India & its expression-less discontents
Contributed by LIPR Research Writer Mr. Raj Anand based in New Delhi, India
INTRODUCTION
On July 2nd, 2021 the French non-profit Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) or Reporters Without Borders (RWB) named India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi as one of the predators of press freedom.[1] The conferment of such a notorious honorific however, was not a novel development but rather an instance of culmination over a set period of time. Since 2012, India has observed a decline in the World Press Freedom Index published by RWB. While it stood at 131 out of 180 in 2012, it declined to 140 in 2014 and 142 in 2020. While criticisms and inquiries may be advanced against the freedom index in regards to its methodology and assessment framework — for instance United States, ranks lower than United Kingdom despite the latter having an onerous number of restrictions and penal provisions for supposed “hate speech” – the index, even with its shortcomings, remains a sufficiently serviceable representation of how openly the media is able to operate, particularly when it comes to voicing against or expressing ideas or facts that do not conform to and/or are adverse to the incumbent government entities and institutions.
In case of India, the official response to the ranking as well the subsequent induction of Narendra Modi into the predators’ faction, was a very standardized one: it was derided as being baseless, fact less and agenda-driven. A response that has been solidified as the only palatable rebuttal since Modi’s ascension as the Prime Minister in 2014; anything that in any shape or form is an affront to the Prime Minister’s carefully crafted image, is derided by the state machinery and favorable media outlets as a conspiracy without merit, a collusion of malice being perpetrated by those who seek only to harm India, and more specifically, subvert and undermine the infallible institution that is Narendra Modi. The long held distinction, between the designation of the Prime Minister and the nation-state that the designation governs, has aggressively been blurred and homogenized into one.
At this juncture, whether it is possible to dissect the image and persona, and, as a consequence, the identity of Narendra Modi from the abstract entity that is the government, remains a rather perilous task of identifying nuances, imposing caveats and being ideologically indulgent. What remains abundantly clear however, is that Narendra Modi has displayed considerable gumption in cementing himself as not merely a strongman, a de-facto choice between a sea of uninspiring, cobbled-together candidates but as a man, that is an institution in himself. An institution that is perennially enterprising, committed and morally-motivated to serve and deliver upon national interests and the welfare of the people, through methods and strategy that are unprecedented and infallible if not outright divine. When the institution of governance is casted in such terms and with such colours, the underlying intention is not to protect it from the ordinary vagaries of administration, but rather to position it specifically in a manner where it supremely elevated, and lacking the capacity to commit either a plight or a wrong, but possessing the absolute capacity to be credited and attributed every civic good or benefit that may arise through incident or omission.
For a country of a billion people and many states, specifically many states that find themselves bereft of either consensus or mutual appreciation, and are often divided by established ancient differentiations, it is an impressive feat to introduce a cohesively established appreciation for one individual and introduce it to an extent wherein nothing but endless praise is permitted. However, an instance of such a substantial amount of social engineering and ingenuity, requires an exceptional amount of collaboration, between not only the party cadre but also the governing institutions, a pliant media and equally subservient state and private entities to ensure continuing success. The Modi Machinery, if so termed, is a very effective one, albeit it, not at actual work of competence. The machinery, now largely lubricated and operationalized by administrative officers from Modi’s home state Gujarat, has evolved into a curated apparatus that is, in practice, unable to disagree, diverge or in any manner whatsoever, take a different position than one so dictated by the Prime Minister. It is then, reduced to an instrument of tightly strung wires, chorded to play only the approved notes and melodies. A situation that in earnest, has remained the status-quo for India’s much aspired profession of civil servants for much, if not all of the country’s existence. The autocratic method of functioning, is neither novel or aberrant to how institutions and public bodies generally function in India. The long standing convention of a pliant, apathetic bureaucracy that survives in-tandem with an equally one-directional legislature, has rather been the norm. The bureaucrats, as said in hushed tones and through tight-lipped smiles, know not of an existence that isn’t driven by despotic whims of elected officials, an existence that nevertheless rewards loyalty and patronage with unprecedented largesse.
