The one-day ban on India’s premier Hindi news channel NDTV India for what the government said was compromising the country’s security with its Pathankot terrorist attack coverage has sent a strong message that the media must fall in line. The broadcasting ministry reached the conclusion that the channel had given away strategically sensitive information such as details on ammunition and the location of military planes while covering the January attack. The channel has rejected the allegations, saying that its coverage had been particularly balanced and it was being singled out.
The broadcasting ministry order has set a dangerous precedent that could be invoked any time in the future, even though it was put on hold after the channel went to the Supreme Court and held discussions with the government. A similar order was served to a channel in the north eastern state of Assam.
Here the question is not purely about how the channel reported the attack. The issue is the wider impact of the ban on the media in a country that claims to be the world’s largest democracy. India stands by its ideals based on values, tolerance, free media and much more and whenever there is a discussion all those who boast about democratic values in India make a quick comparison with Pakistan. But the fact is that in the past few decades the country has seen a gradual decline in the freedom of speech.
In the last two years of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, the media has been constantly wrestling with it. A large section of the media has fallen into the trap of defending “national sovereignty and security” as a result of which primetime news rooms have turned into virtual “war rooms”. There used to be room to raise your voice against the government at times when it was trying to change the narrative to suit its own understanding of “nationalism”. Take the case of the minorities. Atrocities against Dalits, Muslims and Christians have increased in the past few years but there was hardly any scope to raise questions over them. Since a majority of the media followed this nationalistic mindset, others found themselves in the minority while talking about issues such as Kashmir that has become a bone of contention for the government while dealing with the “threat” to nationalism.
Fortunately, given the reaction from the majority of media houses and journalists, the ban has been put on hold. Some people think that the change of heart was prompted by the channel’s decision to go to the Supreme Court. And some would say that the ban was just supposed to scare those sections of the media who want the government to listen to the voice of reason. The Supreme Court’s intervention would embarrass the government. Ironically, it was not embarrassed by the media likening the ban to the tactics employed during the emergency of 1975—which the BJP had criticised. PM Narendra Modi had said himself, on June 26, the 38th anniversary of the emergency: “Who can forget the manner in which personal freedom was brutally trampled? Who can forget the blatant misuse of MISA to target political opponents? Can one forget the lockouts on media houses? How can we not remember the determined struggle of lakhs of people across the nation for 19 long months?” Despite these words, the government maintained that freedom of press was allowed but national interest was paramount. It seems to have forgotten its own stance. Indeed, on the anniversary of the emergency, Finance Minister Arun Jaitly recalled those “dark days” when “[a]ll the newspapers were subjected to pre-censorship. A representative of the Censoring Authority sat in the office of every newspaper and news agency.” This time round it did not even bother to censor the two news channels and decided a ban was the best way to send a signal.
The ban has also shown how there is an outcry only when something happens in New Delhi. The daily English Kashmir Reader was banned by the Jammu and Kashmir government on October 2 on charges of “inciting violence” but except for a mild statement from the Editors Guild of India, which took strong position against the NDTV ban, there was no hue and cry. In fact the guild’s statement came across as a “fine balancing act” in which it seemed to be lecturing the newspaper over following guidelines rather than supporting it. The newspaper’s editors and journalists have been agitating for over one month but there has been virtually no support from the national media that rallied behind NDTV. If this is the case, then one can argue that they are also following the “nationalistic view” in which Kashmir has no place. For them Kashmir is a different entity and subject where the concept of freedom of speech and justice is measured by a different yardstick. When it comes to Kashmir, the national media has been jingoistic and one-sided, which is why it doesn’t see journalists working in Kashmir as compatriots.
This double standard plays out in other parts of India. Atrocities against media persons elsewhere in India too go unnoticed. In the backdrop of the NDTV ban, senior journalist TS Sudhir wrote in thenewsminute.com, asking fellow journalists to “learn to look beyond the ‘emergency’ in Delhi”. He listed examples from volatile regions such as Chhattisgarh, Kashmir and Telangana where this has been reality for a long time. “The fact is what Lutyens’ Delhi is witnessing now, has been a reality of life for journalists, stringers and media houses beyond Delhi, for many years now. When those in authority in the states rode roughshod over local media, Lutyens media chose to ignore because the netas would cosy up to its high fliers from the national capital. Now having tasted blood, the establishment has come for the real meat.”
