Adjudication No. 497 (June 1991) [1991] APC 32

ADJUDICATION No. 497 (June 1991)

The Australian Press Council held that a feature article by Ben Hills in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 October 1990, entitled "THE HILTON VERDICT. Baba: the embodiment of bliss - or a monster", although imperfect, did not offend the Council's principles.

This was a review of Ananda Marga over the years of the life of the founder, Baba (Father) Sarkar, and of numerous violent incidents between 1975 and 1978, including the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney, with which the article, published before the quashing of the relevant verdict by the Court of Appeal, claimed the Ananda Marga was linked.

In a lengthy submission, the organisation's public relations secretary, Mr Michael Andrews, claims the article breaches six Press Council principles, including gross errors of fact, emission of relevant, available facts, misrepresentation, disparagement of religious faith and failure to use honest means to obtain information.

Mr Andrews adds, "We take exception to some portion of each and every paragraph of this article" and details these objections. He also claimed an interview was obtained improperly; on this the Herald has presented evidence to the contrary.

The Sydney Morning Herald said the Hilton bombing was one of 70 acts of violence which were attributed to the Ananda Marga in 16 different countries, including 31 in Australia, many of which resulted in the conviction and jailing of Ananda Marga members.

In fact, many of the incidents were trivial, but others were serious. Some involved the conviction of members of the Ananda Marga. Mr Andrews argued that such persons immediately left the movement, and this implied that their membership was not genuine, perhaps part of a campaign to damage the movement.

The publication of certain of the allegations complained of can be readily justified. For example, Mr Andrews describes as disgusting and crude the statement that Baba Sarkar was "an incorrigible practitioner of homosexuality" yet this claim was in a sworn deposition by Mr Sarkar's wife.

Again he quotes phrases from the article "carefully selected to create ... a blatant personal attack on the character of Mr Sarkar." Yet the article identified these as passages from an Indian Illustrated Weekly feature that was totally, not partially, unsympathetic to Mr Sarkar.

There are other parts of the article where Mr Andrews' challenge as to their veracity can be sustained. Some of these are minor, for example the wearing of saffron robes, the carrying of daggers, the relevance of its logo, whether Baba Sarkar retired or resigned from his position in the Indian Railways. Others are more important, for example the relationship with Hinduism, and the alleged banning of the movement in the United Kingdom. Others need elaboration for a fair judgement to be made. For example, the statement that "In 1975 the Indian Government banned Ananda Marga" is not balanced by an explanation that this was done during the State of Emergency and this was apparently cancelled on the election of the Desai government.

Other parts of the article, and the replies thereon by the Ananda Marga are controversial matters on which the Press Council cannot possibly rule -- for example, whether alleged additional information alleging police impropriety should have been published along with the statement that Australian members of the Ananda Marga had been arrested in Bangkok for the possession of explosives.

The title of the article suggests that it would contain such a mixture of favourable and unfavourable reports that the reader would need to consider carefully whether the movement's founder was the embodiment of bliss or a monster. While some favourable matter is reported, the article on the whole is unfavourable to the Ananda Marga. With the benefit of hindsight, some of the links between members of the movement and violence must be reassessed; nevertheless many will rein.

On the whole, given that this was not a news story but a by-lined review of Ananda Marga, the Press Council holds that, although imperfect, it does not offend the Council's principles. What was needed was some balancing publication.

The Council notes the report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 June 1991 of the Ananda Marga press conference on the release of Mr Tim Anderson after the Court of Appeal had quashed his conviction for the Hilton bombing. This is a sympathetic report of Mr Andrews' comments and presents favourable aspects of the Ananda Marga organisation.

Although some considerable time has elapsed since the earlier article, this report should contribute to the balance which any examination of this organisation needs.