Opinion | Journalism in India is under assault

Publish date: 2024-07-28

Journalism has become a dangerous occupation in India.

Indian journalists, especially from the region of Kashmir, have been incarcerated on terrorism charges or forced to self-censor. Elsewhere in the country, journalists’ homes have been raided and some have been charged with money laundering and income tax evasion. Many have been jailed before their cases are adjudicated. India ranks 161st out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index, published annually by Reporters Without Borders.

In the past few months, two foreign journalists — one a bureau chief with the Australian Broadcasting Corp., one a French reporter who had lived in India for 23 years — had their credentials revoked or blocked for renewal, and left the country after the government criticized their work.

To find out more about the state of journalism in India, Post columnist Rana Ayyub interviewed N. Ram, a veteran journalist and former editor in chief of the Hindu, one of the most respected publications in the country, at his home base in Chennai.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Rana Ayyub: The Indian election has begun. And there is an inevitability to it, in the sense that Narendra Modi will have a third term. What do you think will happen?

N. Ram: Yes, people do expect the BJP [Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party] to emerge with enough numbers, either by itself or with allies, to form the next government. But we don’t know. I wouldn’t despair at this point at all, although Hindutva [Hindu-centric] authoritarianism is very aggressive. A lot of it is clearly against the spirit and values of the constitution and in some cases also against the letter of the constitution.

The other important thing is Prime Minister Modi himself. He has campaigned with appeals to the Hindu religion, and speaking against Muslims specifically. The CPI(M) [Communist Party of India (Marxist)] has filed a formal complaint with the Election Commission of India, pointing out that this is both against the Model Code of Conduct, which is supposed to be binding on political parties and candidates, and in some cases against particular sections of the Indian Penal Code. So far, silence. We don’t know whether the election commissioners have even discussed it.

When you say you don’t despair, what gives you hope?

That India is so diverse and pluralistic. And I don’t think any central dispensation will be able to control all of India, given the diversity in terms of religion, in terms of language, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of culture. I don’t think any strongman or authoritarian regime would be able to suppress the divergences. And sooner rather than later, I think, these are going to burst out.

I lived through the Emergency [the state of emergency declared in India from 1975 to 1977, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended civil liberties and ruled by decree]. We saw a total clampdown. We were thinking that democracy would never return. But as you know, very quickly — in 21 months — the people of India were able to defeat the Emergency regime.

But now, I think, the electoral bond scandal [a scheme that allowed companies to secretly make unlimited campaign contributions] surely has had an impact. It’s a scandal of the worst kind. It has involved the use of coercive agencies of the state to punish those who didn’t cough up money for the ruling party. Then the Hindenburg report [a report by a U.S. investment firm accusing an Indian firm close to the government of stock manipulation and accounting fraud]. All of this must have taken a toll. Plus, of course, the real issues on the ground: Youth unemployment runs at 40 percent. Fewer women are in the workforce today, the lowest participation rate among all the Group of 20 countries.

Here is a prime minister who, in 10 years in power, has not held a single press conference. He gives one-on-one interviews with chosen journalists but no hard questions are being put to him. We have seen the raids on NewsClick, the tax notices to Newslaundry, the cases against The Quint and The News Minute, and the incarceration of independent journalists. They are getting investigated for money laundering and income tax evasion. How do journalists survive in this atmosphere?

It’s becoming increasingly difficult. It’s taking a toll.

Yes, the prime minister doesn’t believe in giving interviews to independent journalists. He wants somebody to basically be in awe of him. It’s shameful that there are journalists like that, willing to let themselves be used, and they don’t ask any serious questions. I have no respect for journalists of that kind.

But another issue, which is even more serious: the number of journalists who have been arrested. And then even more seriously, I looked at the Committee to Protect Journalists database, the number of journalists killed in connection with their work in India. In the decade this government has been in power, 19 have been killed. And in the previous decade, before this government came in, it was 10, which was bad enough.

And even worse, India figures in the Global Impunity Index. Journalists are killed in connection with their work — targeted and murdered. Those who cover corruption, crime, politics, human rights. And there is impunity for the killers. The killers are not arrested in several cases, or when they are arrested, they are let out on bail and the case is not resolved. So we have been a founding and permanent member of this club of shame.

Kashmiri journalists’ passports are being impounded. They’re not allowed to travel outside the country. A photojournalist was not allowed to collect her Pulitzer Prize. Do you think the press is doing enough for these Kashmiri voices?

