Window of hope, yet little changed in media accountability in Modi 3.0

Since June this year, when the general election results significantly reduced the strength of the BJP in the Lok Sabha, the optimists believed that a party dependent on its coalition partners, even if it continues to be led by Narendra Modi, would be different. That the visible authoritarian tendencies of the last decade under Modi would be tamed somewhat.

How wrong they were. After 100 days in power, there is little to indicate that there is any change in direction, even if there has been some backtracking in the face of opposition. Even if some laws, like the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, have been put on the backburner, there is little to suggest that the desire to control the media by this government has been set aside.

Still, these last months since June have given both the independent and mainstream media a window to pursue the kind of journalism that is so central to democracy, one that questions the powerful, that independently checks and assesses claims by those in power, and that seeks out the voices of the many who are otherwise never heard. While independent media continues to report as the media should, there is little visible change in mainstream media.

Take, for instance, the controversy over a private function at the residence of the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. It was a Ganesh pooja. Families that follow this custom invite close family members and friends. They usually keep the idol only for a couple of days, or five to six days at most, before they submerge it. 

Questions were rightly raised, not just by the opposition but by members of the legal fraternity about the propriety of the head of the highest court inviting the head of the executive to such a private function.

While the national newspapers gave space to differing opinions about whether the CJI ought to have invited the Prime Minister, none, barring Deccan Herald, took an editorial stand. It pointed out that “such a controversy hurts the judiciary more than the executive and could certainly have been avoided. The judiciary should not only be independent and above the fray but also seen to be so”. A reasonably mild comment, but even this was missing from the other major English-language newspapers.

Indian Express gave space for two differing points of view on its editorial pages. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Indira Jaising, in her article, asked “whether the CJI has been true to his oath of office”. Few speculated on why the Prime Minister had chosen to publicise the private event given his record of using every opportunity to be heard and seen in the media.

The criticism by the opposition did not go unnoticed. In response, the Prime Minister, as is his wont, twisted the issue and made it one of bigotry by the other side. Here is what he said, as reported in Hindustan Times:

“The Britishers followed the policy of divide and rule. They used to hate Ganesh Utsav. Ganesh Utsav is not just a festival of faith, but it played an important role in the freedom struggle. Dividing us in the name of castes was a weapon of the British. Bal Gangadhar Tilak used community celebrations to awaken the collective conscience of the country. Today, everyone participates in Ganesh Utsav without any discrimination. But its celebration has once again become a point of contention, much like it did during the British colonial era. Even today, the power-hungry people of India who are busy dividing and breaking society are having trouble with Ganesh Puja. You must have seen that the people of Congress and its ecosystem have been angry for the last few days because I participated in Ganpati Pooja.”

This ought to have been questioned by the media because Modi has cleverly confused two separate issues. The Ganesh festival is celebrated at home by many families. But during the Independence struggle, the concept of communities jointly and publicly celebrating it became a way to confront the British authorities. Today, this custom continues, and public Ganesh pandals are visited by common people and public figures, including politicians. There is nothing wrong with a prime minister and a judge visiting the same pandal. But when a prime minister visits the home of a judge, it suggests a closer relationship, one that crosses the line of propriety given the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive in a democracy. 

Perhaps the Indian media has now become so used to not questioning that it is unrealistic to expect a change even if the June results do provide a small window. The burden for such rigorous questioning continues to fall on the small independent digital platforms that, despite their tenuous finances, turn out incisive investigative stories. An excellent example is this one by Scroll on how Indian diplomacy and the growth of Gautam Adani’s investments in countries around the world have coincided.

The state of our media has not been pinned as a major concern by any political party, whether it is in power or in the opposition. Yet, it continues to draw attention outside India.

A recent reminder is an article by the publisher of the New York Times, AD Sulzberger, in what would be considered its rival newspaper, The Washington Post. 

In a guest essay headlined “How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America”, Sulzberger writes about one political leader outside his country in these words:

“His country is a democracy, so he can’t simply close newspapers or imprison journalists. Instead, he sets about undermining independent news organisations in subtler ways – using bureaucratic tools such as tax law, broadcast licensing and government contracting. Meanwhile, he rewards news outlets that toe the party line – shoring them up with state advertising revenue, tax exemptions and other government subsidies – and helps friendly business people buy up other weakened news outlets at cut rates to turn them into government mouthpieces.”

You would not be wrong if you surmised that he was referring to Narendra Modi. In fact, this is how he described Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary. However, later in the piece, he does mention Modi, as well as the recently defeated former President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, and draws parallels between these three men and how they have curbed the media but continue to claim that they are elected leaders in a democracy.

About India, Sulzberger writes:

“In India, Modi has so successfully subverted independent reporting – blocking reports on everything from mass protests against his economic policy to mistreatment of the country’s Muslim minority – that much of the mainstream press is now derided as “godi media,” generally translated as “lapdog media.” It is wrong to imagine that this is a problem for journalists alone. The repercussions of a weakened media reverberate throughout society, masking corruption, obscuring risks to public health and safety, restricting minority rights and distorting the electoral process. Democracy itself, though still intact – as gains by opposition parties in the recent Indian election underscored – is viewed as more tenuous and conditional”.

He also speculates on what would happen to press freedom if Donald Trump is elected president of the United States on November 5. The picture he paints is dire.

I have quoted from his piece at length as it is behind a paywall and might not be accessible to readers.

The gradual degradation of press freedom acts like an anaesthetic. It numbs us to a point where what would have once been unacceptable becomes the norm. Can we still turn the clock back? This is the challenge that the Indian media faces.

If you’re reading this story, you’re not seeing a single advertisement. That’s because Newslaundry powers ad-free journalism that’s truly in public interest. Support our work and subscribe today.

It will soon be a year since Hamas’ October 7 attack. Contribute to our new NL Sena project to help us bring an exclusive mini-series that examines the multiple dimensions of the Israel-Gaza war from ground zero.