With the arrival and establishment of Narendra Modi however, the extent of fine grain control has observed a continuing incline since 2014. The methodology being employed is one that has been tried, tested and proven in its efficacy, as evidenced by Narendra Modi’s term as the Chief Minister of Gujarat for nearly 15 years.[2] What India has largely begun to observe now, has been the super scaling of this methodology with an increasingly brazen, and ruthless disposition
THE PARALLEL MEDIA
The utilization of media and communications to produce desirable electoral outcomes by manipulating and shaping public opinion have remained a staple of realpolitik since the medium of TV saw mass-adoption. In India, one of the earliest and most prominent instances came to be in 1989 in the 9th General Lok Sabha (Lower House) elections where Indian National Congress (INC) under the incumbent Prime Minister observed a loss following a landslide victory in the earlier elections. One of the vital reasons for this defeat, was ascribed to be the excessive coverage by the state-owned TV channel Doordarshan of Rajiv Gandhi and the INC.[3] However, the evolution of news media and the press in the background of technological leaps and adoption of the internet, now present novel challenges to not only the public spirit and its functioning but also to the supervisory legal framework under whose aegis it supposedly operates.
The Constitution of India, does not explicitly offer protection of speech for journalists or the press. What it does offer is a form of freedom of speech to the public at large, offered via Article 19(1)(a) and subsequently restrained by Article 19(2) on the grounds of public order, decency or morality and other grounds. These restrictions and connotations, once of limited import and effect owing to fragmented nature of media houses, limited reach and availability, have now become substantially palpable with the rapid rise of news media in India following liberalization of the economy in 1991. Particularly, as it has increasingly led to fewer and fewer entities controlling large arrays of media outlets, leading to concentration, stifled autonomy of editorial content and as a consequence, an increasingly prevalent ability to shape, persuade and modify public issues, including electoral victors and their policy positions.
Notably, the Constitutional aspects of freedom of press, speech and the inherent restrictions have been interpreted and ruled on by the Supreme Court, in dissimilar manner, often with considerable delays, resulting in a climate that oscillates between strain and persecution with restricted judicial emancipation.[4] At this juncture however, there is an observable bifurcation between the press and media itself: with a designated cabal of large, state-sponsored entities operating to engender support for the party’s narrative at one end, while at the other, an increasingly fragmented group of independent and/or small media entities presenting a counter-narrative. However, the conflict of contesting ideas remains unremarkable in-terms of its novelty, for such an occurrence is inherent part of public discourse, what is novel however, even for India, is the scale at which this conflict now surfaces and operates to shape not just ordinary public discourse but the very fabric of public mores as well.
While on a provincial level, media houses, often operate with established patronage towards regional political parties, with large-houses outwardly displaying support, providing coverage and running disinformation campaigns for opposition parties and figures. The effectiveness and persistence of this nexus, beyond the largesse that government-sponsored advertising brings, is also often due to the media houses outrightly being owned, operated or managed by relatives, patrons, supporters or in certain cases, sitting elected officials themselves. In the large southern province of Tamil Nadu for instance, Sun Group, a large media house with presence in TV, radio and print is owned by Kalanithi Maran, a relative of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK stalwart M. Karunanidhi. Similarly, in the province of Odisha, Odisha-TV is owned by Baijayant Panda, National Vice-President and spokesperson for the BJP, while in Assam, NewsLive, a prominent regional TV channel is owned by Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, the wife of BJP member Himanta Biswa Sarma Chief Minister of the province. Nevertheless, the true extent of control and ownership of the media and the press by India’s political parties and politicians, remain largely hidden owing to convoluted corporate layering and a lack of sufficient regulatory framework that would ensure de-facto plurality of media houses and press instead of a merely a de jure one.
