Modi’s “cheerleaders”
The Fourth Estate has changed
beyond recognition and its role as a watchdog has been severely
compromised under the present prime minister
BY ASHIM CHOUDHURY
I USED to be a Modi fan till the other day. I was among those who
felt that the secular “national media”—read English-speaking—was
hounding him rather uncharitably over the Gujarat riots. So when the
Modi wave was building up in the early summer of 2014, I wondered: “Will
they let him survive?” After nine months, I realize my fears were
unfounded. The moral high-ground-holding “secular” media has suddenly
vansihed. I have scoured the newspapers for their venom and found none.
Where have the Modi-haters retreated? Some have had a change of heart
after the new dispensation took over from the mild sardar. Some have
reinvented themselves, saying they now see a new Modi – Mark-II.
Prominent among these is the self-confessed “Congress stooge”, Vinod
Mehta.SURPRISING CALM
To be fair, there has been no major reason for the media to be on a collision course with the BJP government. Outwardly, the media is functioning as unobtrusively as before. In fact, when Prakash Javadekar took over as the I&B minister, he made a statement; he said that the new government did not feel the need for such a ministry. Hidden in this was a subtle message: “We expect the media to regulate itself.”
If you have a trained eye, you will notice the change. The media is no longer cocky, and very little dirt is dug up on the government of the day. The government and the media appear to be at peace with each other. This is disturbing, because the media, by its very nature, is an adversary to the government. It’s a watchdog.
Rajdeep Sardesai recently said that it’s the job of the media to ask hard questions, not to sing paeans. The media heaping praises on the government is as dangerous as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, HL Dattu, saying: “Modi is a good man.” Being a neutral upholder of the judiciary, his statement was a breach of protocol. But did the media go to town with that story? There were just a few superficial stories here; nothing in-depth. That’s what is worrying. The media instead of pillorying the government, appears to be protective.
The unceremonious sacking of two of the country’s seniormost bureaucrats—foreign secretary Sujatha Singh and home secretary Anil Goswami—should have provided enough fodder for the media to react.
So what has really changed? “Nothing,” says Binoo John, a senior journalist with irreverence in his DNA. “Modi has been a dictator even in Gujarat, that’s his style,” he says, adding that all governments try to manage the media and meet with different levels of success. “The BJP uses a carrot and stick strategy,” he observes. Another left-leaning “Modi-baiter”, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, is more circumspect. “A large section of the media is acting like Modi’s cheerleaders,” he says. Recalling Advani’s famous words after the Emergency, he says: “They have not even been asked to bend, and they are crawling.” But not taking questions from the media is not unique to Modi. He says: “Even Sonia Gandhi did not like being asked tough questions.”
Is the press being manipulated under the new dispensation? Guha Thakurta says: “Yes it is, in a subtle manner.” But he says that the kind of arm-twisting that happened during the Emergency cannot happen now as the media has changed beyond recognition. It’s much bigger now and more diversified. The state no longer enjoys the kind of control it did in the 70s and 80s when there was no social media.
CORPORATE BOSSES
With large sections of the media owned by big businesses, like the “friendly” Ambanis, there is a threat of the media being compromised. Well-known economist and political commentator Mohan Guruswamy does not mince words. “Apart from professional integrity, there are issues implicit in ownership. Take Rajendra Darda (under a cloud due to the Coalgate scam) of Lokmat, for instance. What will his paper report on the coal scam?” he asks. News X was controlled by the influential Niira Radia at one time, before the 2G spectrum scam came out in the open. Matang Sinh, facing charges over the Sharada chit fund case, owns a TV channel in Assam. Tamil Nadu supremos, J Jayalalitha and M Karunanidhi, control most of the electronic and vernacular print media in their state.
Threats to editors are mostly veiled and rarely come out into the public domain, unlike the case of Shirin Dalvi, who had to go into hiding despite apologizing for her “crime” of having used a Charlie Hebdo cartoon on the cover of her Urdu magazine. Governments often cut off revenue supplies that come from its ads. Tehelka is a stark example of how it is slowly being strangulated, with its revenue streams choked. Tehelka has come to a stage where it often cannot pay its staff or contributors. Pradyot Lal, one its editors, says: “Anti-establishment journalism is forever stressed and squeezed. The present dispensation is a hydra-headed phenomenon presided over by a megalomaniac. You cannot expect any real freedom.”
Closing the money tap is just one aspect. But the PM has put the screws on the flow of news as well. Earlier, media persons depended on various news sources and leaks. All they had to do was sniff around and do some talking. But after Modi’s gag order, no one is talking. Neither the ministers, nor the bureaucrats, and not even the moles. Even stalwarts like the articulate and erudite Advani has shut up. The last time he spoke on a national issue was when he said that he found nothing offensive in the film PK. That must have required some courage. And to imagine Advani was once an iron man.
Modi has changed the way the media interacts with the government. He doesn’t even have a media advisor. The man who spoke so much before becoming prime minister and even mimicked “Maun” Mohan for his quiet rectitude, has suddenly fallen silent himself. Apart from the lone interview to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria—so much for apna desh—he has not given a single interview or held a press conference, betraying a deep disdain for the media. His “Mann ki baat” and other addresses to the nation are monologues that go against the grain of democratic dialogue. The media, to borrow someone’s expression, should be imbued with an abiding and healthy cynicism. I’m reminded of a recent headline: “Teesta Setalvad being framed….But where’s the outrage?”
Yes, where’s the media’s self-righteous outrage?
