How Free is India's Press, Really?
Three common defences are invoked to say India's press is free but ...
One way to gauge the health of a democracy is to measure the health of its journalism. The more free a country’s journalists are to report freely, the better that country is for all its people.
The muzzling of the press rarely happens through just one stroke of a pen. It happens incrementally, as laws, precedents and social norms are changed one by one. This has been true of journalism in Russia, the Philippines, Zimbabwe and Venezuela, to quote a few examples. But even when there is a coup, it takes a few days for all journalistic avenues to be shut down.
So what should we make of journalism in India?
Just in the last week:
More than a dozen high-profile journalists were served with sedition cases. (Sedition is a non-bailable offence and those convicted of it can be put in prison for life.)
One of these journalists, Rajdeep Sardesai, was suspended from work at India Today for two weeks … for a mistake. Contrast this with the fact that other anchors at the very same channel have got away with much, much worse. (In any case, mistakes in journalism are normally deal with by publishing a clarification.)
Several Twitter accounts were withheld, (which were then restored).
Access to one of the farm protest sites was cut off for most media.
Now those who insist that India’s press is free usually mount three types of arguments.
First, they say, the examples cited above are exceptions; they don’t paint the picture of a country where journalism is hindered.
Second, they declare, those journalists with sedition cases probably deserved it.
Third, they say, look at how noisy and opinionated India’s press is. How can you say they’re not free?
Defence 1: ‘These are exceptions’
Let’s examine the events of the past week as exceptions. Seen in isolation, they certainly appear to be so. But the moment you start widening your lens to include the incremental changes in laws, precedents and social norms in the last few years, you see that there are less and less avenues to report freely, fairly and without fear.
In 2016, the historian Ramachandra Guha published an essay called Eight Threats to Freedom of Expression in India. According to him, the eight threats are:
British-era laws, which are often invoked to ban books, works of art and journalism. (Sedition being one of them).
Imperfections in India’s judicial system, or specifically, the tendency of lower courts to entertain “frivolous or malevolent” petitions to ban something.
The behaviour of the police force: As Guha writes, “even when courts take the side of writers and artists, the police generally side with the goondas who harass them.”
“The rise and rise and further rise of identity politics”.
The cowardliness of politicians. As Guha puts it, “no major or minor Indian politician, as well as no major or minor Indian political party, has ever supported writers, artists or film-makers against thugs and bigots.”
The media’s reliance on government advertisements, especially in the “regional and subregional press”.
The media’s reliance on commercial advertisements, which makes them vulnerable and sensitive to publishing stories that are critical of corporations who fund them through advertising.
Career-driven and ideologically-driven writers in India who “identify with a single party or even with a single politician…leading to the suppressing of facts or the twisting of opinions.”
The essay was published in 2016. Five years on, each of the eight threats have become starker.
Defence 2: ‘They deserved it’
This past week, Article-14.com published a database of sedition cases in India in the past decade. In the piece, Justice Madan Lokur, a former judge of the Supreme Court, was quoted as saying:
The clear indication is that it's not only dissent but disagreement that is now being criminalised.
In other words, these journalists in the past week were slapped with sedition cases just for their disagreement with the official line. And what was the nature of the disagreement? While reporting on the death of Navreet Singh during the Republic Day protest in New Delhi, some of them said he was shot by the police. The official line is that he died in an accident when his tractor fell on him.
Now there is a larger debate to be had about whether sedition laws have any place in a democracy at all. The British, for example, abolished sedition in 2009.
Defence 3: ‘See how vocal and noisy India’s media are’
India’s news channels are noisy and vocal yes, but they are so mostly only when attacking the opposition parties or in covering non-political matters. When it comes to stuff that really matters, such as questioning the government closely on its actions, this noise if often muted. Questions are allowed, but only up to a point.
Four roles of journalism
There is another way to look at this defence. Journalists around the world who were interviewed for a research project published in Worlds of Journalism: Journalistic Cultures Around the Globe say they fulfil four roles. These are:
Monitorial. When journalists hold power and governments to account by acting as the fourth estate. This lies at the heart of journalism’s identity.
Collaborative. When journalists “act as partners of the government and support it in its efforts to bring about development and social well-being.”
Interventionist. When journalists are activists and advocates, either for a specific cause, a community, a set of ideals, and so on.
Accommodative. When journalists focus on the retail needs of readers, such as gadget reviews, travel journalism, reviews of entertainment and so on.
Seen from the perspective of these four roles, India’s press is vibrant when it comes to its collaborative, interventionist and accommodative roles.
But when it comes to its monitorial role — the most crucial role for assessing the health of its democracy — India’s press is hobbled. That’s why governments can say India’s press is free even as they muzzle it.
Postscript. In the past week, I did three shows on India’s press and adjacent issues.
Video 1: Interview with The Caravan magazine’s Hartosh Singh Bal and MediaNama’s Nikhil Pahwa
Video 2: Interview with The News Minute’s Dhanya Rajendran and Newslaundry’s Manisha Pande
Video 3: On Rihanna’s tweet supporting the farmers protest and the storm it raised
This was the 52nd edition of Media Buddhi. If you like what we’re doing, please consider sharing and subscribing.