By Ranjona Banerji
Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, one of the few who has taken a stand against his government’s policy in Gaza, contends that the Israeli media is by and large free, as the media should be in a democracy. Therefore, he feels, the media has chosen to be a propagandist and cheerleader for the current genocide. Genocide is my word, not his.
What then do we make of the media in India? The general belief – as much within the general public with its limited knowledge but unlimited opinion – as well as within the media is that journalists, TV people, managers and owners have no option but to become cheerleaders of the government. The media is a weak, snivelling entity and the pressures on it are many. Withdrawal of money and money-making opportunities makes the media a puppet in the hands of a vicious, vindictive government.
But if we apply the Levy principle, we find that many journalists and TV people are willing collaborators and “victims” in the face of the BJP’s propaganda machinery.
For instance, were TV anchors forced to sit on bulldozers and earthmovers so that they could share in the glee of destroying Muslim homes? Unlikely.
Were TV people arm-twisted into helping sexual offenders try and rehabilitate their reputations at the cost of India’s award-winning athletes? Probably not.
These are things that they chose to do. Because maybe their agendas are the same as those of the current dispensation and its Hindu supremacist plans?
Which brings us to the inauguration of the partially built Ram Temple in Ayodhya on January 22. There can be no doubt that this is both an election ploy and a Hindu majoritarian ploy. The temple is being presented as the sole brainchild and project of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the extent that in much of the publicity he is given precedence over the deity.
Further, governments are on holiday for this inauguration, which has nothing to do with governance or with government.
The bulk of the media however has been gung-ho about the inauguration and the role to be played by the Centre, the PM and to a lesser extent, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. The fact that several senior Hindu priests have objected to the inauguration has made them enemies of the state in the eyes of these sections of the media underlines the propaganda policy once more. It is not the glory of Hinduism itself that they are interested in. It is the glory of the Prime Minister and the BJP.
In 1992, when the Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindutva forces, including the Shiv Sena, the Indian media reacted somewhat differently. Even those in the media who had been cheering for Hindu pride during LK Advani’s Rath Yatra and the Ram Janmabhoomi movement found themselves silenced by the enormity of the destruction. Riots followed and although the BJP won some elections subsequently, the media opted not to become an open cheerleader for Hindutva.
Since Modi’s crowning as PM in two consecutive elections, the media as cheerleader has become the default option. Voluntary default option. The cult of Narendra Modi has taken precedence over the nation. And evidently Modi can do no wrong.
Because is this story all over television in India?
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/1/18/as-pm-indias-modi-secretly-tried-to-massively-cut-state-funds
The revelations made here are significant in a number of ways, not least how Modi as PM tried to circumvent the Constitution in order to deny money to the states. The reaction appears to be to cut off access to the video posted within this link. That is, hide information if it is not beneficial to the Prime Minister and his propaganda machine.
Modi is on a temple tour of India, he has claimed he had a dream that God asked him to serve India, he has given speeches that Lord Ram appeals to all Indians – none of these have any bearing on his Constitutional role and responsibility. And yet, this is what we are being told about him.
This is voluntary supplication with a frisson of fear…
Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator. She writes on MxMIndia on Tuesdays and Fridays. Her views here are personal.