However, what was once a largely-provincial phenomenon has now solidified as a national imperative, with national TV channels and publication houses routinely patronizing the government, often competing amongst each other to offer greater support and dissemination, while simultaneously chiding down on the opposition parties and counter narratives. The mutual appreciation of media houses and BJP is not limited by political ownership; Network18 group, a media conglomerate owned by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, a close-friend of Narendra Modi[5], has frequently taken down articles on its publication network websites that portray BJP adversely.[6] A sting operation carried out by Cobrapost, an investigative journalism outlet, found a large number of publications and media houses malleable and accepting of promoting BJP and its political interests in exchange for monetary benefit.[7] The entities included India TV, a popular TV channel as well as Dainik Jagran, a Hindi newspaper with wide readership. In addition to the amiable, smaller media houses, large media enterprises with high-engagement and viewership themselves are owned by members of the BJP or their ideological patrons. Among the operative nexus, there is Zee News Network, a large Hindi-language media company with high-viewership, owned by Essel Group, the chairman of which is Subhash Chandra, a sitting Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha (Upper House) from BJP. Similarly, Republic TV, a high-viewership English-language channel was founded by BJP Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who subsequently resigned as the chairman, despite his absence, the channel continues to bear a significantly heavy ideological imprint of BJP in its coverage and discourse; with majority of its prime-time programming centered around promoting BJP interests and attacking opposition parties, as found by an analysis of its programming.[8] On a macro-level therefore, politically-affiliated media increasingly became the status quo in India following liberalization and increasing prominence of regional parties on the national level. However, while previously, the dissenting media houses, bearing different ideological imprints, were able to co-exist with relative amity, since 2014, this reality has increasingly been tilt-shifted towards attempting destruction of uncomplimentary outlets, while promoting and transforming encouraging outlets to outright state-mouthpieces, with negligible discretion to operate otherwise.
Apart from conventional media, the increasing usage of Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp in India has opened up additional avenues of concentration and narrative disbursing for India’s political parties, with the resource-rich BJP paving the path forward and utilizing dedicated propaganda cells across platforms to influence and shape public opinion on prevailing issues as well as routinely harass, threaten and identify dissenting voices.[9] In conformity with its ideological foundation and philosophy regarding religion and community mores, digital platforms have been energized to constantly incite issues on religion, caste and subjects that are expected to invoke sharp, often violent real life consequences for individuals and entities. The mandate remains lucid and adamant: beset any position not taken up by the government and/or injurious to BJP’s political into either submission or destruction through harassment, threats and violence. In this highly-organized crosshair of subjugation, women[10], minorities[11] and opposition leaders and politicians find themselves firmly fixed.
Despite the almost penurious level of resources of the countering media and despite Narendra Modi’s Teflon-esque popularity amongst voters and the general public, the small outlets, media houses and journalists find themselves at the receiving end of seemingly never-ending, excoriating punishment that is now met out with a matter-of-fact alacrity and punctuality. The model of consolidation of media and platforms into a unipolar entity tasked with disseminating approved truths and factums, remains one that India’s neighbour and territorial adversary, China, has executed with tremendous success and control, and one that India seeks to replicate in its entirety.
THE TOOLS OF ACCEPTANCE
The freedom of the press has observed a tumultuous existence in the history of independent India, with journalists, media houses and publications routinely contending with not just state censure and retaliation, but also manufactured coercion from private, often politically-associated organisations and interest groups.[12] In this climate, legal safeguards and protective frameworks have been few and far between, with limited efficacy.[13] A theme that saw renewed discussions and concerns, following the murder of respected activist and journalist, Gauri Lankesh in 2017.[14] Despite efforts of considerable scale[15], the case, characteristic of criminal justice in India, remains in legal abeyance.[16] Distressingly, such attacks and murders on journalists and activists have been tools utilized by the entirety of Indian political spectrum, agnostic to their political ideologies. The murder of Gauri Lankesh, is one among great many that is routinely inflicted on journalists, with majority of them taking place silently and without predicated media coverage.
A study conducted by Geeta Seshu and Urvashi Sarkar found that between 2014-2019 there were 198 attacks on journalists, with 40 journalists being killed, the study notes that these are conservative estimates and most cases go unreported.[17] Similarly, an analysis by Free Speech Collective found that between 2010-2020, there 154 cases lodged against journalists under dubious legal grounds such as sedition, terror, epidemics and others.[18] Notably, between 2010-2013, there 19 cases lodged, however, between 2014-2020 there were 135 cases lodged, with 2020 observing 67 such instances in light of Covid-19 pandemic and reports of gross mismanagement by various governments, including the union government.
