Modi's idea of free media is terrifying
Last week a group of journalists were assaulted inside the Patiala House court complex while covering judicial proceedings against JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar. An outraged media industry organised a protest march in Delhi to demand action against the lawyers who were involved in the attack on journalists. They also urged the need to uphold the right to report. But the JNU episode did cause a drift among various sections of the media.
NDTV’s Ravish Kumar aired a special programme on a black screen. The popular Hindi anchor who hails from Bihar criticised the media for its reckless coverage of the recent events concerning Jawaharlal Nehru University. On the other hand, Times Now and TheWire.in were also involved in a war of words as Siddharth Vardarajan accused Arnab Goswami of airing doctored videos on The Newshour.
Despite apparent differences, the media would collectively agree that the government should ensure a safe working environment for journalists. They cannot be attacked, intimidated or asked to raise certain slogans before asking questions. When an ABP News reporter went to cover an agitation by lawyers against JNU, she was asked to chant "Vande Mataram" before posing any questions to the mob.
In such a scenario, one would naturally expect the central government to work towards securing journalists so as to safeguard them from being at the receiving end of lynch mobs. But Modi sarkar has other plans. The Indian Express has reported that the government is planning to set up a National Media Analytics Centre (NMAC) to counter negative news.
There is nothing wrong if an incumbent government wishes to publicise its achievements and communicate directly with the populace. In fact it is the government’s right as also its responsibility to clarify on various subjects by way of press releases, briefings and conferences.
However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The real intention of the government is simply not to avoid misinformation. NMAC appears to be a coordinated effort to crush critical coverage and label journalistic criticism of the government as an anti-national activity aimed towards "fermenting trouble or radicalisation."
The government plans to collect data concerning the background of journalists, website preferences and interest areas. With the help of computer software, NMAC would seek to bring out a pattern and check how many times a journalist has taken a pro- or anti-government stance.
Such surveillance of media persons is meant to ensure harassment of journalists who dare to criticise the government. For what other purpose would the government be interested in knowing how many times a particular journalist has criticised them? The government would selectively use or twist the data to smear the reputation of journalists and initiate personal attacks on them.
If a journalist has criticised the BJP or the government on numerous occasions then he’ll be branded anti-BJP and anti-government. And if you’re anti-government, then it’s safe to assume that you’re part of an "international ploy" to damage India’s reputation (just like Union home minister Rajnath Singh claimed that JNU protests had the backing of Hafiz Saeed on the basis of a fake Twitter handle) and must be sent behind bars.
Those who will maintain a positive outlook towards the government, to be the precise, the BJP, would be awarded with Padma awards. Ask Rajat Sharma and Swapan Dasgupta to know more. One ought to be alarmed at the developments since they expose the paranoid mindset of this government. Their insecurity is such that they have the audacity to suggest that the media is criticising the government with the purpose of creating trouble, radicalisation and mischief in the country. And the much invoked foreign hand is behind all this. Laughable indeed!
There is much history behind Modi sarkar’s dislike of the media. It all began when Modi came under fire from the media following his inept handling of the 2002 Gujarat riots. An enraged Modi hit back by stating that "it is unfortunate that along with the communal violence that is dangerous for any country, a non violent secular violence also gets unleashed in the country at the same time by the media (Press Conference in Gandhinagar on March 5, 2002, Concerned Citizens Tribunal).
Isn’t it hilarious that an elected chief minister tries to dodge accountability by comparing violence unleashed by fanatic mobs with media coverage? Even if we take Modi’s comments at face value and assume that media’s coverage of Gujarat riots was irresponsible then too it would be too farfetched to compare journalists with fanatic rioters who are out on the street killing, mutilating and raping innocent persons.
For several years to come Modi would maintain distance from the English language television media whom he considered biased and pseudo-secular. In an interview with Madhu Kishwar, Modi claimed that Barkha Dutt reported irresponsibly during the 2002 Gujarat riots. He specifically cited an instance when Barkha was reporting from a market in Surat and another occasion when she allegedly reported about a desecrated religious structure. He even mentioned about calling Barkha or Rajdeep Sardesai and alerting them about the possible repercussions of their reportage.
