BBC Summoned by Delhi High Court Over New Defamation Case

The complainant is a Gujarat-based NGO who alleged that the BBC’s documentary titled ‘India: The Modi Question’ “casts a slur” on India’s reputation.

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Monday, May 21 issued a summons to the BBC after it heard a defamation case filed against it alleging that its documentary India: The Modi Question cast a slur on India’s reputation.

LiveLaw reported that the case was filed by a Gujarat-based NGO named Justice on Trial, which was represented in the court by Senior Advocate Harish Salve.

“It is contended that the documentary makes [a] defamatory imputation and [casts a] slur on reputation of the country and the judiciary and against the Prime Minister. Issue notice to the respondents,” Justice Sachin Datta said during the hearing.

The court listed the case for further hearing on September 15, The Telegraph reported.

BBC aired The Modi Question in the UK in January this year. The documentary is critical of Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, when he was chief minister of that state.

The Indian government called the documentary “hostile propaganda and anti-India garbage”. Its income tax department raided the BBC’s offices in Delhi and Mumbai in February, a move that was decried as an attempt to curb press freedom in the country.

On May 26, the Rohini District Court, also in Delhi, will hear arguments for a different defamation case that was filed against the BBC by Bharatiya Janata Party member Binay Kumar Singh. He alleged that The Modi Question defamed the BJP and sought action restraining the BBC from broadcasting the documentary on its platforms, The Hindu reported.

‘Revoke Punishment’: Academicians Condemn DU for Action on Students for Screening BBC Documentary

In a letter to the vice-chancellor, 59 signatories, on behalf of the India Academic Freedom Network, said that the punishment given to the students is disproportionate to the alleged violation by them.

New Delhi: A group of academicians on April 6, Thursday, condemned Delhi University for its action on some students who had participated in the screening of the BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India: The Modi Question.

In a letter to the vice-chancellor, 59 signatories, on behalf of the India Academic Freedom Network, requested the vice-chancellor of Delhi University to revoke the punishment given to the students.

They said that “the punishment given [to the students] is disproportionate to the alleged violation” by them.

“We need not tell you that university is supposed to be a space where students and teachers feel free to get information from any source, decide for themselves and express themselves freely. They are adults and can take decisions for themselves. We, teachers and administrators are not here to police their thoughts or censor their sources of information., it said.

“The only condition we all must follow while exercising this right is that it should not promote hatred and violence. But the documentary was only a critical examination of the present regime in the context of the situation of Muslims. How could its screening by some students become a threat to order on the campus is beyond our understanding,” it added.

Two DU students were barred from the Delhi University for a year for allegedly helping in the campus screening of the BBC documentary on the 2002 Godhra riots. They won’t be allowed to take part in “any university or college or departmental examination or examinations for one year from the date of issue of the memorandum”.

In the memorandum issued on March 10, the DU registrar claimed that the BBC documentary India: The Modi Question is “banned”.

However, the Union government had directed YouTube and Twitter to take down links to the documentary. “The documentary was never banned and is still not banned by the government,” said the letter by the India Academic Freedom Network.

Separately, the V-Dem Institute, in its 2023 update to its ‘Academic Freedom Index’, has noted that India is among 22 countries and territories out of 179 in the world, where institutions and scholars enjoy ‘significantly less freedom today than 10 years ago.’

Also read: BBC, Nationalism and a Nation in Denial

Read the full text and list of signatories below.

§

To

The Vice Chancellor,

University of Delhi

Date : 6 April, 2023

Sub: Request to revoke the punishment given to the students who had participated in the screening of the BBC documentary.

Sir,

This is to express our anguish over the news of punishment, of varying degrees, to some students of the university for having screened a documentary produced by the BBC. The memorandum regarding the punishment, as published in the media, states that they had violated the ban on screening of the said documentary by the government of India. We want to bring to your notice and it is known to all that the documentary was never banned and is still not banned by the government. So, the ground for disciplinary action does not exist.

The letter says that the students should have taken permission from the authorities 24 hours prior to any demonstration. It is just possible that this condition was not met by the students. But had they done something so serious that the university should take away from them the right to appear in examinations? Had they damaged university property or caused physical violence?

We need not tell you that university is supposed to be a space where students and teachers feel free to get information from any source, decide for themselves and express themselves freely. They are adults and can take decisions for themselves. We, teachers and administrators are not here to police their thoughts or censor their sources of information. The only condition we all must follow while exercising this right is that it should not promote hatred and violence. But the documentary was only a critical examination of the present regime in the context of the situation of Muslims. How could its screening by some students become a threat to order on the campus is beyond our understanding.

Even if the university authorities felt that their order for prior permission was not adhered to, the punishment given is disproportionate to the alleged violation by the students. Their screening had not caused any violence or disturbance. Had the security personnel not interfered with the screening and stopped it forcefully it would have passed peacefully.

We therefore feel that in light of the facts regarding the lawful status of the documentary and the right of the students to get information and have a free discussion on the campus, the university authorities should withdraw the orders penalising the students involved in the screening of the BBC documentary. It is our duty , as university community to make campus a safe space for the students to engage in critical thinking. It is needless to say that it is not the job of the university to defend the government or disallow thoughts critical to it. We hope that our concern would be heard and the said punishment order would be withdrawn.