The reviling aspects of political impunity and intolerance then, are deemed occupational hazards that are perceived as fait accompli for journalists and activists in India. However, despite the climate of considerate threat of state censure, private intimidation and absence of effective legal safeguards, the operational mobility continued to be relatively acceptable, if largely imperfect. Since 2014 however, the space for dialogue and discovery has experienced continuing erosion, with each subsequent year elevating the risks and increasingly depriving publications and individuals of liberty of expression.
Furthermore, since 2014, India has seen archaic provisions of Law rapidly being distilled into weaponized instruments of repression. The chief amongst them being Sedition as defined under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code. The provision, once used by the colonial government to suppress the freedom movement, has been often used by governments in India to suppress activists, protestors and inhibit critique and opposition. Since 2010, over 816 cases of Sedition have been filed, charging over 11,000 individuals. Startlingly, 65 per cent of these cases have been since 2014, signaling the regeneration of the draconian provision by the BJP government.[19] The ambiguously worded section results in the grounds for sedition remaining vague and often opaque, with a large percentage of cases being filed for criticizing Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and BJP-demagogue Ajay Kumar Bisht (Yogi Adityanath). Cases have been filed against journalists, students, academics and political leaders for covering protests, posting on social media, criticising policies and laws, advocating for human rights among other issues; at times as trifling as forwarding a message on the popular messaging platform – WhatsApp.[20] Despite the liberal application of the law, the conviction rates remain less than 3 per cent, highlighting the spurious nature of the charges.[21] This is further aggravated by the glacial pace at which criminal trials are conducted and disposed of in India, leading to individuals languishing for long periods in custody, unable to get bail and often facing extreme harassment from officials and the society. Despite its prevalence, sedition is one of the many sections of the Penal Code being utilized to curb dissent; activists, students and commentators have been routinely charged with crimes for making comments, with one opposition leader being charged for speaking the legal name of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister instead of the self-anointed honorific.[22]
In addition to the Penal Code, anti-terror legislations, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and National Security Act (NSA) are frequently used to rout dissent. Under the harsh UAPA law which gives investigating agencies up to 180 days to file a charge sheet, bail remains optional if not outrightly impossible, leading to individuals suffering during the process. The law was amended in 2019 and even more stringent, empowering the government to designate an individual as a terrorist and seize property. UAPA’s usage have seen significant increase since 2015, with thousands arrested across BJP-governed states since 2019. Despite the wide application, the conviction rates remain abysmally low at 2.2 per cent.[23] Similarly, NSA, the draconian law that facilitates preventive detention for an year without trial, has been routinely invoked to scuttle critique and commentary. In one instance, a journalist and an activist were charged under NSA for expressing that cow dung and cow urine are not a cures for Covid-19.[24]
In addition to the now-weaponised legal provisions, the union government has repeatedly utilized investigation agencies such as Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency and the Department of Income Tax to routinely arrest, detain and raid premises of individuals and entities speaking or acting unfavourably against the government’s interests, including elected officials of other political parties.[25] The operational autonomy of India’s state agencies have historically been a disputable point[26], with prosecutions and investigations being initiated as political vendetta in a routine manner. However, the climate since 2014 has observed predictable conformity transforming itself into obsequious acceptance, with any dissension being met with severe repression by the government.[27]
Against the routine onslaught of charges and prosecution, the Courts have been unable to provide satisfactory relief, with the Supreme Court itself initiating contempt proceedings against a cartoonist and a stand-up comic.[28] In cases where the High Courts of the states have intervened, the matter is swiftly brought to the Supreme Court for course correction, raising critical questions about the operational liberty of the highest court of the land, particularly when Supreme Court judges repeatedly praise the Prime Minister[29] and are given posts following their superannuation.[30] The climate that prevails then, is one wherein the occupational labels of journalists, media and press have become irrelevant, for the very ability to convey an expression — that differs from the one taken or adopted by the government — has steadily become entrenched in great peril, irrespective of association, background or position of the individual.
