January 22 will mark a portentous moment in the history of the country when the head of its government will emerge wearing two headgear: one signifying his constitutional status as the chief head of the Government of a Sovereign, Secular India; the other as the chief ‘yajman’ (main host) of the pran pratishtha rituals that will accompany the consecration of the idol of Lord Ram in the specially constructed, if far from complete, Ram Mandir at Ayodhya.
The multiple ironies inherent in this elaborately constructed, richly embellished tableau seem to have thus far escaped the attention of mainstream media. Or is it the case that since that fateful day of December 6, 1992, when the domes of an ancient mosque were brought down, the Indian media have been systematically divesting themselves of their secular legacy? The argument could be made that mainstream media actually enabled the emergence of the Ram Temple in significant ways.
First, it altered the public narrative regarding it. Early media references in the 1980s were framed as a ‘Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute’. The actual demolishing of the mosque, when it happened, had already been preceded by a verbal diminution of the mosque in media conversations. The words ‘Babri Masjid’ came to be replaced over time by the formulation ‘disputed structure’. Once the ‘disputed structure’ was reduced to rubble and dust in 1992, it was the temple, not the mosque that gained media coverage. Calls to rebuild the mosque were feeble while the temple took on an afterlife once the Ram idol was safely housed in a tent pitched on the debris of the mosque, with a new term – ‘makeshift temple’ — used to signify its live status. In time it only grew in the public imagination with much coverage devoted to the crowds that routinely gathered to worship there. The media now began to use another useful phrase – a ‘matter of faith’. It was the tarpaulin to cover all manner of historical distortions, fake discoveries, and cynically manufactured irrationalities, including of course the “miraculous appearance” of the idol within the mosque on the night of December 22, 1949.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi performing bhoomi pujan at Ram Mandir. Also visible are Mohan Bhagwat and Anandiben Patel. Photo: PIB
The Modi election campaign of the 2014 general election had references to Lord Ram. In May, just before his electoral success, newspapers reported him sitting against a portrait of the deity, exhorting the people of Ayodhya to defeat the Congress. But what really brought the temple to the front and centre of politics was the Supreme Court judgment of November 9, 2019, after Modi won his second stint in office. It came in extremely well-crafted language and gestured ostentatiously towards Constitutional values that recognised the equality of “citizens of all faiths, beliefs and creeds”. Its concluding words should remain etched in our collective memory: “The facts, evidence and oral arguments of the present case have traversed the realms of history, archaeology, religion and the law. The law must stand apart from political contestations over history, ideology and religion….we must remember that it is the law which provides the edifice upon which our multicultural society rests”. Having stated that, the verdict went on to demolish that edifice and hand over the disputed 2.77 acres of land on which the Babri Masjid had once stood to the Central government to be maintained by the government or any person or trust it seeks to set up to do so.
Once again the media failed to adequately call out the hypocrisies of that verdict. The call to the Supreme Court to review this judgment should have come from the media but instead, it came from a group of civil society actors who issued a public statement detailing their concern. It pointed out the foundational truth that the Supreme Court judgment itself has been made possible only by “the criminal destruction of the Babri Masjid” and that the court could not have handed over the site to the Hindu side if the mosque was still standing. It also critiqued the “cavalier and one-sided” way in which the Court dealt with both archaeology and history, even overlooking Tulsidas’s silence on the site being Rama’s birthplace. Finally came the trenchant observation: “The Court’s assigning to the Government of India the task of setting up a Hindu religious trust to build the future Rama temple on the Babri Masjid site implies that in the court’s view, it is the government’s duty to cater to Hindu religious interests. This surely is hardly in consonance with the supposed secular nature of our state.”