Thanking you,

Sincerely Yours

Apoorvanand, Nandini Sundar

On Behalf of

India Academic Freedom Network

List of Signatories:

 

Sl.  Name Affiliation 
1 Apoorvanand Department of Hindi, University of Delhi
2 Satish Deshpande Department of Sociology, University of Delhi
3 Nandini Sundar Department of Sociology,University of Delhi
4 Shahana Bhattacharya Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi
5 Bharati Jagannathan Miranda House, University of Delhi
6 Ira Raja Department of English, University of Delhi
7 Naina Dayal St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi
8 Janaki Abraham Department of Sociology, University of Delhi
9 Anil Kumar University of Delhi
10 C Saratchand Satyawati College, University of Delhi
11 Renu Bala DTF
12 Rudrashish Chakraborty Department of English, Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi
13 Jyoti Sabharwal University of Delhi
14 Rupali Bhardwaj University of Delhi
15 Abha Dev Habib Miranda House, University of Delhi
16 Debjani Sengupta IP College, University of Delhi
17 Tanvir Aeijaz University of Delhi
18 Sucharita Sen Jawaharlal Nehru University
19 Kausik Bhattacharya Department of Philosophy and Comparative Religion, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, W.B.
20 Sneha Sharma Ramjas College, University of Delhi
21 Neeraj Malik Indraprastha college, University of Delhi
22 Imrana Naseem Professor
23 Sudipta Bhattacharyya Professor, Dept of Economics & Politics, Visva-Bharati.
24 Ambar Ahmad Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi
25 Avinash Kumar Faculty, Jawaharlal Nehru University
26 Mallikarjun Sajjan All India University Employees Confederation
27 Manas Maity Professor, Visva-Bharati University
28 Mallikarjun Sajjan All India University Employees Confederation
29 Shikha Kapur Academic
30 Dr Para Dholakia University of Delhi
31 Rahul Govind University of Delhi
32 Sanghamitra Misra University of Delhi
33 Bilasini Naorem Miranda House, University of Delhi
34 Bharati Associate Prof (retd)
35 Nandita Narain St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi
36 Vijaya Venkataraman University of Delhi, University of Delhi
37 Trisha Gupta Professor, Jindal School of Journalism and Communication
38 Ashwini Kumar DUTA
39 Girwar Singh AISEC
40 Karen Gabriel St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi
41 Savithri Singh University of Delhi
42 Dr. Uma Shankar Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi
43 Khalid Ashraf Retired Teacher
44 Rajni Palriwala Retd. University of Delhi
45 Prem Kumar Vijayan Hindu College, University of Delhi
46 Dr Rachna Singh Hindu College, University of Delhi
47 Pramod Ranjan Assam University
48 Harbans Mukhia Formerly Jawaharlal Nehru University
49 Poonam Kaushik Pragatisheel Mahila Sangathan Delhi
50 Dr. S.K. Chauhan Hindu College, University of Delhi
51 Dr. Joseph Tharamangalam, PhD. Mount St.Vincent University, Halifax, Canasa.
52 Sanjay Kumar Misra Department of English, R.B.S. College, Agra
53 Satyam Varma Rahul Foundation
54 Pramod Yadava Superannuated Professor
55 Nisha Biswas Feminists in Resistance
56 Rohan D’Souza Kyoto University
57 Shamsul Islam Former faculty University of Delhi (Satyawati College)
58 Walter Fernandes NESRC
59 Ghanshyam Shah Retired Prof. Jawaharlal Nehru University

 

BBC Contradicts I-T Department Claim That Journalists Were Allowed to Work During ‘Survey’

While the I-T Department had claimed that the survey – which lasted three days, including overnight – was carried out in such a way that BBC employees could continue to work, an article in BBC Hindi has directly contradicted this.

New Delhi: In an article on the recent ‘surveys’ at its India offices, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has alleged that Income Tax Department officials stopped journalists from working and even misbehaved with some of them.

While the I-T Department had claimed that the survey – which lasted three days, including overnight – was carried out in such a way that BBC employees could continue to work, an article in BBC Hindi has directly contradicted this.

“BBC journalists were not allowed to work for many hours. The Income Tax Department employees and policemen also misbehaved with several journalists,” the article reads. Journalists’ computers were searched, their phones were intercepted and information was sought from them about their working methods. Along with this, the journalists working in the Delhi office were stopped from writing anything about this survey.”

“Even when people were allowed to work after senior editors persistently asked the officials to let work continue, Hindi and English journalists were stopped from working. Journalists of both these languages were allowed to work only when they reached close to the broadcast time,” it continues.

Also read: With BBC Tax Raid, the Modi Cult Makes India the ‘Smother of Democracy’

In its first official statement on the Income Tax department ‘surveys’, the Union finance ministry claimed on Friday that the exercise had revealed that the “income/profits shown by various group entities is not commensurate with the scale of operations in India”.

The government note, released through the Press Information Bureau, does not name the BBC – but calls it “a prominent international Media Company at Delhi and Mumbai.”

BBC had recently released a documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Union government had blocked the documentary on Twitter and YouTube and said it had “propagandist agenda.” The timing of the raids have thus been criticised as a purported attempt to diminish press freedom.

