Authoritarian systems have no use for a term like “consent”. It reeks of “too much democracy,” as Amitabh Kant, former CEO of Niti Aayog, may have put it. The presumption that those who are called upon to give their consent are not bleating lambs but thinking individuals capable of taking independent decisions for themselves is an anathema for the Modi government. 

In September 1979, four law professor conducted a short tutorial on the term for the benefit of the three judges of the Supreme Court who had delivered a verdict on the Mathura rape case which former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai has just characterised as “deeply flawed”. It had gone in favour of the rapist, on the grounds that the 16-year-old tribal girl had “consented” to have sex with two policemen in a police station. She had consented, or so the judges had concluded, because there were no visible marks of resistance on her body.

In their observations on this verdict, the four lawyers had this to say about consent: “There is a clear difference in law, and common sense, between ‘submission’ and ‘consent’. Consent involves submission; but the converse is not necessarily true. Nor is absence of resistance necessarily indicative of consent. It appears from the facts as stated by the court and its holdings that there was submission on the part of Mathura. But where was the finding on the crucial element of consent?”

The Sanchar Saathi imbroglio over the last few days was evidence, if indeed it was needed, that if this government can get away with not requiring people to give their consent to its directives, in other words impose its will on the country, it won’t hesitate for a second to do so. Consent is based on the free flow of information. It is precisely in the space hidden from the public through layers of state-directed secrecy, media censorship and control, that non-consensual government orders and rules are sprung on an unsuspecting populace. 

Also read: Is the Modi Govt Working on a Proposal to Insist All Cellphones Have Location ‘on’ at All Times?

The Sanchar Saathi aap followed this trajectory. It seemed an innocuous enough app that could be downloaded from the Apple/Android app stores and installed in your phone, helping you to trace that benighted piece of plastic if it should get lost. A reported 14 million Indians have already downloaded the app. But what cast this app in an entirely different light was a December 1 dispatch from international news agency Reuters which revealed the November 28 directive of the Union telecom ministry to all makers of smartphones, making it mandatory that they install the Sanchar Saathi in every device they produced. They had to do this in a manner that ensured that it remained not just “visible, functional, and enabled” from the day of purchase, but also could not be disabled even if the user wished. 

Thanks to that one report, a friendly, useful device that could potentially check frauds and discourage thieves was revealed to be a tracking device and data trapper as well, the perfect Trojan horse for a government with a finely tuned taste for surveillance. The subsequent outcry forced the communications ministry to withdraw that obnoxious Sanchar Saathi order, claiming all the while that it only had the cyber security of the public in mind in coming up with it. The question that nobody is asking is why did it need Reuters to break this story? Why did not mainstream media get hold of these facts and investigate them? The government’s successful feeding of media watchdogs with ads and access have left them now unable to either bark or bite and are, in fact, pro-actively censoring themselves in order to block any news break that could potentially embarrass the rulers.

Non-consensual measures passed by the government could have deeply deleterious impacts on the lives of ordinary people in this country, but since the mainstream media has stopped considering those not represented prominently as consumers in the market as worthy of their consideration, this has attracted scant attention. The four Labour Codes, repealing 29 existing labour laws, which has just come into force, have become the law of the land without proper consultations with the cohort most affected by them – India’s workers. A very dark shadow now looms over their lives in the days and decades ahead. It renders infructuous the rights they had won through many a struggle, including the primary ones of collective bargaining and an eight-hour working day. They also, as labour economist Ritu Dewan has pointed out, kept out of their ambit the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, “thus denying a safe environment for women workers even in the organised sector” (The Leaflet, Special Mayday Issue).

All this has today been papered over by clever advertising. The Modi government has spared no expense in putting out newspaper advertisements claiming that these are “Labour Reforms for Aatmanirbhar Bharat”, because “The nation is proud of its workforce. Sharmev Jayate”. Thus a non-consensual process which began in 2019 was brilliantly finessed and made to appear as  worker-friendly legislation. But how can the nation claim to be proud of its workforce, when the workforce was not consulted? As the Wire article, ‘Explainer | What do the Labour Codes Mean for the Indian Worker?’ (November 27) observed, not only were the Codes cleared in 2020 in a truncated parliamentary session held against a backdrop of social chaos during the pandemic and while the opposition was boycotting proceedings over the Farm Bills, “the Indian Labour Conference – the apex mechanism where government, employers and workers deliberated policy – has not convened since 2015.” This, in itself, violated conventions established by the International Labor Organisation.