With the court judgment providing the cover of legitimacy to the entire exercise, it was now easy for television channels and major newspapers to finally lay to rest any lingering qualms they may have had over promoting the Ayodhya temple. The coverage of the Uttar Pradesh chief minister overseeing the shifting of the Ram Lalla idol from the makeshift temple to the Ram Janmabhoomi site in March 2020 was ecstatic despite the pandemic having the country in its grip. In August of that year, while the pandemic was still raging, Narendra Modi performed the groundbreaking ceremony for the temple. A new religiosity entered the reportage. The fact that he prostrated before the Ram idol, not once but thrice, was duly noted and photographs of it were splashed all over the media space.
The media began to systematically build up the prime minister as a quasi-spiritual figure. Today the arc of that narrative has come full circle, with cutouts of Modi seen cheek-by-jowl with cut-outs of Lord Ram. All the major newspapers have faithfully reported that the “73-year-old was sleeping on the floor and consuming only coconut water” to prepare himself for the ceremonies that he will be performing as chief ‘yajman’.
These spiritual acts have strong political and electoral intent. “He and his party need a constant supply of such photos. The photo of the prime minister consecrating ‘Ram Lalla’ in Ayodhya will promote Modi as the civilisational man, the ‘king’ who brought Ram back home” (‘The January 22 Ram Temple Inauguration Is a Political Event. It’s a Crucial Test for Indian Politics’, January 10). And indeed triumphalist headlines like ‘Lord Ram’s Grand Return to Ayodhya Temple After 500-Year Struggle’ now flash out on front pages and prime-time television shows. With a half-holiday announced on January 22, the attempt is now to present it as a new independence day for India. Nehru’s famed formulation, ‘Tryst with Destiny’, once deeply entwined with Independence Day 1947, is now being put to service in Ayodhya.
The ruling party and the government will pull all stops to keep this mediatised euphoria going at least until counting day 2024. Meanwhile, for many in the country, the fractious history behind the mandir moment comes rife with memories, not of the Independence Movement, but of Partition.
+++
Broadcasting Services Bill: Regulation as Control
On November 10, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) put out a notice on its website seeking responses from the public and media stakeholders on its new draft ‘Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023’. It described the Bill in a strikingly anodyne fashion as one that caters “to the evolving needs of the Broadcasting sector, which when it is enacted will replace the existing Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995.”
The invitation drew a wide and engaged response from “stakeholders”, ranging from concerned individuals to a slew of internet and media bodies, most of them expressing alarm over what was seen as an attempt to broaden and deepen State control over the media space – in this case the ‘Over-the-Top’ or OTT content and digital news portals run by companies and individual journalists. The last few years has seen this sector emerge as a particularly vibrant space and today the new Bill hangs like a Damocles Sword over it.
Going by the responses to it, the Bill crosses several red lines. The Internet Freedom Foundation, with its zany campaign slogan – ‘Dear MIB, kill the bill and #LetUsChill’ – considerably bolstered up the base.
One of the overriding concerns that jump out of the page is the way in which it enhances the capacity for subjective interpretation on the part of the regulator. The Internet Freedom Foundation observes: “Ambiguous definitions, uncertainty over scope of application, and reliance on future rulemaking by the executive makes the Broadcasting Bill vague, overbroad, and worrisome, that is open for misuse through subjective and selective application.”
There is a disturbing history of such legislation, as Simran Agarwal and Shubhangi Heda point out in ‘Media Regulations in India: Government Overreach Disguised as ‘Parity’’. To bring about regulatory parity across media industries, they pointed out, the BJP government’s interventions in the media space have taken two, often simultaneous, routes. One, the adoption of an umbrella regulatory approach (as for instance when the Telecommunication Act replaced the Indian Telegraph Act,1885; the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act,1933; and The Telegraph Wire (Unlawful Protection) Act, 1950). The second route is to mix old and new forms of regulations in an attempt to align newer media systems with earlier regulatory mechanisms, while also attempting to introduce novel, and technology-conscious provisions into existing frameworks. Such retrofitting is fraught with dangers. DeepStrat, a strategic consultancy based out of Delhi, in fact pointed out that since OTT services operate differently than broadcasting services, they must never be regulated in the same manner.