The Income Tax officials’ survey was done under Section 133A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, the government said. As Deepak Joshi had written for The Wire while the survey was on, Section 133A controls the remit of the department’s power to conduct a survey. A survey by tax authorities is a comparatively less invasive and intrusive exercise, giving limited jurisdiction and powers to the officers, he wrote.

Why Did Twitter Agree to Take Down Tweets Linking to BBC Documentary?

In such situations, it is essential that social media platforms push back against these unlawful blocking orders and uphold their commitment to freedom of expression.

In an unprecedented move, the information and broadcasting ministry used its emergency powers under Rule 16(3) of the IT Rules, 2021, and directed Twitter to take down tweets that linked to the controversial BBC documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ soon after it was aired in the UK last month. While the I&B ministry’s actions have received justified criticism, Twitter’s immediate and unquestioning compliance with the directions has gone somewhat unnoticed.

Twitter’s promise to its users on how they respond to government’s blocking orders reads thus:

“In our continuing effort to make our services available to people everywhere, if we receive a valid and properly scoped request from an authorised entity, it may be necessary to withhold access to certain content in a particular country from time to time.”

Implicit in this promise is that Twitter will make a studied determination on whether a request was (a) valid, (b) properly scoped and (c) whether such a request originated from an authorised entity. Another legitimate expectation that flows from this promise is that Twitter would take independent counsel on the legal (and indeed constitutional) validity of a request from the government before acting on it. In this case, it is unclear whether Twitter has made that such a determination on validity and how – particularly when the ministry’s directions suffer from several legal infirmities, even on the face of it.

First, the directions indicate they are issued under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Rule 16 of the IT Rules 2021.  Rule 16 allows an authorised officer of the I&B ministry to issue blocking orders to intermediaries such as Twitter “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India; defence of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above” if it deemed it “necessary or expedient” to do so. These grounds are mentioned in Section 69A and are incorporated by reference in Rule 16.

Also read: With BBC Tax Raid, the Modi Cult Makes India the ‘Smother of Democracy’

A pertinent point here is that the directions under Rule 16 can be given by an authorised officer of the I&B ministry, as opposed to directions under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules of 2009, which come under the purview of the MeiTY and can be issued only by the designated officer under the 2009 Rules.  It is only noncompliance with the latter that may result in a criminal liability on the intermediary under Section 69A(3) of the Act.

Second, the blocking order does not indicate on what ground the emergency powers have been invoked. It is impossible for Twitter or any intermediary to make that determination or seek counsel as to the validity of the order if the order does not exactly specify which of the 69A grounds is being engaged. Without this, an intermediary cannot really test and arbitrate on whether the demand to block the content in question is reasonable, proportionate and/or whether it fits the judicially drawn contours for each of these categories.

Moreover, although the text of the Rules provide for blocking orders for reasons of ‘expediency’, there are several judicial pronouncements beginning from Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram that have held necessity alone to be a ground of restricting fundamental rights and not on the ‘quicksand of expediency’. It is all the more impossible for Twitter to make a determination of whether taking down the tweets was ‘necessary in the interests of _____’, if that blank has not been appositely filled up by the government.

Third, one might expect Twitter to have been even more circumspect in scrutinising a blocking order that specifically relate to the ruling party, where a reasonable intermediary would have assumed overzealousness on the part of a government if it is committed to free speech, a right guaranteed and protected under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land in which such intermediary is allowed to operate. There is no gainsaying that social media platforms have become a vital means by which people exercise their constitutionally protected right of political speech.

In such situations, it is essential that social media platforms push back against these unlawful blocking orders and uphold their commitment to freedom of expression. This is not only a moral imperative but also a legal obligation – under the constitution, under international human rights law, and consistent with the UNHRC-endorsed Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Watch:  ‘BBC Credibility Greater Than Modi Govt Internationally, BJP’s Comments Shameful’: N. Ram

This author has in the past commended Twitter when it resisted the government’s request to block several accounts supporting the anti-farm law agitation. It is now surprising that in this case, it has completely suspended discretion and good judgment, and demonstrated servile deference to an order that is quite palpably unlawful.

This line of reasoning is likely provoke a familiar and insecurely nationalistic reaction that it exhorts a foreign corporation to wilfully disobey orders of the Indian government. The answer to that is rather simple. The seat of India’s sovereignty is not in the government, but is in the Constitution, and the laws made under the Constitution and the constitutional reason that animates and permeates them. Shouldn’t a reasonable nationalist rather have a foreign corporation disobey Indian government orders and obey Indian law rather than the other way round?

Prasanna S. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court.

Edited by Jahnavi Sen.

Watch | ‘BBC Credibility Greater Than Modi Govt Internationally, BJP’s Comments Shameful’: N. Ram

In a 29-minute interview with Karan Thapar, Ram also sharply criticised the British government and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for what he called “a pathetic response” to the Indian I-T department’s ‘survey’.