Also read: In Major Climbdown, Govt Says Sanchar Saathi Pre-installation Not Mandatory

Editorial comment indicates just where newspapers stand vis-à-vis these Codes. The Indian Express and the Times of India have been the most fulsome in their praise. The headline of the former’s editorial comment said it all: ‘New labour codes are long overdue & welcome’, going on to urge even more “reforms” of this kind, including those involving land, licensing and decriminalisation of offences. The Hindustan Times was a tad more cautious, adding a qualifying note: “None of this, however, should be inferred as carte blanche for undermining labour rights.” The Hindu was careful not to argue against the Codes but took pains to highlight the importance of tripartite consultations, noting that “the concerns raised by labour unions have not been addressed in full” and pointing out that the Indian Labor Conference, which has met 46 times between 1940 and 2015, has not been convened since Narendra Modi came to power. So much for ‘Shramev Jayate’!

§

What figures in the news & what doesn’t

Today marks the 33rd anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition which had shocked the nation and created an uproar within the media of the day. Today, it’s all calm on the western, eastern, southern and northern fronts. That Hindutva driven ruination may as well not have happened, going by the silence on the topic in the mainstream media. 

This conspicuous absence of comment or reporting, reminds us of the ideological skews in news reporting today. Indigo’s cancellation of a thousand flights in a single day did raise a hue and cry – and rightly so. We needed to hear the voices of passengers stranded for long stretches of time, some of whom lost not just their baggage but were unable to make it to extremely important events in their life, including wedding receptions, examinations, job interviews, funerals, and the like. But it makes us wonder why is such granular reporting missing when trains run late or are cancelled? Those passengers too would have faced grievous losses, but they are rarely accorded the coverage of the IndiNoGo kind.  Different strokes for different folks?

§

Journalists’ homes are not for bulldozing

One exceptional piece carried recently in the Wire was ‘Jammu: Authorities Demolish Family Home of Journalist Who Linked Police Officer to Drug Smugglers’ (November 27). A few other publications as well had this story about how Arfaz Ahmad Daing, a Jammu-based journalist who had exposed the nexus between a police officer and the drug mafia, had had his house bulldozed for his pains. It was the Wire story, however, that was the most comprehensive, complemented as it was by great photography which captured the demolition even as it was taking place, and even while the courageous journalist, whose home it was, was actually reporting on it for his web portal, News Sehar.

Bulldozer justice, emanating in all probability from Israel’s rule book, is thoroughly and utterly unconscionable. It is a genocidal tool from a genocidal state. What it does is to terrorise not just the focus of its wrath, but everybody connected with him or her. Yet the mainstream media has been surprisingly accepting of this punishment that can only be termed as a form of state terrorism, perhaps because it has largely impacted the “othered” community. Will house demolitions, now reserved largely for Muslims, going to be used against courageous journalists who expose the local power structure and its links with corruption and malfeasance? I suspect that will be the case. The general indifference of Big Media to this story is even more striking given that it was a member of their own fraternity who had suffered this grievous blow.

Having done this story, I am delighted that the same writer followed it up with a heart-warming sequel, when a Jammu resident, Kuldeep Sharma, donated his land to Daing so that he could build a home to house his family now left without a roof over their heads ('Our Brotherhood': Activist Donates Land to Journalist Whose House Was Bulldozed’, November 28).  As he handed over the papers of the land to Daing, he said, “I will build a house for you even if I have to beg for funds. The conspiracy of pitting Hindus against Muslims will never succeed. Our brotherhood will always exist.”

Such stories are getting rarer in this day and age which is why we need them more than ever. A salute to the Wire reporter who did both the stories.

