A CM resigns, a journalist is abducted: The ‘war of narratives’ in Manipur

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on February 14, 2025

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/02/14/a-cm-resigns-a-journalist-is-abducted-the-war-of-narratives-in-manipur

On February 9, Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh handed in his resignation to the governor of the state. A little over a day later, 20 armed men barged into the home of a senior journalist in Imphal, abducted him, and held him captive.

These developments are possibly not connected. But the journalist was Yambem Laba, a familiar name in Manipur. He currently writes for The Statesman, Kolkata, and is known as a human rights activist. He’s also been an open and trenchant critic of Biren Singh. On the evening of February 10, he was a panelist on a local channel discussing Biren Singh’s resignation. He once again criticised Biren Singh and, in the early hours of February 11, he was abducted from his home. 

Laba was released the next day after he made a public apology to the suspected abductors – the United National Liberation Front, one of the oldest armed militant groups operating in Manipur. The trigger for the abduction apparently was Laba stating on TV that the group had “surrendered” when it signed a peace agreement with the Biren Singh government in November 2023. 

Whatever the truth, although the attention of the media is fixed on who will take Biren Singh’s place now that President’s rule has been declared, Laba’s abduction and subsequent release is a reminder of the precarious conditions under which journalists operate in Manipur, and elsewhere in Northeast India.

While the Northeast is often lumped as one “conflict-ridden” area by what people there refer to as “mainland” media, it is inaccurate and inappropriate to generalise because each of the eight states comprising Northeast India have distinct histories, politics, cultures and causes for current and past tensions. 

Manipur, of course, has been paralysed by the ethnic strife that has stretched over 21 months, killing at least 260 people, displacing an estimated 60,000 people, and leaving behind a mountain of distrust and hate between the warring communities that cannot be wished away easily. There is today a virtually unsurpassable divide between areas where the Kuki-Zo people live in the hills, and the Imphal valley inhabited by the majority community of Meitei. 

Most journalists reporting from Manipur used to be based in Imphal. In the past, they could travel and report on the other parts of the state. Today, it would be impossible for a Meitei journalist based in Imphal to travel freely in Kuki dominated areas to find out what is happening and report on it, and vice versa. 

 

As a result, the information coming from these two separate parts of the state are generated by people living in those areas. Given the distrust between the two sides, neither is willing to believe what the other side reports. 

An Imphal-based journalist pointed out that the only news sent to newspaper offices in Imphal from the Kuki areas comes through official channels, namely the Department of Information and Public Relations. Clearly, this government organisation is not going to issue press releases about the conflict. As a result, he said that “we have lost the idea of a neutral voice”, something that journalism is supposed to be.

Traditional media houses in Manipur, as elsewhere in the region, have been hampered not just by the lack of access to parts of the state, but also the financial reality of operating in a state where the only source of revenue is government advertising. Predictably, the narrative that is played out is one that is approved by the party in power, in this case the BJP. Going against it could mean cutbacks in advertising, or other pressures.

With formal media channels so restricted, most of the information circulating in the state is dependent on social media postings – some true, some partly true, and some blatantly untrue. Siphoning through this flood of information is difficult if not virtually impossible when the obvious avenues for cross-verification are unavailable. Who do you call to check? Every side, including the “authorities”, have their own version. 

   

While Manipuri journalists have been severely restricted in their ability to report, how have journalists from the “mainland” media managed? Local journalists often speak resentfully about “parachute” journalism and how they are used by journalists from the rest of the country to provide logistics, translation and contacts. This resentment is understandable, especially when such journalists fly in, embed themselves with security forces to gain access, and then fly out without gaining any real understanding of the complexity of the troubles that have overtaken the state.  

Most of the information circulating in the state is dependent on social media postings – some true, some partly true, and some blatantly untrue. Siphoning through this flood of information is difficult if not virtually impossible when the obvious avenues for cross-verification are unavailable. Who do you call to check? Every side, including the “authorities”, have their own version. 

It is such reporting, usually by television channels, that has added to what one journalist described as a “trust deficit”. As a result, even when independent journalists make their own way, depend on civil society and other contacts to access both sides, and report in as even-handed a way as they can, they also must overcome this initial suspicion from both sides. It is not always easy. Both sides have what this journalist called “gatekeepers”, who decide how much access to provide a journalist reporting on the conflict. Also, even if independent journalists are technically from the larger Northeastern region, they are still looked upon as “outsiders”.

Against this reality, anyone setting out to document the developments of the last 21 months in Manipur, using media as the “first draft of history”, would have a really difficult time. Although there has been some excellent reporting by a handful of independent journalists, who have persisted and returned to the state despite the difficulties they encounter, these are the exceptions.

Such in-depth reporting has been largely missing from “mainland” print media, again barring a couple of exceptions. Even those newspapers that have correspondents based in Guwahati often do not provide them the space, or the time, to do the kind of layered reporting that is needed to convey the reality of the conflict in Manipur.  

We are all the poorer for this.