The writer is a journalist in Srinagar and can be reached at shujaat7867@gmail.com
The broadcasting ministry order has set a dangerous precedent that could be invoked any time in the future, even though it was put on hold after the channel went to the Supreme Court and held discussions with the government. A similar order was served to a channel in the north eastern state of Assam.
The Kashmir Reader has been banned for a month but no one has really made a strong statement against it as has been done with NDTV And ironically, the BJP decried the treatment of the media during the 1975 emergency-only to do the same in 2016. It's only when something happens in Delhi that everyone is up in arms. But beyond Delhi censorship has been bad for journalists for a while
Here the question is not purely about how the channel reported the attack. The issue is the wider impact of the ban on the media in a country that claims to be the world’s largest democracy. India stands by its ideals based on values, tolerance, free media and much more and whenever there is a discussion all those who boast about democratic values in India make a quick comparison with Pakistan. But the fact is that in the past few decades the country has seen a gradual decline in the freedom of speech.
In the last two years of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, the media has been constantly wrestling with it. A large section of the media has fallen into the trap of defending “national sovereignty and security” as a result of which primetime news rooms have turned into virtual “war rooms”. There used to be room to raise your voice against the government at times when it was trying to change the narrative to suit its own understanding of “nationalism”. Take the case of the minorities. Atrocities against Dalits, Muslims and Christians have increased in the past few years but there was hardly any scope to raise questions over them. Since a majority of the media followed this nationalistic mindset, others found themselves in the minority while talking about issues such as Kashmir that has become a bone of contention for the government while dealing with the “threat” to nationalism.
Fortunately, given the reaction from the majority of media houses and journalists, the ban has been put on hold. Some people think that the change of heart was prompted by the channel’s decision to go to the Supreme Court. And some would say that the ban was just supposed to scare those sections of the media who want the government to listen to the voice of reason. The Supreme Court’s intervention would embarrass the government. Ironically, it was not embarrassed by the media likening the ban to the tactics employed during the emergency of 1975—which the BJP had criticised. PM Narendra Modi had said himself, on June 26, the 38th anniversary of the emergency: “Who can forget the manner in which personal freedom was brutally trampled? Who can forget the blatant misuse of MISA to target political opponents? Can one forget the lockouts on media houses? How can we not remember the determined struggle of lakhs of people across the nation for 19 long months?” Despite these words, the government maintained that freedom of press was allowed but national interest was paramount. It seems to have forgotten its own stance. Indeed, on the anniversary of the emergency, Finance Minister Arun Jaitly recalled those “dark days” when “[a]ll the newspapers were subjected to pre-censorship. A representative of the Censoring Authority sat in the office of every newspaper and news agency.” This time round it did not even bother to censor the two news channels and decided a ban was the best way to send a signal.
The ban has also shown how there is an outcry only when something happens in New Delhi. The daily English Kashmir Reader was banned by the Jammu and Kashmir government on October 2 on charges of “inciting violence” but except for a mild statement from the Editors Guild of India, which took strong position against the NDTV ban, there was no hue and cry. In fact the guild’s statement came across as a “fine balancing act” in which it seemed to be lecturing the newspaper over following guidelines rather than supporting it. The newspaper’s editors and journalists have been agitating for over one month but there has been virtually no support from the national media that rallied behind NDTV. If this is the case, then one can argue that they are also following the “nationalistic view” in which Kashmir has no place. For them Kashmir is a different entity and subject where the concept of freedom of speech and justice is measured by a different yardstick. When it comes to Kashmir, the national media has been jingoistic and one-sided, which is why it doesn’t see journalists working in Kashmir as compatriots.
This double standard plays out in other parts of India. Atrocities against media persons elsewhere in India too go unnoticed. In the backdrop of the NDTV ban, senior journalist TS Sudhir wrote in thenewsminute.com, asking fellow journalists to “learn to look beyond the ‘emergency’ in Delhi”. He listed examples from volatile regions such as Chhattisgarh, Kashmir and Telangana where this has been reality for a long time. “The fact is what Lutyens’ Delhi is witnessing now, has been a reality of life for journalists, stringers and media houses beyond Delhi, for many years now. When those in authority in the states rode roughshod over local media, Lutyens media chose to ignore because the netas would cosy up to its high fliers from the national capital. Now having tasted blood, the establishment has come for the real meat.”
The writer is a journalist in Srinagar and can be reached at shujaat7867@gmail.com