A celebratory wave spread across media houses when India’s DGMO Lt Gen Ranbir Singh announced India’s surgical strike against Pakistan. Subsequently, several media channels took it upon themselves to uphold the ‘sanctity’ of the government’s statement.
“How dare you question the surgical strikes?” several channels asked. And we asked, “Why not?”
Also Read: QRant: How Does Questioning the Army Make Me Anti-National?
Now, international magazine, The Economist, too has adopted the same line of questioning.
In an article titled ‘All Hail’, the publication asks why the Indian media fails to question its own government.
When Pakistani journalist Cyril Almeida was banned from travelling abroad for reporting on an alleged closed-door meeting between the Pakistani civilian government and its military, there was widespread outrage.
Almeida’s colleagues and other activists protested and the huge support Almeida received resulted in the lifting of the ban.
The Indian journalistic community too made strong statements about freedom of press, but as The Economist points out:
On the Indian side of the border there has not been much critical examination of the government’s actions. Instead, Indian media have vied to beat war drums the loudest.
Popular prime time news show host Arnab Goswami aggressively chanted a rhetoric of nationalism and patriotism.
NDTV, a channel that is known to usually maintain balance, recently took the abrupt editorial decision to cancel an interview with Congress leader P Chidambaram.
Chidambaram, in his interview, apparently criticised the present government and NDTV said it was “not obliged to carry every shred of drivel” and would not “provide a platform for outrageous and wild accusations”.
Also Read: News in the Time of Surgical Strikes: From Dawn to NDTV
But why is the Indian media failing to be more critical of the government?
The Economist offers some theories:
Some answer that they have become ever more concentrated in the hands of big corporations, many of which carry heavy debts and so are wary of offending the party in power. Others ascribe the shrinking space for dissent to the unchecked rise of chauvinist Hindu-nationalist groups. Repressive colonial-era laws on sedition and libel also play a part.
Some of the commenters on the article have not found the piece very palatable. Here are what some had to say:
So India should give a free ride to Islamic terrorism?
Lots of Indian newspapers allow far more freedom of comment than The Economist. Outlook India, the Indian Express, the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, are all very liberal in letting people say what they please. Infinitely more than most BRITISH newspapers, especially the VERY censoring Economist.
It is typical British hyphenation of India with Pakistan. Indians shouldn’t react to this at all... The Economist had urged Indians not to vote for BJP in last elections, predicting dire conditions should Modi come to power. Alas, their opinions proved highly misplaced and not worth the paper on which it has written.
Arnab Goswami is the best anchor in the India and the world. It rattles his naysayers because he calls out bullshit live on TV in front of millions of viewers ... Will The Economist ever get Arnab Goswami’s point of view published? Unlikely, cowardice and hypocrisy comes in many forms.
As the article points out, while critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi may get trolled on the internet, they at least “do not fear assassination by terrorists or shadowy government agencies”, like the people of some of our neighbouring countries do.
Is the Indian government so insecure that the rhetoric of hyper-nationalism is the only way forward?
Source: The Economist
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)