A DIGITAL HEGEMONY
The digital landscape of India, promises much intrigue and potentiality for digital enterprises and companies. The continued digitalization, tremendously augured by the now widely-available 4G network and extremely affordable data plans by telecom providers, has resulted in a rapid penetration of services and access to erstwhile digital-hinterlands, with coverage expanding with each day. Interestingly, the forefront of the digital revolution has been Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Network, a telecom operator often at the receiving end of favourable government decisions.[31] While over 400 million Indians are on Facebook, the company’s instant messaging app WhatsApp is used by over 500 million people. These two platforms, among other social media, were widely utilized by BJP leading up to the 2014 elections to promote Narendra Modi as a champion contender.[32] Subsequently, Facebook[33] and WhatsApp[34] and Twitter[35] have become convenient citadels for the party’s ideological rhetoric, perennially producing fake news, propaganda and unscientific, religiously-militant information and productions to further mobilize and consolidate its efforts towards a religious ethno-state.
While the platforms have tried to whittle down such content, their efforts have often been criticized by both domestic and international media as lacking in conviction and sincerity. Conspicuously, the moderation of content by the platform(s) is often at the expense of ideological influence of BJP; a circumstance that inadvertently invites the displeasure of the government as well as fiscal injury to the company’s commercial interests in case of a potential ban. As reported by Wall Street Journal, Facebook India observed willful ignorance when it came to taking down content that was propagated by BJP or supported its narratives, even when the content was against its own terms of use.[36] The platforms and the companies find themselves in an adversarial predicament if not an existential threat. Attempts by the platform to counter the government strong-arming has resulted in legal notices, warrants for arrests as well as raids by government officials[37] along with the emergence of state-promoted imitative platforms.[38] The majority of the platforms, fatigued by the persistent government interference have adopted more agreeable stances. The new IT Rules however, seek to consolidate this agreeable disposition into a solidified state of submission[39] even as they are challenged in the court of law.
A DESTINED FUTURE
The nation that is India, has often been limited by its allegiance to antiquated notions, a nation under siege by its own inability to look beyond what it once looked at. Under Narendra Modi and BJP, this imperative has slowly emboldened into a philosophical state that must now exist instead of existing as a perishable alternative. At this juncture, despite deteriorating in all but few global indices of progress, despite historical-high for unemployment, taxation and increasingly normalised violence based upon caste, class and religion, Modi remains a veritable liberator. A benefic, quasi-omniscient entity that holds the exclusive power of providing deliverance to a billion souls. The higher cause in this case, is that of establishing a Hindu rashtra – a religious ethno-state guided and settled on the principles of its religious neighbour – Pakistan. For such a noble endeavor then, any sacrifice is one worth making. The sacrifice of liberties, of speech, of expression, of thought and of words are losses that can be afforded and that, should be afforded.
The idea then, is principally of a new India. Unshackled by the Constitutional restraints or erstwhile societal norms. As Modi’s popularity continues to remain immune to criticism or socio-economic shocks, the pliant state institutions, media and the courts remain unconcerned in disturbing it.
As India steps into a new decade however, it would require far more than cultivated nationalism and religious proselytization to make in-roads and deliver upon its inherent ambitions of achieving economic and societal supremacy. Whether it will, remains a question easier to answer in the present than in the near-future.
[1] https://rsf.org/en/news/rsfs-2021-press-freedom-predators-gallery-old-tyrants-two-women-and-european
[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19472498.2010.507028
[3] Rudolph, Lloyd I. “The media and cultural politics.” India Votes. Routledge, 2019. 159-179.
[4] https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-and-the-fourth-pillar
[5] Jaffrelot, Christophe. “Business-Friendly Gujarat Under Narendra Modi.” Business and Politics in India (2018): 211.