Seema Chisti, editor, The Wire.in, argued: “The idea is to give enough room in the clauses to hustle every kind of animal into the tent. OTT, those doing video online, those reposting it, forwarding content are covered…The writing is suitably vague to not be restricted to a reference to just captions or astons on audio-visual, but ‘writing’ – such as what you are reading now.” (‘Control + All or Delete: The Draft Broadcast Bill Is a Blueprint for Censorship’, The Wire.in, December 7).
In their statement, the Editors Guild examined the architecture of regulation in the Bill and feared that it left entities which come under its ambit at “risk of being influenced by political and industrial pressure”. The Media Foundation, in its recommendations, specifically pointed to how the “unprecedented regulatory bodies being proposed in the Bill pose a risk of being influenced by political and industrial pressure. This might lead to mistrust of these bodies amongst the OTT services which might increase the chances of self-censorship.” The Internet Freedom Foundation, on its part, termed the regulatory structure “retrograde”. It observes, “The Union government’s powers with respect to the third-tier in the regulatory structure, unreasonable reliance on future rulemaking powers/ delegated legislation, as well as the inspection and penalty provisions (such as to prohibit operation in public interest), create a skewed power dynamic”.
In fact, the Bill could well prove to be a blueprint for future pre-censorship, as Chisti points out, “The most egregious over-reach in the draft is the clubbing of news (independent news websites, individuals now established as popular points for news and views, explainer videos, other audio-visual material available online) with OTT content, shows, serials, documentaries and other features traditionally subject to a certification norm. By introducing this as a ‘combo-pack’ as Jawhar Sircar, an ex-CEO of Prasar Bharti puts it, news for the first time is being put into a Central Board of Film Certification or CBFC inspired regime reserved for cinema. These are the first steps to establish a blueprint for pre-censorship.”
The stipulations in the Bill lead inevitably to an increase in financial and compliance burden: punishment could come in the form of suspension, expulsions, and hefty fines. These in themselves could have a chilling effect on speech.
The Bill also quietly allows seizure of journalists’ devices by regulatory authorities, something that the Supreme Court had expressed strong reservations over last November. DeepStrat points out, as do several others in their submissions, that Clause 31 of the Bill which greenlights such seizure needs to be re-evaluated “considering the risks associated with granting authorised officers the power to seize broadcasting equipment based on ‘reason to believe’. Such broad powers pose threats to procedural fairness, operational continuity, and potential misuse of authority.” It could also lead to unjustified disruptions for broadcasters without a transparent investigation, it noted.
The Internet Freedom Foundation concludes quite rightly that “Given MIB’s historical baggage with paternalistic regulation, moral policing, and censorship of curated content as well as news media, this bill may very well alter the digital space, for creators and consumers alike.”
+++
Indian journalists behind bars
Journalism is not a crime, yet journalists across the world find themselves behind bars. In 2023, Israel emerged as one of the world’s leading jailers of journalists.
Unfortunately, India, too, has a tarnished record. According to data just released by the Committee to Protect Journalists, seven media persons remain in prison. India continues to draw criticism over the use of security laws including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act to silence the media. Five of seven journalists are being investigated under/charged under terrorism-related Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Three journalists in last year’s census have been released on bail, while three new journalists have been arrested since then.