In a hard-hitting interview, where he unequivocally expresses his condemnation of the tax surveys against the BBC, N. Ram says that “the BBC’s credibility is clearly greater than the Modi government’s credibility internationally”. Ram, the former editor-in-chief of The Hindu, adds: “I can’t think of a more credible organisation (in the world of media) than the BBC.” He says “the BBC won’t be intimidated” by these surveys, which he says are, in fact, raids although they are defined differently by the tax department. The surveys, he said, are “completely unacceptable … it’s censorship … looks like a comedy of follies”. Ram added that these surveys “could be a little bit of revenge” for the two-part BBC documentary India: The Modi Question.

In a 29-minute interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire, N. Ram also sharply and strongly criticised the British government and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, in particular, for what he called “a pathetic response”. Ram asked: “Isn’t it strange that there’s nothing from Sunak so far?” He added, “I would have expected a self-respecting government to raise their concerns publicly.” The journalist said bluntly, “Sunak has been found very short.”

Ram was asked about the tax department’s statement issued on February 14, wherein it said the survey was conducted “in view of the BBC’s deliberate non-compliance with the Transfer Pricing Rules and its vast diversion of profits.” Ram said these are “sweeping allegations” and “a poor defence”. He added: “Yes, I’m skeptical (of them).” He added, “We have seen no evidence of it”. He said that “in the past, nothing is ever proved”.

Asked if there was a connection between the two-part BBC documentary India: The Modi Question, the government’s angry response and this survey, Ram said they are “clearly connected” adding “99% would see the connection … it stares you in the face”.

The journalist said even if the government has genuine tax-related questions and issues with the BBC, the survey – which continued all night and is continuing on Wednesday as well – is an “indefensible manner of treating the BBC.”

Finally, Ram said the surveys against the BBC have done “more damage than any previous attack on media freedom and free speech” to India’s international image. He said after this, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s boast that India is the world’s largest democracy and the mother of democracies “lacks credibility”.

Please see the full 29-minute interview to appreciate the strength of N. Ram’s arguments and opinions.

Modi Documentary Fallout: Govt Launches Income Tax ‘Survey’ at BBC Offices in India

The move comes weeks after the BBC, the national broadcaster of the United Kingdom, released a documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.

New Delhi: Officials of the Income Tax department have been conducting ‘surveys’ at the offices of the news outlet, British Broadcasting Corporation, across its offices in India – at Mumbai and New Delhi – since 11:20 am today, February 14.

The BBC said on Twitter that it is cooperating with officials and it hopes to “have this situation resolved as soon as possible”.

The I-T department ‘survey’ concerns allegations of international taxation and transfer pricing irregularities involving the BBC, NDTV has reported, citing sources.

Those at the office are not allowed to speak to anyone outside during the survey, and the offices will remain sealed while the officials are there, an I-T department source said.

A BBC staffer confirmed to The Wire that all phones were off in the New Delhi office. The staffer said they had been unable to reach anyone since morning.

The move comes weeks after the BBC, the public broadcaster of the United Kingdom, released a documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots titled, ‘India: The Modi Question.’

The Union government had blocked the documentary on YouTube and Twitter. The external affairs ministry had called it “propagandist agenda,” to which the BBC said the documentary “was rigorously researched according to highest editorial standards.”

The survey comes on a day when news agency ANI has released tweets on an interview with Union home minister Amit Shah. In the interview, Shah addresses the BBC documentary. “The truth emerges despite a thousand conspiracies around it. They are after Modi since 2002. But every time, Modi ji comes out stronger and more popular,” he is quoted as having said.

Opposition parties have criticised this state action against the British channel.

The Congress has tweeted that these ‘surveys’ amount to an “undeclared emergency.”

Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra also tweeted about the move, who said sarcastically that Gautam Adani would still be getting special treatment for the authorities.

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh too asked why the allegations against Adani were going ignored, while the government focused on BBC.

Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Sitaram Yechury questioned how India can claim to be the “mother of democracy”, given the government action.

BJP national spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia address the media while the survey was ongoing, calling the BBC the “Bhrasht Bhakwaas Corporation (corrupt, rubbish corporation)”. “Income Tax Department must be allowed to do its work,” Bhatia said, adding that “if BBC did no wrong, then why are [they] scared”.

Bhatia also made it clear that the I-T department action is, in fact, linked to the recent documentary. “The BBC indulges in anti-India propaganda,” Bhatia told reporters. “India is a country which gives an opportunity to every organisation… as long as you don’t spew venom.”

He also criticised the Congress for questioning the survey. The party “should remember former prime minister Indira Gandhi had banned BBC”, he said.

In a statement, the Editors Guild of India said this action is a “continuation of a trend of using government agencies to intimidate and harass press organisations that are critical of government policies or the ruling establishment”. “This is a trend that undermines constitutional democracy,” the statement continues.

The action comes a fortnight before the G-20 Foreign Ministers meeting is scheduled to be held in Delhi from March 1 to 2.

India’s Press Freedom rankings (according to Reporters Without Borders) have fallen to 150 out of of 180, with India now in the 30 worst countries in the world surveyed.

A New York Times editorial from a day ago addressed the fact that India’s free press is increasingly at risk. “Since Mr. Modi took office in 2014, journalists have increasingly risked their careers, and their lives, to report what the government doesn’t want them to,” it noted.

Note: This is a breaking news story. Details will be added as and when they emerge.

