The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi while on the campaign trail in Rajasthan last Sunday, made one of his trademark speeches. In which he referred to Muslims as infiltrators, and claimed that the Congress, if voted to power, would prioritise Muslims over all others.
I should correct the first sentence to “trademark communal hate speeches”. When it comes to Modi, there is nothing new or surprising here. His speeches are usually BJP campaign-related, and thus dripping with sectarianism and hatred for minorities and the less privileged, regardless if we have elections or not. And time and again, he gets away with it.
And so, this time too, of course, the excuse-makers jumped in, which includes commentators, journalists and know-it-alls, all of whom belong to what I can the neo-lib-con brigade, with a strong emphasis on the “con”.
One tranche of excuses goes like this: You must not point this out, because it is a diversion, it will only benefit him if you call him out, some politician in the past also said similar things once, someone in some other country did something similar.
Another is: He is a master strategist with his finger on the pulse of the people, et cetera et cetera.
We have heard all this, ad nauseum. It doesn’t say much for us as a people if a rabble-rousing liar has his finger on our collective pulses.
This is one aspect of how Modi has got away with his hateful invective.
The other is the state agency in charge of conducting “free and fair elections”. Sometimes known as the Election Commission of India. Which has been booking all sorts of politicians of other colours for hate speech and whatnot. But when it comes to the Prime Minister, well, reporters at a press conference were told that the EC “declines comment”. Perhaps the EC had no option. What could it say after all? We can infer from this that the EC also declines action.
And finally, my dear, dear friends in the media. So many conversations.
Was Modi referring to a speech given by Manmohan Singh when he was prime minister and had claimed that all benefits would go to Muslims? Some fact-checking was done. Turned out that Modi was indeed misrepresenting a speech made by Singh in 2006.
Others looked at whether Modi’s snide remark that Muslims have more children and therefore get more benefits were true. Clearly not.
And so forth.
Actually everyone, from his most ardent admirers to his most fervent critics, knows that he lies and is a faithful follower of the RSS’s sectarian, Islamophobic principles. But we continue to play the game.
Having sorted that out, the bulk of the media decided to play it safe. And here I tip my hate to former NDTV journalist and presenter Nidhi Razdan, who pointed out that while TV is often blamed for its biased coverage and its cowardice when it comes to the BJP, the print media was no better in this instance. In fact, worse if you consider that it has been marginally better than TV usually.
Major newspapers like the Indian Express (journalism of the colour saffron) and The Times of India (all things to all people) were like the Election Commission – they “declined comment”.
Instead, they presented his speech as it is, without context and framed it as an attack on the Congress Party. Together with his attacks on Muslims, they also showcased his attack on Sonia Gandhi.
The Telegraph stood out with its front page (see screenshot): “PM gear switch to divisive pitch”.
Some editorials were forthright.
The Hindu:
“One of the main features of Narendra Modi’s politics is his reliance on an unapologetic brand of right-wing rhetoric that is moored in demagoguery, hate speeches against minorities and the use of dog whistles — political messaging intended to please the bigoted sections of his support base.”
Others urged all politicians to abjure hate speech for the sake of democracy – not that too many other than BJP members resort to hate speech to win votes.
But not one of the members of the media that I came across had the gumption to demand action from the Election Commission. Or demand that democracy be respected. Spare me the lectures about fear and money and spare me your interpretation about how the media must fall into the bothsides-ism trap. I have worked for any number of publications which have run campaigns for the public good.
And stopping hate speech is for the public good.
With no state agency and no media to help, it is left to citizens who have the most to lose, whichever way the chip falls:
https://scroll.in/latest/1066924/2200-citizens-write-to-election-commission-seeking-action-against-pm-narendra-modi-for-hate-speech
Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She writes on MxMIndia on Tuesdays and Fridays. Her views here are personal.