safety. It was however removed on protest but it cannot be said it was not tried.

But what is more crucial in case of the press in Manipur is its freedom of functioning within a conflict zone. Perpetual conflict atmosphere has meant an existence of several pressure points. The pull and push of the pressures have taken a toll on the press in Manipur and the formation of a strong unity amongst its practitioners has become a must.

The All Manipur Working Journalists' Union, the apex media body today exists not so much as to fight for the wages of its reporters but to collectively meet all the challenges confronting the press in the State. The challenge comes from all angles; the duly elected governments, the armed forces, both State and Non-State actors even NGOs and Clubs.

Journalists in Manipur have been shot dead and not accounted for, have been kidnapped and threatened. Press units have been ransacked by government forces as well as closed down by armed insurgents. Press personnel have often been humiliated and beaten by security forces while on duty. Press in Manipur is less free than elsewhere in India.