Apart from Manipur, even in a state like Assam, where communal tensions simmer and sometimes boil over because of the blatant anti-Muslim rhetoric and politics of the BJP-led state government, some Muslim journalists say that their names, which reveal their religious identity, now hamper access. The people they call sometimes judge their line of questioning as hostile even if they are genuinely trying to get information. 

A brief visit to Meghalaya, a state that is rarely in the news, revealed another challenge that local journalists face. While journalists in Manipur are labelled as Meitei or Kuki-Zo, in Meghalaya the divide is between tribal and non-tribal. Within tribal, it comes down to their ethnicity – Khasi, Garo and Jaintia. It is assumed that as a journalist, you will not report or write against your ethnic group.

In 2018, Patricia Mukhim, editor of Shillong Times, was attacked, with a firebomb thrown at her house in the night because she had criticised a militant Khasi group. Mukhim is a Khasi. Despite this, Mukhim continues to be outspoken. She has campaigned against rat-hole mining, thereby angering powerful local interests in coal mining who demand that the 2014 ban on it by the National Green Tribunal be lifted. She has been trolled and vilified each time she writes anything critical about campaigns against so-called “outsiders” or non-tribals. Once again, her identity is sought to be reduced to her ethnicity, while she argues that she is doing her job as a journalist, calling the powerful to account and rejecting hate politics.  

Whether a state is torn apart as in Manipur, or tensions lurk just under the surface, journalists based in the region have to tread carefully, manoeuvring between state governments that want to push a particular narrative and their detractors, sometimes consisting of armed groups. It is, as a journalist reporting from the region pointed out “a war of narratives” in which journalists are caught.  

We in the so-called “mainland” should be concerned about the state of the media and the difficulties faced by journalists in the Northeast. Because if journalists cannot do what they are trained to do, to seek out information from all sides, verify it, and report as even-handedly as possible, and if on top of it, what we report is measured through the filter of our ethnicity or religious identity, then journalism as we have known it is in deep trouble.  

The 2024 election didn’t change the media much. But readers can hope for better this year

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on Jan 3, 2025

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/01/03/the-2024-election-didnt-change-the-media-much-but-readers-can-hope-for-better-this-year

New Year resolutions are made to be broken, we are told. And hopes and expectations for the New Year are also, probably, destined to lead to disappointment. But there’s no harm in hoping that some things will change, as far as the media is concerned, even if much remains the same in 2025.

Will Indian mainstream media, that has favoured the prostrate pose by and large, sit up even a little in 2025? Is that expecting too much after a decade of being mostly supine? Let me start with one example that holds out a sliver of hope that perhaps something is stirring. 

On New Year’s Eve, Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh “apologised” to the people of Manipur. He said he wanted to say sorry to the people of the state for what had happened since May 3, 2023. “I really feel regret and would like to apologise to all natives,” he said. But he then went on to say, “Whatever happened has happened. We have to forgive and forget the past mistakes and make a new beginning.”

Manipuris on all sides cannot forget leave alone forgive a government that has looked the other way for 20 months as hundreds have been killed and thousands displaced in the ethnic conflict that has paralysed this northeastern state. 

Singh’s apology drew sharp editorials in leading English language newspapers, including Indian Express, The Hindu, Times of India, The Telegraph and Hindustan Times. However, while all said that the apology was “too little and too late”, it was The Hindu that called out the culpability of the central government.   

Referring to the annual home ministry report on the northeastern region, which attributed 77 percent of the increase in violence to Manipur, the paper reminded the government that while acknowledging this is a beginning, it is not enough. 

Furthermore, by declaring in the report that the Northeast was on the path to peace, the home ministry was effectively “burying its head in the sand”. 

Perhaps this is just a nuance, but it is interesting that while all the newspapers criticised Biren Singh, only a few underlined the role of the central government in the on-going strife in the state. 

The centre has not just failed to haul up the state government but has continued to treat the ethnic violence in the state as a law-and-order problem and refused to acknowledge the partisan policies of the state government. 

This hesitation to call out the centre and the prime minister, who has continued his silence even as a state in the union continues to burn, suggests that mainstream print media continues to tread carefully. One had hoped, given the results of the 2024 general elections and the BJP’s reduced numbers in the Lok Sabha, that national newspapers would have felt more confident to be critical of the central government and its policies. That they would have followed up and investigated how the content of the boastful advertisements from the central and state governments that they willingly carry does not reflect the reality on the ground. This has not happened and as of now, looks unlikely that it will.

Therefore, my new year hope that mainstream print media (in English) will develop something of a spine is probably misplaced.

The other hope is that the government will junk the Broadcasting Services Bill, which has now been pushed onto the backburner.

That too might be wishful thinking as the very fact that such a law was formulated in the first place indicated an intent – to curb the few independent spaces that exist online. There is no sign that this intent has changed so far. 

So, one can expect that in one form or the other, the pinpricks by independent digital media will be sought to be checked or squashed by the central government and some state governments.

