Media dissent at home and abroad

There could be further leaks on Pegasus in the American media, following the one in the New York Times in January

Two disturbing images emerged recently of journalists being mistreated by the police. In one, from Odisha, a journalist is cuffed to a hospital bed. In the other, from Madhya Pradesh, several men, including a journalist, stand huddled in a police station, stripped down to their underwear. Dare one propose that this reflects the state of the Indian media – ideologically cuffed and stripped of its role as the fourth pillar of democracy?
 
Two other prominent journalists have had look-out notices (LOC) issued against them to prevent them from travelling abroad. Journalist Rana Ayyub could eventually attend a conference overseas after court intervention. Government agencies were far more cussed with journalist Aakar Patel, who, though permitted to travel abroad by a district court, was stopped at the airport a second time. Now the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has got another court order that prevents Patel from travelling abroad without judicial permission.

 
The worrying pattern in these cases is the State’s curbing of dissenting voices. Ironically, Ayyub was going to London to speak at an event organised by the International Centre for Journalists on intimidation of journalists. Patel was to lecture at an event at the University of Michigan titled ‘Using Sarcasm To Mobilise Dissent In A Nation Where Facts Don’t Matter’.
 

Ayyub is a columnist for the Washington Post and Patel has been a consistent and trenchant critic of the Modi regime. A popular columnist, Patel’s publications – ‘Our Hindu Rashtra’ and ‘The Price of the Modi Years’ – have tried to expose the damage wrought by the regime and its ideology. His association with Amnesty International perhaps makes him a special target too. The NGO not only upbraids India frequently for human rights violations but it also caused a major embarrassment to the Modi government confirming through forensic testing that Pegasus spyware, sold only to government agencies, was used for hacking into the cell phones of Indian journalists and politicians. Patel, therefore, was perhaps “doubly guilty” – in the government’s eyes.

 
The present regime is hyper-sensitive to international criticism, especially at a time when it feels cornered globally. It is less concerned about domestic media where criticism remains on the margins. Not for nothing have large sections of Indian media earned monikers like “Godi Media”, “Lapdog Media” “North Korean TV Channels”. Pliant media owners are rewarded with revenue largesse in the form of government advertisements. The recalcitrant ones are sought to be brought to heel by government agencies raking up real or alleged violations of laws – income tax, money laundering, shady shell companies, etc. In states run by the Bharatiya Janata Party, Hindutva-inclined journalists have been appointed media advisors to the government. From Tripura to Jammu & Kashmir, these media insiders closely control local media. Accreditation procedures are tweaked by them making it difficult for journalists to function freely. Journalists in some BJP-ruled states have been charged with Unlawful Activities Prevention Act on flimsy pretexts, including tweets.

 
The Central government is in the process of bringing in controversial accreditation procedures with an omnibus clause that significantly threatens media freedom. Governmental access can be denied to a journalist if she/he “acts in a manner prejudicial to the country’s security, sovereignty and integrity, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in any relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.
 
It is the international narrative that the government finds harder to control. Therefore, any Indian journalist with an international presence as a columnist or an activist is a target for control. Before the Patel and Ayyub fiascos, prominent writer and journalist Aatish Taseer had been denied renewal of his OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) card over a piece (India’s Divider-in-Chief) in Time magazine.

 
The regime’s dilemma is that while its success in domestic politics entails supporting pro-Hindu majoritarianism, there is a cost to pay internationally. It has been able to ward off criticism so far by delivering on Western demands of market access and becoming its catspaw to contain China. However, an economy in doldrums and changing geopolitics have made this balancing act difficult.
 
Increasingly, Prime Minister Modi is being criticised internationally as an authoritarian Hindu leader with scant regard for the rights of India’s religious minorities. Eight years ago, it would have been unimaginable that an American Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, could have compared the prime minister of India to Chilean dictator Pinochet. At a US Congressional hearing on foreign affairs, she bluntly asked the Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman, whether the US was letting “Modi be our new Pinochet”. “Why has the Biden administration been so reluctant to criticise Modi’s government on human rights? … What will it take? How much does the Modi administration have to criminalise the act of being a Muslim in India for us to say something,” she asked.

 
Significantly, such attacks on the government are coming at a time when on the invasion of Ukraine, India is seen firmly standing with the poster boys for authoritarianism, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese strongman Xi Jinping. A series of US officials have threatened India with “significant and long-term consequences” for aligning with Russia.
 
Among the first of the “consequences” it might face is the US taking an openly critical stand on the treatment of minorities, civil society activists, journalists and its J&K policy – issues that form the soft-underbelly of the central government. Another dreaded “consequence” could be further leaks on Pegasus in the American media, following the one in the New York Times in January. As the global position and image of the government grows more precarious, it may not be a good time to have the warts on its face highlighted by journalists who write for international media.

 
Things could get darker if it becomes a regular practice to restrict the movement of journalists abroad. In today’s globally connected world, this strategy may not actually silence criticism but have undesirable blowback for the reputation of the government.