There were always curbs on press freedom, more so during the time of Indira Gandhis rule ..

http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Media/freedom-press.htm

This insistence is necessary because experience all over the world, as well as our own experience since Independence, suggest that the State remains the source of the most potential threat to Press freedom. It cannot be overlooked that, within a short time after passing the Constitution, those in power - who used to swear by Press freedom before Independence-put in provisos to Article 19 (1) of the Constitution so as to clothe Government with powers to curb Press freedom. This was defended on the ground that these powers were likely to be necessary on occasions when the security of the State was threatened; it was emphasised that the powers will not be normally used. But a special legislation called the Press (Prevention of Objectionable Matters) Act was put on the statute book soon thereafter in 1951. No steps were taken to remove the lacunae which gave Government powers to intercept material going to the Press through the Posts and Telegraphs. Some Chief Ministers thought it proper to take steps against newspapers whose policy they did not like, whether it was a Morarji Desai in Bombay or a Charan Singh in U. P.

A persistent attempt to curb Press freedom how ever really began only after 1969. Indira Gandhi felt that the Press was too critical of her ways and she sought to change its approach. Various threats were held out by Government and steps proposed to curb that section of the Press which was thought to be the most independent. With the aid of some native leftist organisations, a propaganda barrage was mounted against the Press as well as the judiciary both of which appeared to be not easily amenable to the wishes of Government. apparently the only reason why the idea of spreading the equity ownership of newspaper companies especially among the workers and the journalists employed therein was not pursued was the feeling that such a measure would give more power in the hands of trade unions who were opposed to the ruling party. On the other hand, arm-twisting of capitalist owners, especially of those who had many other industrial interests and were not very much concerned with the freedom of the Press, was thought to be not so difficult. The antipathy to the Press however continued and got further intensified, especially as most of the important papers expressed their dislike of the acts of the ruling establishment, and many of them advised the Prime Minster to resign after the Allahabad High Court Judgement in 1975. The antipathy culminated in the pre-censorship imposed in the country for the first time during the internal Emergency. That the pre censorship was used for partisan ends is sufficiently exemplified by the data published as a result of the various enquiries made in 1977-78.* The misuse of powers like pre-censorship was a adequately envisaged by the fact that these powers were even used to black out some unpleasant news about the criminal convictions of an actress, and of some businessmen.

The period from 1975 to mid 1977 was a bad period for media, This is an established fact. however before that and after that the media has been free. The various govts. did indeed empower themselves with Acts which could be used against press. But how many times was it used other than 1975- 78 period. The press and media are and were free. This is something of which we should be proud.

usha manohar wrote:

There is no need for anyone to go around proclaiming that he or she is a rationalist and group around and look down on the rest of the people ...Actions speak louder than words.Recently Kalburgi who went to the extent of supporting people who had peed and spat on Hindu gods statues , was cremated with al Hindu ceremonies...Most of these people who claim to be rationalists are on unsteady ground , with one foot there and one foot here , not knowing which is truly theirs !

Cremation is an act of the successors and the dead person has no role in this. Personally I would like to be cremated without any religious ceremony and body burnt in electronic crematorium or donated to medical college. But what if the relatives perform religious functions. I would not be there to interfere. 

You can write a will, then relatives will perform as per your desire.

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

There is no need for anyone to go around proclaiming that he or she is a rationalist and group around and look down on the rest of the people ...Actions speak louder than words.Recently Kalburgi who went to the extent of supporting people who had peed and spat on Hindu gods statues , was cremated with al Hindu ceremonies...Most of these people who claim to be rationalists are on unsteady ground , with one foot there and one foot here , not knowing which is truly theirs !

Cremation is an act of the successors and the dead person has no role in this. Personally I would like to be cremated without any religious ceremony and body burnt in electronic crematorium or donated to medical college. But what if the relatives perform religious functions. I would not be there to interfere. 

I agree that once you are gone , that's it ! What I was trying to say is that in many cases people do not forget their roots . I have known couple of other cases where people who were against god and religion have asked a relative or a close friend to cremate them according to tradition and custom, depending on the religion into which they were born!

Rationalism doesn't mean ridiculing and  insulting others beliefs. Such Rationalists are insane and not fit to live in a free Society. A true Rationalist gives space for believers. They do not believe in thrusting their beliefs on Believers.

This issue was raised by me just to emphasize the importance of education over the religion. Religion is there where there is no question about the beliefs on the ground of logics and education is there where we perform every act with some logic. For centuries, we have been following our religions, mainly as codes of conduct - initially that might have been defined with some reasons valid at their times but with the advancement of technology, some rules are no more valied and required to be reviewed. The review is not possible if we are not properly educated. For the development, we need proper education and for that we need more centres, facilities and faculties. This need becomes more important when there is stiff competition amongst the nations world wide and within our country amongst the vested interests to grab the control of the affairs. In Bihar recently we have seen how a convicted person became king maker. On national platform, we are seeing that the persons who had so been honoured with various awards came forward to return the awards on the ground of increasing intolerance in the society without going through the roots and reasons, just to affect the mob-psychology. They can be called as educated persons but their behaviour can not be said to be conducive to the standards they were supposed to follow. They were actually required to use the arts they were honoured for. Here, we need proper education and for that, we must develop proper system so that our cultural values may also get proper place.

I appreciate your views on Education. I agree with you it 's only through logical and analytical ways one can achieve this. We need such people with analytical mind. At the same time, I will not agree for Rationalism and Rationalists who ridicule others beliefs.

The problem withy modern day world is that people are more concerned about slotting themselves into different groups - I am a secular person, I am a rationalist, I am a communist and so on...I fund it stupid because no individual can be any one of those things since there are many different facets to our personality and we may respond differently to the same situation because of other factors and circumstances . The very fact that some people want to call themselves this and that shows their limited vision of life ..

It's OK to call themselves this and that, because, they are entitled to do so. But let them be satisfied with that. No imposition or forcing their views on others.