Chinese funding

NewsClick Case: Purkayastha, Chakravarti Remanded to 10 Days of Judicial Custody

The Delhi police told the court that it was seeking judicial custody because their physical presence is not required at this stage.

New Delhi: NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and the news portal’s HR head Amit Chakraborty were sent to ten days of judicial custody in the Delhi police’s case against them.

Additional sessions judge Hardeep Kaur of the Patiala House Courts passed the order after Purkayastha and Chakraborty were produced in court after the five days of police custody had expired, according to LiveLaw.

The duo was arrested by the Delhi police’s special cell in a terror case which claims that NewsClick received Chinese funding to criticise the Indian government’s policies and promote Chinese propaganda.

Additional public prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava told the court that the Delhi police was seeking judicial custody because their physical presence is not required at this stage.

Purkayastha’s lawyer Arshdeep Singh Khurana, opposing the grant of judicial custody, told the court that a “bare reading of Delhi Police’s FIR would show that there is no criminal offence made out”, let alone the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case, according to LiveLaw.

Also Read | NewsClick Case: Do Allegations Justify Invoking of UAPA? Legal Experts Weigh In.

“There is no allegation that I’ve used any bomb or dynamite which has caused loss of death and property. There is no allegation that I’ve used any criminal force in the entire FIR. There is no act of kidnapping, detention or abduction. None of the acts attributed to me has any elements of Section 15 of UAPA,” Singh said, according to the report.

Khurana said that a journalist cannot be punished for criticising the government in power. According to Bar and Bench, APP Srivastava responded, “Your purpose was not criticising (the government) but propagating the propaganda of a country that is inimical to us.”

Khurana also reiterated that NewsClick has not received any money from China and all investment came through banking channels and was duly reported to the government.

Rohit Sharma, appearing for NewsClick’s HR head Amit Chakraborty, said his client’s name is not mentioned in the FIR as an accused. While the FIR says Chakravarti owns shares in NewsClick, his holdings in the company equal 0.1%, the lawyer said.

“There is [an] allegation there is money coming in and some news is being published with a particular agenda. I have not been involved in any publication. I am not a journalist, or an editor or writer,” Chakravarti’s lawyer.

According to Bar and Bench, APP Srivastava said that the police had already satisfied the court during the time of police remand that the offences were made out.

“Today it is not a case of first remand. At the time of the first remand, we had satisfied my ladyship with how the offences were made out… We are at the stage of collecting evidence. See our fairness. We have said we don’t need police remand as of now and will ask later if we need it,” he said.

Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested on October 3 and were remanded to seven days of police custody on October 4.

The Delhi high court on Monday reserved its order in the pleas moved by Purkayastha and Chakraborty challenging the trial court’s remand order.

Modi Govt Diktat on Foreign Funding for Digital Media is Self-Defeating and Anti-Atmanirbhar Bharat

While the move comes with wide-ranging ramifications, it’s not even clear how effective the government’s move to curb foreign influence will be.

The Narendra Modi government clarified last week that the new foreign investment limit of 26% for digital news media will also cover news aggregators, in a development that is reportedly aimed at curbing “foreign influence and interference in India’s domestic affairs” and as a specific move to “check Chinese and other overseas funding in news websites”.

It’s true that many news aggregating platforms like NewsDog, Dailyhunt and UC News have varying degrees of Chinese backing and will now come under scrutiny. Some of them may even be forced to shed a majority of their foreign funding and find Indian partners instead.

At the same time, it’s not clear if the government understands whether it has opened a can of worms that will require further clarification. The government says that the rules apply to any “Indian” entity, which is defined apparently by whether the company is “registered” or “located” in the country. Media companies that directly upload or stream news to the Internet are obviously covered by the rules, but the regulatory net also includes aggregators and news agencies that gather and transmit news to digital media entities also.

Unless clarified or exempted as part of some other existing regulation, this could have a dizzying range of potential applicability. This is because there is nothing particularly special about ‘digital media’ per se – almost all news organisations today have an online component to their distribution or circulation. Consequently, any foreign news organisation which has an India presence (hypothetically say like Thomson Reuters, which does have a registered India entity) could potentially be asked to comply with the new investment regulations. While these companies may carry out other business activities as well, will they be asked by the Indian government to hive off their ‘digital arms’ and comply with the investment limit? Or will the Centre be satisfied if the companies ensure that the ‘digital’ part of their business (uploading/streaming or aggregating) is performed offshore and that their Indian entities merely look after other business functions like sales and advertising?

Secondly, the real elephant in the room is that giant news aggregators like Google or Twitter – remember, the government’s definition of an aggregator includes one that collates “user-generated links” – may also be covered by the new regulation. All of the major Silicon Valley-based technology giants have registered Indian entities.

There is no clarity yet about whether Google or Facebook, which are now invested in Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Jio, will be asked to separate the ‘news aggregating’ part of their platforms and make them 74% Indian-owned. Google News is one of the most popular platforms that aggregates news today, although it isn’t a separate corporate entity.

On its part, the search engine giant could claim that Google News is not covered by the rules as that part of the business is operated from the US, a defence that will inevitably open the door for disputes about jurisdiction. More importantly, if this reasoning is correct, how can the government then claim it seeks to crack down on Chinese apps (like NewsDog or UC News) which could hypothetically claim the same?