Share this articleShare

Of course not. I think the Press Council of India should do much more. The families of journalists are being harassed and intimidated. Media freedom and independence have been extinguished. It’s a different level of repression and authoritarianism in Jammu and Kashmir, and journalists just can’t function professionally. And yet there are heroic voices among journalists who work there.

When you heard about the raids on the houses of 46 NewsClick journalists, what did you think? I also wonder about what happens to the minds of young journalists when they see these raids. They will be disillusioned, they will not want to be a part of the setup.

Some would not want to be, a good number. But others would want to meet the challenge. I know a number of, increasingly, women who are quite willing to accept the challenge and stand up.

Recently, Newsweek did an interview with Modi. That interview was shared by the prime minister and almost every Indian embassy across the world. But whenever any criticism of Modi comes in the international press, it is seen as an attack on India, on the sovereignty of the country. A lot of people in India don’t want to speak to the international press because they don’t want to be seen as enemies of the state.

I see plenty of criticism, exposés of the Modi regime’s authoritarianism, out there. I see people like you, like me, who talk freely to the international media. The point I’m making is they haven’t been able to completely control or suppress these critical voices. Recently, I did such a piece for Prospect magazine, “The Making of Modi.”

How has the Hindu newspaper been able to maintain its independence?

The Hindu was founded in 1878, and the family I’m part of took over in 1905. I think there’s a certain bond of trust that’s been built up. Secondly, we are in the south — this is alien territory for the BJP. And that, I think, is a great help. And people like me, we were brought up in the old school, and we believe in the independence of journalism. If you’re independent, have an ingrained independent mind-set as a journalist or writer, I think nothing can really, truly rule you out of the game.

Even if Modi were to lose this election, do you think irreversible damage has been done to the country?

I don’t think it’s irreversible. It’s deep damage, no question about it, because it’s also in educational institutions and the judiciary. There are judges who make no secret of their affiliation with the BJP or indeed the RSS [a right-wing paramilitary group of Hindu nationalists]. So it’s deep damage. But irreversible? No. I think things change quickly. Realities on the ground quickly change. So all this gives me hope.

Do you think the world really understands Modi and his motivations?

I think a lot of perceptive people in the world understand Modi, and people like us are trying to inform them about the nuances of what’s happening here. Remember when Modi was denied a visa [in 2005, before he became prime minister]. The United States invoked laws to say that anyone who has indulged in severe religious persecution must be denied a visa. He was actually blocked. And then ambassadors of the various countries of the European Union informally boycotted him — until the political situation began to change. These governments then realized that you couldn’t boycott a prime minister of India, especially when they were looking for allies against China. And then they started praising Indian democracy.

But I have very little respect for these regimes, whether it’s a Biden administration or, before that, the Trump administration or the Rishi Sunak dispensation. Because they look to their so-called strategic interests, these principles and values — democracy, secularism, freedom of the press, human rights — take a back seat.

Last year, emergency powers were invoked to ban the BBC documentary on Modi. Twitter was asked to remove all links. Have you ever seen an assault on the press like this?

I won’t compare it with the Emergency, when there was total censorship. They cannot impose total censorship today on all of us, the entire press. But look at what happened with the two-part BBC Two documentary, “India: The Modi Question.” It was not meant for telecast in India. But thanks to the government’s blocking of the first part — the second part they didn’t block — more people saw it than would have seen it otherwise. It’s called the Streisand effect — that if you block something, more people end up seeing it. And I’m a petitioner in that case before the Supreme Court of India, challenging this blocking of the BBC documentary. It’s not over yet.

But the BBC had their offices raided and were later investigated for alleged violations of foreign exchange rules.

That’s the government’s crude way of functioning. But this did not stop the BBC. The government cannot afford to kick the BBC out of India. It would seriously imperil bilateral relations with the United Kingdom. Noam Chomsky and others have written on this: that if you are smart, you do it through persuasion and the ‘manufacture of consent.’ But if you’re crude, you do it like this.

What is the way forward to protect free speech and the press in India?

The only way is to exercise your right to free speech and independence, come what may. Journalists in India are lucky that a number of lawyers, including some of our top lawyers, are coming forward to appear pro bono in their defense. I think we can maintain our independence, whatever pressure comes at us.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c4COaWxoaGNktq%2BwyJpko6elp7uiuMisq6xlpaOxpr6MmqutmZOgfA%3D%3D

ZingVlog

Opinion | Journalism in India is under assault