Punjab’s AAP govt should stop hounding the messenger

There are times when history repeats itself not as tragedy or farce, but as a troubling combination of both. Since last week, the political conversation in Punjab has been dominated by reports of attacks on businesses associated with the proprietors of the Punjab Kesari group, including notices for excise violations at a Jalandhar hotel, withholding of government advertisements, and police deployment at and around the presses where the newspaper is printed and dispatched from. The owners of the media group have written to Governor Gulab Chand Kataria, alleging that the Punjab’s government’s actions carry an “extraneous motive to intimidate the press”. The state’s Aam Aadmi Party government maintains that the freedom of press doesn’t extend to excise violations, and its actions against Punjab Kesari followed due process. Ironically, a similar back-and-forth defined the final days of AAP rule in Delhi. When its top leadership was jailed for excise violations and corruption, the party, justifiably, claimed that it was being targeted.

Punjab Kesari’s proprietors allege that the AAP government’s battle with the group began after the newspaper carried a report on the Opposition’s accusations about the party’s national convenor, Arvind Kejriwal, on October 31 last year. Unfortunately, this is not the only time the Bhagwant Mann government has faced allegations of intimidating voices it sees as critical of it. Last month, the Ludhiana police filed an FIR against 10 people, including RTI activist Manik Goyal, after the latter raised questions about who was using the CM’s chopper when Mann was on a foreign trip. In November, police checks on newspaper delivery vans for “drugs and weapons” disrupted newspaper supplies across the state. No contraband was found. There is no question that media houses and business outfits of their owners are subject to the law. Yet, the selective application of rules and the timing of the raids lend credence to the accusations of a witch hunt.

Overall Analysis

The editorial examines allegations of press intimidation by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab, using the case of the Punjab Kesari media group as its focal point. It opens with a reflective and cautionary observation about history repeating itself in unsettling ways, setting a somber and ironic backdrop. This framing immediately signals that the issue goes beyond a routine administrative dispute and touches upon deeper democratic concerns.

The piece narrates a sequence of government actions — excise notices, withdrawal of advertisements, and police deployment — that appear coordinated and targeted. By juxtaposing these actions with the media group’s claim of intimidation, the editorial highlights the asymmetry of power between the state and the press. The government’s defence that freedom of the press does not shield legal violations is presented, but the editorial subtly questions its credibility by pointing to timing and selectivity.

A significant rhetorical device is the comparison with AAP’s own experience in Delhi, where the party once argued it was being unfairly targeted. This irony strengthens the editorial’s critique, suggesting a troubling cycle where former victims of state action replicate similar behaviour when in power. The editorial then widens the lens, citing other incidents — FIRs against activists and disruptions in newspaper circulation — to establish a pattern rather than an isolated event.

While acknowledging that media organisations and their owners are not above the law, the editorial stresses that governance must be impartial and consistent. The phrase “selective application of rules” is central to its argument, implying that legality becomes suspect when enforcement coincides with criticism. The language remains measured but firm, balancing factual narration with normative judgment to defend democratic accountability.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Extraneous – irrelevant or not directly related to the matter at hand.
2. Intimidate – to frighten or pressure someone into submission.
3. Selective – choosing some cases while ignoring others, often unfairly.
4. Credence – acceptance of something as true or believable.
5. Witch hunt – a campaign to harass or punish people without justified grounds.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that while the law must apply equally to all, its selective enforcement against critical voices threatens press freedom and democratic norms. By drawing attention to irony and repetition, it warns that political power should not be used to silence scrutiny.

Tone: Critical, reflective, and cautionary — underscoring concern for democratic values and freedom of expression.