Helping or harming Indian start-ups?

In past statements, government officials have argued that the new rules are intended to provide a level-playing field – for print media entities (where a 26% FDI cap already existed) and for Indian digital news media companies that have no foreign funding. It is another matter that most Indian news media owners, who inevitably have a digital component to their business, are always looking for more foreign funds to scale up operations. Those that currently have foreign investment levels of well above 26% and will now struggle to find Indian buyers to replace foreign equity investors.

Finding Indian buyers might be tough as Indian capital is both scarce and scared. This will actually end up hurting the Indian news aggregating ecosystem, experts say.

Indeed, it is important to remember that while the Modi government uses the language of liberalisation to dress up its 26% FDI cap, the new rule is actually a sharp restriction in comparison to what was allowed earlier (100% FDI).

“International news aggregation platforms are today multi-billion dollar assets and it is imperative for India to support similar startups in this space. With competition continuing to be with global aggregators with disproportionate capital, restricting FDI in Indian startups creates an unfair advantage for global players,” Rameesh Kailasam, CEO of IndiaTech.org, a lobby group for Indian startups, told the Economic Times.

One of the ideas behind Atmanirbhar Bharat is to create Indian corporate giants, to encourage them to become global players. This is not always possible without the help of foreign capital, particularly in a space where taking American, Chinese or South Korean funding is the norm.

This is a fact that seems to escape the Modi government. The problem with regulating news on the Internet is it supersedes geographical boundaries. So, foreign entities sitting anywhere outside India can aggregate Indian news and consequently seek to influence or manipulate Indian readers and viewers.

With Google or Facebook perhaps, the government has some leverage as they have put down relatively deep roots in India – swanky offices, many local employees, India-specific management teams, expensive legal teams and even a joint venture with Reliance.

But how will the government prevent, for instance, a European or Chinese digital company with no India presence from aggregating Indian news on the Internet and serving them up to Indian users? This alone defeats all the reasons the government has cited to cap foreign investment in India-based news aggregators.

In a pre-Internet era, the efficacy of such investment caps would have been stronger. A foreign newspaper that serves Indian readers would necessarily also need permission to circulate within the country. Unless this government plans to embark on a banning spree that would rival China’s firewall, an FDI cap on digital media will just hobble Indian entities while allowing foreign aggregators to flourish.

In conclusion, digital news media, whether regular news platforms or aggregators, transcends physical geography and any attempt to unduly regulate Indian digital news space will be tantamount to benefiting their foreign competitors doing the same business. Any such policy will end up as the antithesis of “Aatmanirbharta”.

As Potential Funding Troubles Mount, Adani Meets Chinese Ambassador

Although it’s unclear what was discussed, the meeting comes days after China’s two top banks said they would not fund the company’s controversial coal mine in Australia.

Luo Zhaohui, Chinese ambassador to India, with Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani (left). Credit: Chinese embassy.

New Delhi: Adani group chairman Gautam Adani on December 6 met with Chinese ambassador to India Luo Zhaohui, days after it was reported that China’s two top banks said they had no plans to finance the company’s controversial coal mine in Australia.

Although it’s unclear what was discussed, the Chinese embassy’s website stated that they “exchanged views on strengthening economic and trade cooperation” between both countries.

“Ambassador Luo Zhaohui, Chinese ambassador to India, met with Gautam, chairman of the Adani Group in India at the embassy. Adani, (sic) exchanged views on strengthening economic and trade cooperation between China and India,” the Chinese version of the website (translated) stated.

The English version of the embassy’s website, as of Thursday evening, has not uploaded a similar notice documenting the meeting.

Australia woes

As per latest estimates, Adani Enterprises needs roughly $1.5 billion in financing by March 2018 for the first staged of its Carmichael coal mine in the state of Queensland.

Earlier this week, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and the China Construction Bank emphatically noted, in response to media reports stating otherwise, that they were not working on the coal project.

As The Wire has reported in the past, both Australian and overseas banks have been hesitant to grant loans, even as local environmentalists oppose the mine due to climate change and potential for damage to the Great Barrier Reef.

While it’s not clear if Adani was actually in talks with the banks that have issued statements – the conglomerate is primarily in negotiations with the state-owned China Machinery Engineering Corp (CMEC) for a loan – it has been reported that the CMEC deal could have roped in China Construction Bank, which has now ruled out any involvement.

While former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr told The Guardian that he had received confirmation “that no Chinese bank would be financing” the Carmichael project, well-known energy analyst Tim Buckley has noted that it was still very much possible for another Chinese bank to step in.

“At the end of the day, any one of these big Chinese banks could fund 100 percent of the project tomorrow if they wanted. They’re that big,” he told South China Morning Post.

Adani in China

The Adani group, like many Indian conglomerates, also has a history of doing business with Chinese companies. Over the last few years, it has signed a number of memorandum of understandings (MoUs) with Chinese businesses for manufacturing units that will produce everything from solar equipment to chemicals.

The Wire has sent a questionnaire to the Adani Group regarding the Chinese ambassador meeting and will update this story if and when a response is received.