BBC, Nationalism and a Nation in Denial

The propaganda and whataboutery being used to try and discredit the BBC documentary on Narendra Modi rest on shaky ground.

It is this sanctimonious inability to see an issue from the other side—essential in dealing with independent news media—that hurts India’s image abroad more than anything else. Again and again officials dealing with the media seem to prefer parading their patriotism and power. . . As long as it is an open democratic society, India cannot effectively screen itself off from foreign reportage, some of which will not be to our liking.

∼ From an article in Hindustan Times, August 28, 1970, on the banning of the BBC.

The BBC’s telecasting of the two-part documentary ‘India: The Modi Question’ in the UK evoked completely expected responses from the Indian government, its media ecosystem and Hindu nationalists.

These can be divided into two themes: calling it propaganda and indulging in whataboutery. As we will see, both are on shaky factual grounds.

In both, the BBC, a public broadcaster, is seen as an arm of the British government which merely represents and parrots Britain’s foreign policy interests. So, the BBC propaganda on Narendra Modi comes now because the UK “is a pale shadow of its imperial past”, whereas India is a rising power which just overtook it as the fifth largest economy in the world (in nominal GDP). Besides, it is a “hit-job” against India when it assumed G20 presidency. An article in the RSS-affiliated Organiser argues that the motive is to undermine “the sovereignty and integrity of India” besides tarnishing the “image of Modi, whose stature is rising internationally”.

So, if the BBC is a mere wing of the British government, should it not be always acting in its interests? But factually, this is not true.

For example, in the 1982 Falklands War between Britain and Argentina, British PM Margaret Thatcher was outraged at the BBC’s coverage which she thought was “treacherous”. Her government even contemplated taking over the BBC. The question of “taking over” arises only because the BBC was not toeing the government line. The BBC instructed its staff then that the British troops should not be referred to as “our troops” in the coverage because: “We are not Britain. We are the BBC.”

In another example, in 2003, during the Iraq War (occasioned by the American-led coalition’s invasion supported by the UK), BBC reported that Prime Minister Tony Blair “had deliberately misled the Parliament” about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. An incensed government asked for BBC’s apology, which it refused to give. Later, a government report indicted the BBC while exonerating the government.

Also read: BBC Documentary on Narendra Modi Tries Too Hard to Balance ‘Both Sides’

According to Modi supporters, any criticism of him is a blanket critique of India, and that, in this case, is motivated by the interests of the UK. But what kind of a “colonialist” and “propagandist” government wing is the BBC, which is not even willing to support its own government during wars, which are usually the time when the entire nation unites behind its government (this was also seen during the 1956 Suez Crisis when the government sought to discipline the BBC for giving voice to those who did not support British military action)? And it must be noted that if there was the Conservative Party in power during the Falklands War, there was the Labour Party in power during the Iraq War.

The propaganda thesis takes a different turn when it is not a conspiracy by the British government against India but a conspiracy by the British establishment against its own prime minister, the Indian-origin Rishi Sunak; so now, it is a racial angle. But how is it possible when the documentary went into production much before Sunak fortuitously became the PM?

And the propaganda thesis takes an even more bizarre turn when it is not the UK that is conspiring against India, but China, which is acting through the BBC, as asserted by the BJP MP Mahesh Jethmalani and reaffirmed by the article in the Organiser! (The latter goes on to speculate that it could also be Pakistan which has used the BBC.)

So, when the West-China relationship has deteriorated to a low, the UK has joined security alliances like AUKUS, primarily targeting China, and when Sunak has himself echoed the NATO term “systemic challenge” to describe China, we are asked to believe that China is using the BBC to target India. Again, how are we to reconcile this claim, for instance, with the BBC’s documentary on Xi Jinping’s China which also focused on the regime’s “monstrous crimes against humanity” or the one on China’s ‘thought transformation” camps for Uighurs?

If there is alleged BBC propaganda, on the behest of various actors, on one side, on the other side is whataboutery. This goes on the lines of whether the BBC has the courage to show the truth about Winston Churchill, about the monarchy, racism, Kohinoor diamond, etc. Basically, the insinuation is that the BBC does not show anything critical about its own nation, and therefore, it has no moral right to point fingers. Such whataboutery is disseminated by the most influential voices: political leaders, celebrities and media personnel. And it enjoys widespread popularity among lay people.

But this, too, is unmoored in facts. The BBC has done reports on all these topics. Churchill has been counted as the “Greatest Briton” of all time, yet the BBC has done reports like “Churchill’s legacy still painful for Indians” and “Winston Churchill: Hero or Villain?” among others. Ironically, some British historians even accused the BBC of “tarnishing Winston Churchill” by alleging that he was responsible for the millions of 1943 Bengal famine deaths.

Similarly, BBC has done stories on racism like “The black British history you may not know about,” “Racism and statues: How the toxic legacy of empire still affects us” and “How Britain’s role in slavery and empire shaped modern America”; on Kohinoor and its colonial history (here and here) and on the demands for the abolition of the monarchy (here and here).

The cloak of nationalism has not been worn for the first time against critical foreign reporting, as shown by the authoritarian tendencies of Indira Gandhi who banned the BBC in 1970, and along with other foreign broadcasters in 1975 during the Emergency. Yet, scholarship argues why it is not easy to dismiss the BBC as merely being the “the voice of a colonial empire” in South Asia.

