All rulers want to control the narrative. Indira, despite her liberal upbringing, used sledgehammer tactics, announcing upfront that she was suspending fundamental rights and introducing censorship.
Last week, the anniversary of Indira Gandhi’s draconian Emergency was commemorated in Parliament. But the outpouring of condemnation from the ruling party seemed more about scoring political points than genuine concern over the real issues involved. Having written a book on Emergency, I am often asked about my first-hand experiences. I always find it ironic that many of those who commemorate June 26 and regret the horrors of suppression of the media and fundamental rights, seem oblivious that a dark cloud still hangs over freedom of expression and liberty even today. For instance, in the last Lok Sabha session, parliamentary correspondents were never so ruthlessly restricted, except during the Emergency. The difference today is in the style of operation, but not the basic effect.
All rulers want to control the narrative. Indira, despite her liberal upbringing, used sledgehammer tactics, announcing upfront that she was suspending fundamental rights and introducing censorship. Subsequent governments have resorted to less in-your-face methods. Strong-arming individuals and groups funding the media, unjustly applying laws concerning terrorism and corruption, raiding media offices and arresting scribes without following due process, denying visas to foreign journalists, using the CBI and the ED to settle scores are some of the more draconian methods of media regulation of late. But control of news emanation can even be effected by simply shutting out legitimate sources of information. Scribes who don’t toe the line are cut out from the loop of newsgathering, like background briefings, interviews, and entry to Parliament and government offices. The media starts introspecting less than it should on official claims. How, for instance, did so many scribes get it wrong in the recent poll results?
Strong govts vs weak ones
Politicians tend to lump the media into two categories: those who are with them and those who are against them. Unhappily, the middle ground of objectivity in journalism has practically disappeared. I personally believe the thumb rule generally is that the stronger the government, the more overbearing it is, both in state or at the Centre. The media is far more free and fearless under unstable governments. PM Modi and Indira were similar in terms of mass appeal, unilateralism and a deep suspicion of newsgathers. Some may question my theory, citing the example of Rajiv Gandhi who, despite his huge majority, was unable to suppress the Bofors exposé that led to the fall of his government. But that may have been less due to lack of intent than because his media controllers were ham-handed and some newspapers remained defiant. Also, a hostile President Zail Singh was in the Rashtrapati Bhavan for much of his tenure. I recall first-hand back in 1989, when a shell-shocked Vijaypat Singhania was ordered by a Rajiv aide to shut down his newly started newspaper, Indian Post, where I worked then, because a damaging lead story had appeared against one of the PM’s close friends. Earlier, then editor-in-chief Vinod Mehta was provided a list of people who were not to be written about negatively, which he shared sheepishly with me.
Past governments far more tolerant of a free press included those of Morarji Desai and Deve Gowda. But perhaps their laissez-faire attitude was more because they lacked a clear majority and many from within their own ranks were plotting their downfall.
Can’t control the narrative
Despite total censorship, with a few courageous exceptions like The Indian Express, Indira lost the 1977 elections because news of her regime’s excesses spread throughout the country by word of mouth. In 2024, the age of social media, aspersions were cast on ‘godi’ and ‘pappu’ scribes in traditional media, but the most effective counter to government propaganda may have came from irreverent YouTubers and influencers, curiously some of whom started out as travel writers and bodybuilders. The new entrants attracted millions of viewers. And thousands of aspiring writers dashed off disrespectful WhatsApp campaign messages that went viral. The Modi 3.0 regime should learn from Emergency — that you cannot control the narrative, particularly in the 21st century. Devising new IT laws to monitor the Internet and earning international opprobrium is definitely not the answer, but Rabindranath Tagore’s powerful poem, ‘Where the mind is without fear’ is the soundest advice. If PM Modi were to restrain some of his overzealous media advisers (unofficial censors), it would go a long way in restoring goodwill and confidence in his image as a benevolent, strong ruler. Indira learnt this lesson the hard way, with her ignominious Emergency defeat.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
First uploaded on: 30-06-2024 at 07:20 IST