Readers write in…

Voters driven by pure selfish interests

Veteran journalist Sumanta Banerjee commented on ‘A Bulldozer Election Machine Being Given the Run of Electoral Field Amidst Media Inertia’ (November 29):

“It is sad to find that one of our erstwhile independent institutions – judiciary, election commission, academia and media – are not only submitting to, but collaborating with, the bulldozer regime of Narendra Modi. When these top echelons of our socio-political system, who constitute the so-called opinion makers, act as slaves, what can you expect from the common voters who, bereft of any ideological commitment, can be easily purchasable by the highest bidder, the BJP, which has the money power to do this? It’s no long political belief that deters the money power that determines popular choice, it is pure selfish interest in its most shameless form that motivates our people. Sorry for sounding pessimistic!”

Anti-India?

Lalit Verma takes issue with the coverage of the anti-pollution protest in Delhi:

“With reference to the piece ‘At India Gate, a Protest Against Delhi's Pollution Was Met With Police Action, FIRs and Arrests’ (November 24), first of all most of your reporters have an anti-Hindu and anti-India ideology. The recent road block in Delhi for environmental concerns, really? Did the protestors use public transport to curb pollution. Rome was not built in day.  Also, they were raising anti-India slogans. They have been brainwashed by jihadis and leftists, like some of your reporters.” 

Celebrating an outstanding investigation

A mail from Roman Gautam, editor of the South Asia magazine, Himal

“I’m writing to you early in the morning from Kuala Lumpur and the Global Investigative Journalism Conference – and, to be honest, still buzzing from a great night. The award ceremony for the 2025 Global Shining Light Award just concluded last night. As I’d shared earlier, the path-breaking investigation into Vantara by M. Rajshekhar and published last year by Himal was selected as a finalist in the Small and Medium Outlets category. We didn’t take home the trophy, but I’m walking away with an immense sense of pride and hope.

“Being named a finalist for the Global Shining Light Award – one of the biggest global prizes for investigative journalism – placed Himal in truly select company, marking our Vantara investigation as one of the very best investigative stories produced globally in the last two years.

“For a fully independent outlet like ours, with our limited resources and tiny team, to be recognised at this level is, in itself, a massive victory. It’s a validation of everything we went through to put this story out there. It validates M. Rajshekhar’s months of tough reporting. It validates our decision to publish the hard facts of the Ambani-funded Vantara project when other, much larger outlets dared not. And it validates our resolve to stand firm in court against legal intimidation and harassment…”

Preserve the freedoms of the Nepali people

Excerpts from a letter that Roshmi Goswami, co-chairperson, and Dr. P. Saravanamuttu, Bureau member, wrote in on behalf of the South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR): 

“Following the unprecedented ‘Gen Z’-led youth uprising in Nepal in September 2025 and its violent aftermath, South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), a regional network of human rights defenders, expresses grave concern over the country’s political and constitutional future. Testimonies from a wide range of respondents reflect deep-seated public frustration with the lack of accountability across all levels of government and state; anger at the K. P. Sharma Oli government’s violent response to the protests, which were followed by coordinated attacks on public institutions and private property; and deep concern that the upcoming elections may be marred by violence and disputed legitimacy…

“SAHR is of the view that the first wave of protests on 8 September 2025, led by a cross-section of ‘Gen Z’ students and young activists’, were fuelled by allegations of nepotism, cronyism and unbridled government corruption, with protestors demanding transparency, democratization and accountability. SAHR also notes that the Oli government’s ban on social media platforms was a trigger rather than the prime driver of the protests. However, numerous testimonies suggest that the initially peaceful protests were infiltrated systematically by opportunistic elements representing a spectrum of forces arrayed against the coalition Oli government, some of whom were seeking the dissolution of the country’s 2015 Constitution. This resulted in an unanticipated march on the Parliament building, where the lax police presence meant that protestors were able to breach the barricades and enter the parliament premises, to be confronted by lethal police action...

“SAHR strongly urges the interim Sushila Karki government and all political parties to commit to holding fair and free elections within the stipulated period and refrain from stoking further public mistrust, which could otherwise lead to unmanageable unrest. Nepal’s hard-won constitutional republicanism, federalism and secularism as well as its citizens’ civil and political rights must be protected as the foundation of legality and legitimacy.

“Finally, SAHR calls on the international human rights community to extend support to Nepal’s domestic human rights mechanisms to foster accountability and ensure pressure on all actors to uphold democratic norms and preserve the rights and freedoms of the people of Nepal as enshrined in its constitution.”

Write to ombudsperson@thewire.in

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.