BBC became “the world’s most popular international radio broadcaster” because it also fought for “its own editorial control and independence from government priorities”.

During the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War, both Pakistani and Indian listeners accused the BBC of being partial to the other nation, while in the 1971 War, its coverage reaffirmed the BBC’s credibility amongst the Indian listenership. A credibility that, ironically, Modi himself referred to in a speech before as superior in people’s minds to India’s own public broadcaster. As Major Gen (retired) Ian Cardozo, an Indian war hero of 1971, said paying tributes to the BBC: “They were the only reliable broadcasting station at that time, giving news as it happened.” It must be noted that Britain at the time was formally a part of an alliance with Pakistan.

Yet even the BBC has not managed to always hold onto its impartiality. And a mechanical impartiality can also mean a false equivalence. Research has shown that despite the Blair government’s relentless targeting of the BBC for its “anti-war bias,” of the four primetime TV news shows studied, BBC’s was the most sympathetic to the government’s pro-war position. As Roger Hardy, who worked as Middle East analyst for the BBC wrote about American and British media during the Iraq War: “We did not do enough to speak truth to power.” But research also shows, in contrast, BBC’s online coverage, despite relying more on official sources, “was not supportive of the war and sometimes seemed anti-[US]coalition in nature”. Besides it showed the “dark side of war” focused on the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

Also read: An Unmanaged Foreign Media Has Got the Modi Government Fuming

These contradictions show that the BBC, despite being among the most widely used public media source in the world, has to travel further to become a fully independent media in the service of truth and impartiality. We do not have to endorse the BBC uncritically, and should ask genuine questions; whether, for instance, its coverage of race, colonialism, has gone far enough, etc. But those questions must come from those in Britain India, and elsewhere who are striving to deepen democracy and justice, and not from those, as in the present case, who use majoritarian nationalism, and colonialism as a ruse to cover up the worst atrocities.  For the latter, even a documentary which gives substantial space to Hindu nationalist voices and does not cover a fraction of what independent Indian documentary makers and reports have already covered, is deeply threatening making it resort to the most absurd and unfounded theories of grand conspiracy against India.

A BBC becomes trustworthy when compared to the pathetic state of our own mainstream media: a public broadcaster, which has always been the mouthpiece of the ruling party, and private broadcasters which have been reduced to lapdogs under the present government: building personality cults, fomenting hate and purveying fake news.

Can we envisage our public broadcaster ever criticising the government? Or can we envisage the legion of our “nationalist” private media behemoths ever going against the government during a military conflict/war, especially in these ultra-nationalistic times?

Finally, the entire BBC censorship episode can be summed up with one story: soon after the first Narendra Modi government came to power, its information and broadcasting minister promised to completely revamp India’s public broadcaster Prasar Bharati and give it autonomy, editorial freedom and institute parliamentary accountability on the lines of another public broadcaster: the British Broadcasting Corporation!

Do we need to say more?

Nissim Mannathukkaren is with Dalhousie University, Canada, and tweets @nmannathukkaren.

‘Entirely Misconceived’: SC Dismisses Hindu Sena Plea to Ban BBC in India

“You want us to put complete censorship…What is this?” the bench asked the petitioner.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday (February 10) dismissed a petition filed by Hindu Sena president Vishnu Gupta seeking to ban the BBC’s operations in India. The petition was “entirely misconceived”, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh said.

“Completely misconceived, how can this be argued also? You want us to put complete censorship…What is this?” the bench said, according to Bar and Bench.

“Let us not waste any more time. Writ plea is entirely misconceived. it has no merit. Thus, dismissed,” it continued.

The petitioner wanted the BBC banned because of its recent documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the 2002 Gujarat riots, which the Indian government had taken down from social media platforms.

The petition had also sought an investigation into the BBC for its “anti-India” reporting. It called the film “anti-Hindu propaganda”, meant to tarnish not only Modi’s image but India as a whole. “Indian’s overall growth has picked up momentum since 2014 under the Prime Ministership of Sh. Narendra Modi, is not being digested by anti India lobby, media particularly BBC. Therefore, the BBC has been biased against India and Indian Government,” the petition said, according to LiveLaw.

On the recent documentary India: The Modi Question, the petition had said:

“…[it] is result of deep conspiracy against global rise of India and its Prime Minister Sh. Narendra Modi. The first part of documentary is bases on he Gujarat violence in 2002 which started after 59 Hindu Karsavaks were burnt alive at Godhra Railway Station while they were returning from Ayodhya. The Central government has justifiably blocked the documentary using its emergency powers under the Information Technology Rules, 2022.”

More Than 500 Indian Scientists, Academics Slam Govt for Blocking BBC Documentary on Modi

The justification that the documentary “undermines the sovereignty and integrity of India” does not withstand scrutiny, they said in a statement.

New Delhi: More than 500 Indian scientists and academics have endorsed a statement criticising the Union government for blocking the BBC documentary of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying that the pretext that it is “undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India” does not withstand scrutiny.

