Pictures of what appears to have been the forcible sedation of the mother of a victim of the Kursk submarine tragedy shocked the world. They signalled, according to some observers, a possible return to old and unacceptable ways. Forcible sedation was, indeed, a method used by the Soviet security services to ensure that the views of awkward dissidents were silenced. It did not work then and it most certainly will not work now.
Despite the tragedy of the Kursk, the confused and inadequate response of the security services and President Putin's indefensible absence for a large part of the proceedings, Russia has changed irrevocably since the days when freedom of expression was ruthlessly stamped out. The former president of the Soviet Union, Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, has been reviled abroad for his dithering at crucial moments when reform was under threat. He has been excoriated at home for the perceived failure of his programme of reconstruction or Perestroika. In many instances the criticism was justified. His introduction of Glasnost, however, the opening up of press and individual freedoms, may eventually be judged as his great contribution to society.
There was a diminution of Glasnost in the course of the presidency of Mr Boris Yeltsin and there have been indications that President Putin too finds it extremely difficult to come to terms with criticism in the media. He has phrased his attacks on Russian newspapers and television stations as criticism of the so called oligarchs who own many of the country's media groups, particularly those associated with Mr Vladimir Gusinsky who has been harassed by the authorities and Mr Boris Berezovsky who has not. It has been a popular move. The general public sees the oligarchs as having prospered in a time of adversity as ordinary, decent and stoic citizens suffered the consequences of economic collapse. This does not mean, however, that Russian people will readily give up the freedom of expression they have enjoyed for 15 years now.
Mrs Nadezhda Tylik, in what appeared to be a concession to officialdom, has now stated that the controversial injection was administered to her at her husband's request and that it was not a sedative but a medication for her heart complaint. It is significant, however, that at the same time she refused to withdraw her criticism of the authorities and stated her intention to continue a campaign for justice for those who died in the Kursk.
If Mr Putin was tempted to lean on the media, to apply pressure in order to remove every semblance of criticism of himself and other members of his administration, the result would be media every bit as supine and as anodyne as it was in pre-Glasnost times. He should bear in mind that Mrs Tylik represents a citizenry which is determined that its voice be heard and is prepared to go to great lengths in order do so. It will be remembered that introducing Glasnost was not an easy task and was opposed strongly the Soviet establishment. Removing it completely would be far more difficult, if not impossible.