[6] https://thewire.in/media/amit-shah-bank-demonetisation-news18-new-indian-express
[7] Cobrapost, Operation 136, https://www.cobrapost.com/blog/Operation-136/1029
[8] https://caravanmagazine.in/media/republic-debates-study-shows-channel-promotoes-modi-ndtv
[9] Swati Chaturvedi, I Am a Troll: Inside the Secret World of the BJP’s Digital Army, Juggernaut Books, 2016
[10] https://scroll.in/article/976611/the-widening-war-against-indias-women-journalists
[11] https://time.com/6073758/india-investigating-muslim-journalists/
[12] Sorabjee, Soli J. “Press Freedom in India: Problems, Perils and Paradoxes.” Media Asia 27.3 (2000): 144-149.
[13] Kartik Sharma, Freedom of the Press: Using the Law to Defend Journalists, Socio Legal Information Cent, 2009
[14] Delanthamajalu, Shwetha. “Nation, gender and the killing of an Indian journalist.” Gender, Place & Culture 27.8 (2020): 1115-1133.
[15] https://www.deccanherald.com/metrolife/metrolife-your-bond-with-bengaluru/gauri-murder-case-awaits-closure-882146.html
[16] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-to-hear-plea-of-gauri-lankeshs-sister-on-september-8/article35949327.ece
[17] https://cdn.countercurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Getting-away-with-murder-A-report-.pdf
[18] https://freespeechcollectivedotin.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/behind-bars-arrests-of-journalists-in-india-2010-20.pdf
[19] https://www.article-14.com/post/our-new-database-reveals-rise-in-sedition-cases-in-the-modi-era
[20] https://www.thequint.com/news/india/default-admin-in-jail-for-whatsapp-forward
[21] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India: 2019, https://ncrb.gov.in/en/crime-india-2019-0
[22] https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/sp-leader-booked-for-calling-up-cm-ajay-bisht-6151394/
[23] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/parliament-proceedings-over-72-rise-in-number-of-uapa-cases-registered-in-2019/article34029252.ece
[24] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/2-booked-under-nsa-in-manipur-for-fb-posts-that-cow-dung-won-t-cure-covid19-101621339453858.html
[25] https://theprint.in/india/cbi-ed-it-probes-against-opposition-politicians-on-at-election-time-off-after-that/640596/
[26] CHAKRABORTY, SHILADITYA. “An Impossible Dream? Depoliticising the Central Bureau of Investigation.” Economic and Political Weekly (2015): 15-17.
[27] https://www.ijlsi.com/wp-content/uploads/Changing-Role-Of-Investigating-Agencies-in-Recent-Times-with-special-Reference-to-CBI.pdf
[28] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-initiates-contempt-action-against-kunal-kamra-rachita-taneja/article33361881.ece
[29] https://theprint.in/opinion/supreme-court-judges-gushing-over-modi-is-a-problem-for-judiciary-and-democracy/370935/
[30] https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article31248619.ece#!
[31] https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/government-helping-reliance-jio-monopolise-telecom
[32] Patel, Keshav. “Lok Sabha 2014, Narendra Modi and Social Sites.” International Journal of Recent Advances in Psychology & Psychotherapy [ISSN: 2581-4052 (online)] 1.1 (2017).
[33] Panigrahi, Sushree, and Jeet Singh. “Deadly combination of fake news and social media.” Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies 4 (2017).
[34] Farooq, Gowhar. “Politics of Fake News: how WhatsApp became a potent propaganda tool in India.” Media Watch 9.1 (2017): 106-117.
[35] https://theprint.in/politics/nearly-18000-twitter-accounts-spread-fake-news-for-bjp-147-do-it-for-congress-study/356876/
[36] https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-hate-speech-india-politics-muslim-hindu-modi-zuckerberg-11597423346
[37] https://thewire.in/government/attack-on-free-speech-reflects-modis-growing-paranoia
[38] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/koo-india-twitter-free-speech-b1800827.html
[39] https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/social-media-rules-whatsapp-twitter-facebook-ott-platform-content-modi-govt-7213191/