The 7 Imprisoned journalists in India as of December 1, 2023 are:
1) Aasif Sultan, Kashmir Narrator, Jammu and Kashmir (since August 27, 2018 – 5 years 3 months)
https://cpj.org/data/people/aasif-sultan/
2) Gautam Navlakha, Freelance journalist, Maharashtra (since April 14, 2020 – 3 year, 7 months)
https://cpj.org/data/people/gautam-navlakha/
3) Sajad Gul, The Kashmir Walla, Jammu and Kashmir (since January 05, 2022 – 1 year 11 months)
https://cpj.org/data/people/sajad-gul/
4) Rupesh Kumar Singh, Freelance journalist, Jharkhand (since July 17, 2022 – 1 year 5 months)
https://cpj.org/data/people/rupesh-kumar-singh/
5) Prabir Purkayastha, Newsclick, New Delhi (Since October 03, 2023 — 2 months)
https://cpj.org/data/people/prabir-purkayastha-2/
6) Majid Hyderi, Freelance journalist, Jammu and Kashmir (Since September 15, 2023 — 3 months)
https://cpj.org/data/people/majid-hyderi-2/
7) Irfan Mehraj, Freelance journalist, Jammu and Kasmir (Since March 20, 2023 – 9 months)
https://cpj.org/data/people/irfan-mehraj-2/
Altogether, this is a shameful chapter in our media history. We demand the release of each one of these individuals now!
§
Readers write in…
Thank you!
To all those readers who wrote in to wish The Wire a Happy New Year, thank you. Here’s wishing you a 2024 full of possibilities and promise…
+++
To and fro
Karan Thapar responded to a letter carried in ‘Backstory: Searching for the Words of 2023 Amidst the Rubble of Gaza’, titled ‘Wrong Call’ ( December 31): ‘Dear Ms. Jayaram, My only reply to you is the following: As Jesus said, let those without fault be the first to cast stones. I am not faultless. It’s very possible you are. Secondly, if journalists can legitimately and rightly interview the Prime Minister – despite all that he has said and done and is accused of – then journalists can interview Suhel Seth with as much right and credibility.’
Mr Jayaram responded to Mr Thapar: ‘Dear Mr Thapar, “Dear Ms. Jayaram”? Albeit an activist of sorts and a clicktivist backing LGBTQIA+ causes, I self-identify as a “he”, if you don’t mind. I was merely drawing attention to NWMI’s tweets.
‘Having started your para 1, with Jesus’s wisdom, why then, “It’s very possible you are.”?
‘That said, I remain a huge admirer of your absolutely brilliant work regarding the horrendous tragedy befalling Palestine, not to mention your work in support of secularism and democracy in our now benighted land, and which I’ve often been sharing on FB; X; and on email.’ +++
Re-frame that, please!
Reader N. Venkatesh takes issue with a certain framing: ‘In the Backstory of December 31, you wrote “Since October 7, when Hamas invaded Israel and killed 1,200 of its citizens. ..” You should be aware that this view is not tenable and much of that framing is simply incorrect. In short: on October 7, the Israel Defense Forces killed the most on that day and the list included 695 Israeli civilians. There is a clutch of raw material and analyses to endorse this in order to help you make up your mind. Your sentence is not just misframed, it does injustice to the reality. There are literally hundreds of UN resolutions, including a 1973 one against Zionism. It invalidated Israel-as-a-state and instead recognised the right of return of Palestinians. So a better phrasing, avoiding standard mainstream framing orthodoxies, would go like this: “Since October 7, when Hamas finally began the liberation campaign of Palestine…”
‘I would have loved for The Wire – a dissident outlet – to do better.’
My response: ‘Thank you for your mail, N. Venkatesh, but I beg to differ with you. The liberation campaign for Palestine has been going on for decades, well before the emergence of Hamas. Armed resistance has been carried out in the past by different groups, including Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Indeed, Hamas’s October 7th attack could be considered a strategic setback, since it provided Israel with an excuse to conduct its present genocidal campaign against Palestinians. This is not to say, of course, that Israel’s war on Gaza can in any way be justified.
‘As for The Wire being a “dissident outlet”, perhaps it would be more appropriate to consider it as a staunchly independent yet responsible news portal.’
End note: The ever-alert Churimuri recently drew our attention to the fact that “the biggest donor to electoral trusts is not Ambani or Adani, but Megha. The Hyderabad-based company is one of the two owners of the TV9 network of channels, and has won big engineering and infrastructure contracts since it launched @TV9Bharatvarsh in 2019.”
Write to ombudsperson@thewire.in
