Press freedom in India has taken a beating

The recent limited-duration ban on two Malayalam TV channels shows how the bureaucracy has become inseparable from the ruling party faithful, at least in thinking

Three occurrences involving different dramatis personae, locales and time periods, sum up the present regime's notion of 'ideal' media coverage. And the incidents demonstrate clearly the sorry state of press freedom in India today.

In the latest episode of the limited-duration ban on two Kerala-based Malayalam TV channels, even the belated effort to salvage the government’s reputation by overturning the order – made after the PM’s intervention – cannot camouflage the distaste this disposition has for any effort to report the truth. The episode also reveals how the bureaucracy has become inseparable from the party faithful, at least in thinking.

Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Minister Prakash Javadekar, while announcing the rollback before the end of the 'punishment' period, said: "We immediately found out what actually happened, and therefore, we restored the channels… Our basic thought process is that press freedom is absolutely essential in a democratic set up and that is the commitment of (Narendra) Modi government."

Javadekar said Modi had personally expressed concern over the ban order, and promised to take "essential corrective" steps if a wrongdoing was found. Yet, he added a rider: "But let me also tell you that everyone accepts that press freedom has to be exercised in a responsible fashion…"

If doubts existed over back channels being worked, a Tweet of Rajat Sharma’s (Chairman and Editor-in Chief, India TV and President, News Broadcasters Association) settled the matter. His statement 'appreciated' Modi's concern on the issue which led to the "subsequent withdrawal of the ban."

Despite curtains on the episode for now, there is a need to analyse the I&B Ministry’s statement, signed by an Under Secretary, which reflects the rigid framework within which the media is being asked to operate in today's India. The two channels were interchangeably accused of "siding towards a particular community" and being "biased” as well as “deliberately focussing on vandalism of CAA supporters." The channels were also charged with being "critical towards Delhi Police and RSS." The accusation was almost a self-goal for mentioning criticism of the police and the Saffron fountainhead in the same breath.

Undeniably, the anger against the channels was because it showed "police were seen supporting people who were in favour of CAA" and because it was alleged that the cops had remained "inactive during violence” while rioters “vandalised the shops and fruit carts and set them ablaze." Viewers would recollect that most TV channels, save those which are brazenly pro- government, carried similar reports, depicting almost the same narrative that the two channels were accused of telecasting.

This shows that officials who banned the two channels decided these were soft targets and could be used to send a message to other broadcasters. As it turned out finally, according to some media reports, one of the two channels apologised for its coverage. How this reflects on the leadership of the channel is besides the point. But, the moot point here is that the purpose of the ban was achieved, although given the political embarrassment this was likely to cause, the government took back the order.

Significantly, after the ban was overturned under instructions from Modi, Sharma also shared the startling information that "the ban decision was taken without the knowledge of the I&B Minister." In a government known for its centralised character, this is difficult to swallow without a pinch of salt.

In all probability, the whole episode was an instance of someone, somewhere actually being more loyal than the king. As a result, the notices against the channels were accusatively worded. In fact, the nature of accusations made by the ministry through its formal notices were actually no differently worded from charges levelled by junior ruling party leaders in the Capital.

The notices said that the channels were wrong in stating that "vandals and police are hand in glove" and that the "Union Home Ministry has stated that the situation is under control but in reality the situation is getting out of hand." Almost every self-respecting journalist who covered the raging violence during those three days in February 2020, said the same.

This suggests a politicisation of the bureaucracy or the officialdom being driven by a political agenda. Such a development lays bare the rot in the system from 2014 onwards. It almost appears that the bureaucracy too is driven by the same sentiment which guides ruling party activists: There shall never be a tomorrow, or that the present power arrangement is a permanent one.

Another instance of a government official being guided by political assessment is the decision of Prasar Bharati CEO, Shashi Shekhar Vempati, declining the BBC’s invitation to an event on International Women's Day. He cited the following reason – the broadcaster’s coverage of the Delhi riots was “one-sided”, “without context” and insinuated “communal behaviour”.

Vempati cited a single BBC report to justify his decision to stay away from the award distribution ceremony. But he missed out on a basic fact – every news report is always about just a facet of the episode and there is never a story on the entire tragedy because no news report in a bulletin or a newspaper provides that much space.

The pique here is again political. Why had not BBC reporters prioritised the killing of Ankit Sharma (Intelligence Bureau Officer) over others? Such questioning leaves Vempati open to being labelled as being political partisan.

The third incident shows the 'problem' that this regime has with 'curious' journalists, as in the case of former Reuters chief photographer in India, Cathal McNaughton. It may be recalled that he was posted in India in 2018 ,when along with a team that worked with him, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in May that year. The award was for the visually haunting images of despondent Rohingya refugees fleeing genocide in Myanmar.

After the prize distribution ceremony, on his touchdown in New Delhi, his then place of residence, he was packed off without notice. His crime? Violation of visa regulations.

In the words of laypersons, McNaughton had committed the unpardonable crime which foreign journalists, especially photographers, mustn't commit if they wish to continue to work with the India dateline. He had taken disturbing images of Kashmir and put them out. As if summarily shutting the door on his face was not enough, McNaughtom was not even allowed to vacate his residence and take his personal belongings back.

The episode involving the ban on the two channels and its withdrawal cannot be viewed in isolation but has to be seen in conjunction with other instances of restrictions on media, when it does not stick to the brief of dishing out politically palatable news and analysis. It also must be seen as part of the demonisation of the media by the ruling party and its leaders since 2014.

All this has gone hand in hand with the use of parallel channels of mass communication by top ruling party functionaries. These alternative avenues of disseminating news and views of the leadership, includes radio, other official channels, besides, of course, social media. While a large section of the media has turned supplicant, there are several others, as the latest episode shows, who are yet to fall in line. The future of Indian press freedom lies in these brave hands.

Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a Delhi-based journalist and author. His latest book is RSS: Icons Of The Indian Right. He has also written Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times (2013)

The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.