They said that the removal of the two-part documentary, titled India: the Modi Question, violates the right of Indian citizens to access and discuss important information about society and government.

They also slammed the decisions taken by university administrations to prevent the screening of the documentary. “This violates the principles of academic freedom. Universities should encourage open discussions on social and political questions. Such discussions are crucial for the proper functioning of a democratic society. It is unacceptable for Universities to block the expression of some views, merely because they are critical of the government,” the scientists and academics said.

The full statement and the list of signatories are below.

§

Statement on censorship of the BBC documentary “India: the Modi Question”

We are a group of Indian scientists and academics.

We are dismayed at the censorship of the two-part BBC documentary, “India: the Modi Question”. The Indian government has had the documentary removed from social media under the pretext that it is “undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India”. This justification does not withstand scrutiny and the removal violates our rights, as Indians, to access and discuss important information about our society and government.

The justification that the documentary “undermines the sovereignty and integrity of India” does not withstand scrutiny, they said in a statement.

University administrations across the country have tried to prevent the screening of the documentary. This violates the principles of academic freedom. Universities should encourage open discussions on social and political questions. Such discussions are crucial for the proper functioning of a democratic society. It is unacceptable for Universities to block the expression of some views, merely because they are critical of the government.

We note that the BBC documentary does not raise any fundamentally new points. Already, in 2002, the National Human Rights Commission “reached the definite conclusion that … there was a comprehensive failure of the State to protect the Constitutional rights of the people of Gujarat, starting with the tragedy in Godhra … and continuing with the violence that ensued in the weeks that followed.” Numerous scholars, filmmakers, and human-rights activists have reached similar conclusions over the past twenty years.

In spite of this, those who were instrumental in encouraging and enabling the violence in Gujarat in 2002 have never been held to account. This accountability is crucial, not only to prevent a repeat of such events but also to reverse the communal polarization that threatens to tear the country apart today. Therefore, the questions raised in the BBC documentary are important. Banning the film will only further silence the voice of the victims of this violence.

Needless to say, our criticism of censorship in India should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of the BBC or of the British establishment. We are aware that Jack Straw, who appears in the documentary, was the British foreign secretary in Tony Blair’s cabinet. In this role, he was responsible for spreading falsehoods about “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction”, which were dutifully repeated by the BBC and used to justify the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

So we encourage viewers of the BBC documentary to supplement their information with the voluminous and reliable material produced by Indian scholars and activists, documenting both the horrific events of 2002 and the appalling situation faced by minorities in the country today.

Date: 31 January 2023

Statement on Censorship of BBC Documentary by The Wire on Scribd

BBC Documentary on Narendra Modi Tries Too Hard to Balance ‘Both Sides’

Despite having interviewed the best voices and people who are still unafraid to say what they think, the BBC stitched them together in a way that said nothing new and is therefore guilty of painting a tired, wan picture of the same facts regurgitated in the same way.

There’s a freeze frame from an old English classic I’d like to bring up before you – it’s that of Miss Havisham from Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations. A bride jilted at the altar is found for the rest of her years to be stuck in time, wearing her wedding dress forever since then, trapped in a freeze-frame when her world came crashing down. The BBC’s two-part documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India: The Modi Question, had the same effect on me. I felt as if I was looking at that bride in old lace and white net, out of sync with time. I will explain.

The documentary was sold in advance to an expected subversive audience like myself as a pathbreaking investigation that would bring to light new information and show us something we had not seen before. It also had a glittering cast of characters from the liberal left – people I have always and will always admire and hold up as my heroes. Arundhati Roy, the writer who has never minced her words. Aakar Patel, the activist and India chair of Amnesty International, fighting the good fight relentlessly. Siddharth Vardarajan, one of my favourite journalists and the founder of one of the last standing independent press spaces. As also Hartosh Bal of The Caravan. And Christophe Jaffrelot, one of the best-known academics researching and writing profusely on the Hindu right. I could go on.

Despite having interviewed the best voices and people who are still unafraid to say what they think, the BBC stitched them together in a way that said nothing new and is therefore guilty of painting a tired, wan picture of the same facts regurgitated in the same way. This allows the regime in power to use the films for one more round of propaganda – painting themselves as victims and using the critique from the left to serve their own saffron end. The BBC in effect took India’s best activists, writers, and journalists who are pulsating, alive, and dynamic, and clipped them together into flat, repetitive tropes that make them look as if they’re standing still. In short, the BBC has Miss Havisham’d the picture and done damage where it may have intended to do good.

Take Part One for instance. The film goes back to Modi as chief minister of Gujarat and the pogrom against Muslims in the year 2002. The build-up of ominous music leads to a dark computer screen and supposedly big reveal – a now declassified diplomatic cable where a British diplomat made the assessment that Modi was responsible for the violence against Muslims and asked the police to stand back and let the mob do its thing.

Also read: An Unmanaged Foreign Media Has Got the Modi Government Fuming

By producing no fresh evidence to back this claim except for the opinion of a retired diplomat and former British foreign secretary Jack Straw, the BBC allows the BJP and its spokespersons in India to have a field day, asking legitimately why the voices of retired diplomats from 20 years ago should be the voice of God and whether it is not a case of arrogance on the part of the BBC? If, instead, the BBC had used the diplomatic cables to show how Britain and Europe — that had blamed Modi for the bloodletting — let him off the hook just five years later, they would have put a fresh spin on the story. Calling out Britain’s duplicity would have held up a dark mirror, but the BBC didn’t go that far.

