Narendra Modi is not the first prime minister who has found ways to control the media; almost all who came before him found their own ways of doing this. (ANI Photo)
Mar 23, 2025 07:10 IST First published on: Mar 23, 2025 at 06:00 IST
Let me begin with a question. When was the last time you heard one of Narendra Modi’s ministers claim some achievement without reminding us that what had been achieved was under the ‘visionary leadership of our Prime Minister’? I ask because I honestly cannot remember when I did. And because in his most recent interview, our leader has said he longs for real criticism as he believes criticism is the ‘soul of democracy’. You are right, prime minister. Very right.
What you seem not to have noticed is that you now sit on so exalted a pedestal that not even your closest comrades have the courage to tell you the truth about anything. Privately, they will admit that there are flaws in policies or in their implementation, but publicly, they show the sort of servility that you see in totalitarian countries like North Korea, where telling the truth to the ‘dear leader’ can have very bad consequences.
Story continues below this ad
Personally, I cringe when I see highly educated, sophisticated ministers debase themselves, especially when being interviewed by foreigners. When asked about why there seem to be restrictions on free speech, they repeat like a mantra that we are the largest democracy in the world so cannot be challenged about such fundamental democratic freedoms. These days, they often add something that Modi has come up with which is that we are ‘also the mother of democracy’. We are not. There may have been a handful of democratic dominions in ancient times, but mostly, like everywhere else in the world, there were conquerors, kings and feudal lords. The word democracy comes from two Greek words: ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratos’ (might). Greece is generally considered the mother of democracy. Our ancestors had so many extraordinary achievements that we do not need to claim the achievements of others. But which of Modi’s ministers will dare tell him this?
As for us ‘watchdogs’ in the Fourth Estate. We have been terrified into submission. Sadly, most of us do not dare admit even this. But if you want proof, you need only to cruise our ‘independent’ news channels on any evening and compare the way they report the news with the way that it is reported on CNN or the BBC. If there is a news story that involves India, the story will be so infused with aggressive nationalism and angry patriotism that it sounds more like pamphleteering than reporting. I cannot remember when I saw a news story on these channels that criticised the prime minister.
This new habit of turning every news story into a political pamphlet infects us in the print media as well. The Prime Minister’s media managers have made it clear that journalists who dare to criticise government policies will find it hard, if not impossible, to be given access or interviews. The only journalists granted an audience with the Prime Minister are those who show a degree of servility. As someone who once had privileged access, believe me when I tell you that I know what I am talking about.
Story continues below this ad
Narendra Modi is not the first prime minister who has found ways to control the media; almost all who came before him found their own ways of doing this. What has changed is that there is less subtlety about how this is done, which is why every journalist travelling here from Western, democratic countries becomes quickly convinced that there are restrictions on freedom of speech that did not exist before.
It does not help that the Prime Minister and his chief ministers like to call dissidents ‘urban naxals’. This is a dangerous way of dismissing dissidence which, if truth be told, is more the ‘soul of democracy’ even than criticism. When the Prime Minister, in his interview to Lex Fridman, said that he welcomed criticism, he qualified this by saying that criticism was different from allegations. He said real criticism needs research, study and analysis, and not just allegations. “There is a big difference between allegations and criticism. Allegations benefit nobody.”
most read
Yes, Prime Minister. But who is going to decide this difference? It is not a task that can be performed by your media managers, is it? Just as when dissidents get accused of being ‘urban Naxals’ it becomes very hard for them to prove that they are not advocating violence, like real Naxals do, but merely expressing a dissident point of view. Should they be judged by those who do not understand what dissidence is?
Political leaders who make the mistake of drawing boundaries in red for freedom face the danger of ending up surrounded by sycophants and yes men. When I say this, I remember the answer that Indira Gandhi gave after she lifted the Emergency and finally gave an interview about what she had done. She was asked what she regretted most. Her answer was that she regretted having imposed press censorship. Dissident opinions, criticism and even allegations rarely harm powerful political leaders. The only thing that harms them is when they erect walls so high around themselves that they can no longer hear the voices of the people.
The thing to remember is that the media reflects the voices of the people. If for doing this they are going to be called ‘urban Naxals’ and subjected to the jackboot of the state, those voices will die. Has this happened in India yet? It is something for you to decide.
