Cold War, Emergency, Hindenburg: ‘Foreign hand’ pretext to censor media criticism

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on December 11, 2024

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/12/11/cold-war-emergency-hindenburg-foreign-hand-pretext-to-censor-media-criticism

The ubiquitous “foreign hand” is back again. It has hovered over Indian politics for decades, especially when the party in power is criticised for its actions, or inaction. It has been particularly persistent in the last decade and more since Narendra Modi became prime minister.

At the height of the Cold War, the “foreign hand” was either the CIA of the United States of America or the KGB of the erstwhile Soviet Union, depending on your political leanings. Critics of Indira Gandhi were always accused of being CIA. In fact, Piloo Mody, one of the founders of the Swatantra Party and a parliamentarian known for his sense of humour, some of which was either misunderstood or not understood by his fellow parliamentarians, walked into the Lok Sabha once with a placard that read: “I am a CIA agent”. He was, of course, a trenchant critic of Mrs Gandhi and one of the opposition politicians imprisoned during the Emergency.

In fact, in a famous exchange in parliament with the then defence minister, Swaran Singh, Mody is quoted as saying: “What is happening in India is very well known to everybody else in the world except Indians. It is more known to everybody else outside the House than it is known to Members of Parliament.” He was referring to the government’s decisions on defence that he suggested required greater transparency.

Today, even the pretence at transparency has disappeared. Not only is the government getting away without being asked tough questions by the media but even the opposition is being stymied each time it wants to raise questions in both houses of parliament, thanks to the presiding officers. Every question by anyone in opposition is shut down. But when members of the ruling party hold forth, they are permitted to do so without any interruption from the chair.

So, on December 5, when BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi spoke in the Rajya Sabha and once again brought in the spectre of the “foreign hand”, he was permitted to elaborate on his theory by the chair. 

According to a report in The Hindu: “He cited examples pertaining to the past three years, including the Hindenburg report, the COVID-19 vaccine report, a report on Indian farmers, a BBC documentary, the Pegasus issue, and a video on sexual violence against women in Manipur.”  And claimed that “ever since India is emerging as a strategic, economic and diplomatic power, it has been seen that in the last three years, there have been attempts to attack India’s established systems and interests on economic and social fronts through activities from abroad.” 

Just to remind readers, the BBC documentary that Trivedi finds so offensive is the two-part series titled “India: The Modi question” released in February last year. It raised questions about the role of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, in the 2002 communal carnage in Gujarat. Expectedly, the government banned the documentary even from social media platforms calling it "hostile propaganda and anti-India garbage".  

The ban was challenged in the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that they had a “fundamental right to view, form an informed opinion, critique, report on and lawfully circulate the contents of the documentary as right to freedom of speech and expression incorporates the right to receive and disseminate information”. The case is due to come up for hearing again in mid-January. 

The Hindenburg Report on the Adani group of companies and subsequent exposes on the prime minister’s closest business ally have clearly put the government on the defensive. But given Trivedi’s intervention, it appears that the government has decided that any report critical of Adani from outside India’s shores is also part of the larger conspiracy to undermine the country’s progress under the Modi government. 

The question that no one is asking is why are these reports on India only on platforms outside the country? What does this say about our own media and why it cannot do such investigations? Especially, as we are constantly reminded by this government that India is the “mother of democracy”.

Under Indira Gandhi, media houses critical of her policies were viewed as part of a larger international conspiracy to undermine her government. During the Emergency, editors and journalists were amongst those put behind bars. The chief suspect then was the US. Some smaller publications were suspected of receiving funds from the US government via foundations. 

Almost every government since then, including some state governments, has trotted out similar theories.

Today, there are laws that restrict media houses from receiving foreign funds. Anyone seeking such funds must comply with the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA) which was first brought in during the Emergency in 1976 and has since been amended. Any organisation or institution receiving funds from abroad must register with the government. Since 2014, thousands of non-governmental organisations, especially those working around human rights, have had their FCRA permission cancelled, thereby depriving them of crucial funds. 

Independent digital news platforms, that depend on grants, are also now facing problems getting funding and are under constant scrutiny by government agencies, especially if they carry investigative stories that make the government uncomfortable. 

We have the recent example of NewsClick where its editor Prabir Purkayastha was arrested under UAPA after a report appeared in the New York Times alleging that the funds received by his website were from a foundation abroad that was linked to Chinese propaganda. Purkayastha was released in April this year by the Supreme Court which ruled that his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate was illegal. NewsClick was one of the platforms that wrote consistently and critically about the Adani group.

The message from such actions is clear. The government is watching you and it has the power to shut you down in more ways than one.

The impact of such a message is evident in the silence on the Adani question in mainstream media even as the opposition tries in vain to draw attention to it in parliament.

That silence is broken thanks to the handful of independent platforms that continue to survive. You find through them stories that ought to have been front page news in our newspapers. Stories like this one by The Reporters’ Collective that finds: “Public debate has been focused on the role of state-level politicians and officials in the alleged bribery scandal. The Reporters’ Collective investigation shows the role of the Union government and SECI in crafting a solar power auction tailormade for the Adani Group and helping bag contracts for 8 GW of power supply where it had originally bid for only 4 GW of projects.”

The government will likely choose to ignore such charges to ensure that people do not read the story. Or it will try to locate even a tangential connection to George Soros, the 94-year-old Hungarian American businessman and philanthropist, who is now this government’s “foreign hand”.