Godhra – unanswered questions

Further, while on the subject of the violence in 2002, the BJP has always called out the liberal press from India and abroad to say that not enough play was ever given to the genesis of the violence – the burning down of a train compartment the day before the pogrom, in which 59 Hindu kar sevaks from the VHP were burnt to cinders. The BBC could have actually done some grunt work on this, which could have raised some difficult questions for the BJP. First, the 59 kar sevaks were travelling ticketless in the train that caught fire. There were many that had bought tickets and got out alive. What did they see? Why are their accounts buried? If indeed Muslims had set the bogey on fire, there should be no fear in calling them out. Why the silence?

Further discomfort could have been brought by sharp-focusing on the train bogey that burnt. One investigation into the burning was carried out by the BJP-led government of the day and the other, a few years later, by the opposition leader Lalu Yadav when he was railway minister. Both are therefore seen as partisan. Could not the BBC play a non-partisan role here and throw up some basic questions that could really open up a can of worms? Here are some questions that come to mind. Why was the chain pulled and the train stopped before the designated station? Was a Muslim girl molested? What happened to these stories and why have they vanished from our midst?

There are many accounts, even if the BBC did want to do a quick Google search, that would tell the story of members of the VHP who were on the train returning from Ayodhya (in Uttar Pradesh) to Gujarat. Since that day, VHP members have felt either let down by their own ilk or are disgruntled and confused about their place in the Hindu parivar. Why not bring up their accounts if this is going to be a plain old story of revision of events gone by.

Balancing act

Now on to Part Two. Even though this too is a re-telling, it does a much better job than the first film. It starts with the lynchings in India – Akhlaq’s in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh in 2015 and that of Alimuddin Ansari in Jharkhand in 2017. It then draws links between Modi’s silence on these hate crimes against Muslims to the disabling and dismemberment of Muslim majority Kashmir in 2019, to the drawing up of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) favouring Hindus, to the violent putting down of anti-CAA protests. The critique of this film is funnily enough embedded in the film itself, in a sound byte by the writer Arundhati Roy.

“Why do I speak to you on this film,” Roy says. “Only so that there’s a record somewhere that all of us didn’t agree with this. But it’s not a call for help because no help will come.” That those who critique Modi are complicit in his rise is a point made by Roy and also by the academic Christophe Jaffrelot. But they appear in the middle of an undifferentiated mass of sound bytes and are not followed up in the film.

Also read: Ex-Foreign Minister Jack Straw Confirms UK Report Said ‘Modi Directly Responsible’ for 2002 Riots

The most damning and impossible to watch segments of this film — the calls to violence and rape by Hindu extremists and the video of policemen kicking Muslims in the Delhi riots to death — are papered over with opposing bytes. Victim’s testimonies and that of the dead boy Faizan’s mother’s account is sought to be counterbalanced with that of the odious and self-satisfied sound of BJP leader Swapan Dasgupta, where he actually brushes aside the violence committed in the Delhi riots, which could in different times be read as discriminatory to the point of criminal culpability. Here’s what he says: “In the larger scheme of things, the Delhi riots were not important. But it was important to the media because it means less work and you can get good media footage just at your door-step.”

Now if I were making this film, I’d show Dasgupta’s statement for what it is by interlacing it with footage from the violence. With shots of the police kicking Muslim men to death and asking them to sing the national anthem. Then the viewers would be exposed to the full-throated glorious horror of Dasgupta. The BBC’s attempt at ‘balance’ after a testimony like this can only be read as a sign of it being scared and defensive. Which begs the question – would it do a similar balancing act in making a film on the Rwandan genocide or Auschwitz with the point of view of the SS?

What is it trying to do then with these films? We know that the job of the press in these times is to hold up a dark mirror. How could the BBC have done that without trying to play it safe? There are many good examples from around the world but the one that springs to mind immediately is the two-part series or rather two films made by Joshua Oppenheimer on the genocides in Indonesia in 1965. He filmed the perpetrators who gloated over what they did and made two films showing them for who they were without trying to ‘balance’ their ideas in any way. The films, The Act of Killing (2012) and The Look of Silence (2014), shook Indonesian politics and were part of the process of its unravelling. That is what good filmmaking can do.

In the present, India is desperately in need of such craftsmanship, and it has got to be clear-sighted in what it is setting out to achieve. If the truth is what the BBC and the rest of us in India are after, then it must be unmitigated, unvarnished, and laid bare. It must come with the intent to hit where it hurts. It must therefore actually be thorough and fresh and bold, like the heroes in this two-part series — Arundhati Roy, Aakar Patel, and Safoora Zargar. Safoora protested against the CAA on the grounds that it was partisan against Muslims. For this she was sent to jail for 74 days while she was pregnant. And the BBC is focused on balance. I rest my case.

Revati Laul is a journalist and author of The Anatomy of Hate. She lives and works in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh.

This article first appeared on The Aidem and has been republished with permission. You can read the original article here.