Later on Barkha Dutt rubbished the allegations while speaking to Newslaundry’s Madhu Trehan. She claimed that she never reported from Surat nor did she ever report about the alleged desecrated temple. She went on to add that she has never received a call from Modi in her entire life. Neither did she know of anyone in the editorial department of her organisation whom Modi cautioned over the phone regarding her coverage of Gujarat riots. (27:30 onwards)
It turns out from Barkha’s admission that Modi’s charge of unfair coverage by the broadcast media appears to have been constructed in an imaginary fantasy land. Modi’s ministers have taken their fight against journalists a step forward. What we are witnessing are ugly clashes and outright personal attacks that are lowering the civility of public discourse.
When Arun Jaitley was embroiled in the DDCA controversy, Union HRD minister Smriti Irani came out in his support by describing the allegations against the finance minister as blasphemous. Journalist Sagarika Ghose criticised Irani for her usage of the word blasphemy on Twitter. Irani responded by tweeting, "@sagarikaghose mujhse toh kuch kehna hai to tag me, peeth peeche kaayar bolte hai."
Smriti Irani seems to be suffering from the hangover of her Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi days because such statements and language are more common in television soap operas than public debates. Irani’s melodramatic style went a notch further when she spoke in the Rajya Sabha about "chopping off her head (sar kalam)" and presenting it at "Mayawati’s feet (charnon mein chodd dungi)" if her reply on Rohith Vemula case wasn’t able to satisfy her.
One of the objectives of the proposed NMAC is to counter the so-called negative narrative. It would be healthy if there is a counter narrative to things that are shaping public opinion but the track record of Modi sarkar is such that they have constantly showcased hegemonic tendencies and tried to hijack the narrative. When Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis wrote a rebuttal to Rajdeep Sardesai on the issue of meat ban last year, Twitter sympathisers of BJP starting using the hash tag #FadnavisSlapsRajdeep.
Fadnavis certainly has the liberty to respond to an open letter by a senior journalist but why should his party’s sympathizers make hash tags with a visibly violent vocabulary? After launching personal attacks on journalists, BJP leaders seem to let loose Hindutva army’s online foot-soldiers whose job is to abuse and misbehave. Any journalist who has ever criticized Modi or BJP knows the accompanying repercussions on social media. They are accused of being Pakistanis, Islamists, terrorist-sympathizers, pseudo-secularists, pressittutes and female journalists have been even threatened with rape.
The venom spewing bhakts have caught the attention of international presenters like Mehdi Hasan and forced others like Ravish Kumar to quit social media. So the question really is: Who is not being allowed to put a counter narrative? It is Modi sarkar or its critics? Well the intolerance of the supporters of the former are a sufficient proof of who really is not allowing whom to speak.
Modi’s government wants journalists to be trained in a certain way and behave in a particular fashion. That’s why they’ve propped the idea of a communication university on the lines of the Communication University of China. It’s ironical that the world’s largest democracy with a free press is looking upto a country with a muzzled media which is tightly controlled by the state. Officials seem to be least embarrassed about it as they are seeking to establish an “overarching university” and the “Beijing model appealed the most” to them.
Once trained in the art of propaganda and public relations, such journalists would be expected to practise sponsored, propaganda journalism which furthers the saffron agenda. A case in point could be Niti Central. The website began in 2012 with a clear focus on providing impetus to BJP’s 2014 election campaign. “On August 14, 2012, the who’s who of right wing journalism including Arun Shourie, Ashok Malik, Tavleen Singh, Swapan Dasgupta et al. conglomerated and penned articles for a new propaganda website – Niti Central,” wrote TruthofGujarat.com.
In fact Niti Central proudly confessed its role in being PR managers of Modi. The website said, "Between August 2012 and May 2014, Niti Central played a critical role in shaping the political narrative in the run up to the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections." Now that the objective has been realised, the website has been shut down.
Many such websites appeared sporadically enroute to the 2014 General Elections. One among them was the Indian Republic which was sponsored by Citizens for Accountable Governance (CAG), a volunteer group rooting for Modi & Co. The website devoted a great amount of time in promoting BJP and disappeared soon after the elections formally concluded.
The pattern is such that it leaves very little doubt. Flood the internet with pro-Modi, pro-BJP propaganda. Once the job is done and it becomes clear that the website is the handiwork of a few BJP supporters then shut shop and move over to some other propaganda website. That’s the kind of sponsored journalism exhibited by Niti Central, The Indian Republic and Centre Right India (founded by those who later became founders of Swarajya, another Right wing website).
Indians must see through the propaganda and recognise the disastrous consequences of a Beijing-style Communication University and a National Media Analytics Centre (NMAC) structured in a manner to help in the surveillance of journalists. The daily abuse on social media, morphed images, allegations of political bias, personal attacks and outright lies about journalists is just the beginning.