Will independent journalists, those who dare to speak out or write critically, and the platforms that carry their reports and comments be spared the rod in the form of threats, arrests, income tax raids etc that have been the norm in the last years?

We can always wish and hope for a change of heart in the government but again, as with the broadcasting bill, there is no indication that the intent to hound critics has disappeared. It might be somnolent at this moment. But probably not for very long. 

As for journalists in jail, of the seven who are still in prison, the majority are from Jammu and Kashmir. I am thinking of Asif Sultan, former editor of Kashmir Narrator, who was rearrested after spending five years in jail. There is Sajad Gul of Kashmir Walla who was arrested in 2022 but released on bail in October last year and Majid Hyderi and Irfan Mehraj who are still in jail.

Despite elections having been held in the union territory, here too there is little to indicate that the elected government led by Omar Abdullah of the National Conference will make any difference to the future of these journalists. In fact, one of the few reports in a mainstream newspapers that tells us about the powerlessness of the Abdullah government is this report by Peerzada Ashiq in The Hindu where he writes: “It is becoming more and more evident that Raj Bhavan and the Chief Minister’s Office are not just two power centres but two different ideological forces.” And the power centre that remains dominant is controlled by the Centre. 

Despite all this, we can and should hope for better times. Not because we believe that there will be an unexpected change of heart in the men who run this country. That they will realise the importance of a free, critical and independent media in a democracy. But because despite intimidation and lack of resources, independent media still survives, and courageous journalists still go out and do stories that the government would prefer are never told.

Here are a couple of the many stories that are noteworthy from recent days. Take the time to read them to realise the vast difference between what is dished out to you every day in the newspaper that you read, that is if you read one at all, and the kind of journalism that is needed for democracy to survive in this country.

Omar Rashid, who was once The Hindu’s UP correspondent, has written this fascinating report in The Wire.  He exposes how the UP government is literally spoon-feeding the media on the kind of stories it ought to be doing in the lead up to the Maha Kumbh Mela. This includes suggesting who should be interviewed and the angles that ought to be explored. A letter from the publicity department of the state government to the media spells out no less than 70 story ideas, something even an experienced editor would be hard put to assemble. Having read this, it would be interesting to see what the media does report on Maha Kumbh Mela.

The other noteworthy story is this two-part series by Shreegireesh Jallihal of the Reporters’ Collective. It exposes how the Modi government has gone about “fixing” global indices such as the Global Hunger Index, in which India was ranked an unflattering 102 out of 171 countries. The strategy involves going beyond dismissing them as inaccurate or discrediting them, which the government does each time a global ranking is announced. Instead, it is developing its own ranking based on what it claims is accurate data.  

In the end, rankings are supposed to represent a ground reality that the media must explore. It rarely does. Here is one reality check provided by the digital platform Article 14 where three elderly women workers speak about the struggle to access security schemes announced with so much fanfare by the UP government, and amplified by the media.

Burning Manipur, silence in media: Northeast bias or self-censorship?

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on November 21, 2024

Another election cycle is behind us, almost. As I write this, the election results for the assembly polls in Maharashtra and Jharkhand are awaited.

But even as the results in one of the most confusing elections for voters in Maharashtra – with fractured regional parties and rebels and independents adding to the craziness – will dominate the news, I want to focus in this column on news that ought to dominate but does not.

More specifically, Manipur, which is burning – a fire that barely subsided for the last 18 months. Yet you wouldn’t know that if you were a reader of India’s mainstream newspapers.

Sporadic coverage. That’s the most generous phrase that can be used to define the coverage of the relentless ethnic conflict in Manipur since May last year. Predictably, when the security forces are involved, the story makes it to the front page and gains some prominence. When ordinary people are being killed in the internecine warfare between different armed groups in the state, the story, if reported at all, will be buried on an inside page.

As a result, people who still rely on newspapers as their main source of information would not be able to explain what lies behind the violence, despite the occasional “explainers”.  Manipur is relegated to the spot of the “troubled” northeast, where India must send “security forces” to sort things out. That decades of this strategy have achieved precisely nothing is, of course, not understood to a readership fed on morsels from that region.

There are exceptions to this rule, and every now and then one is surprised by a detailed report in one of our national newspapers where the reporter has visited the state. But these are too few and far in between, given the extent and the extended period over which Manipur has been literally on fire. 

As always, the independent digital platforms do much better.

There are challenges, of course, for all journalists covering a conflict zone. Which version of an incident do you report? Do you try to get all sides, or do you take the easier path of relying on “official” sources? This is virtually the norm. As a result, in a state so divided, the “mainland” media is viewed as being one-sided by the minorities, the hill tribes like the Kuki, and sometimes also by the Meitei.  

Journalists based in Manipur also get divided on ethnic lines. Those of us based outside the state might find this difficult to understand, but in small, ethnically divided societies, it is a challenge for journalists based there to do the balancing act. The ethnic filter is applied to all news and information. Its credibility is always questioned depending on the source and the antecedents of that source.

An example is two recent incidents that occurred in Jiribam district that borders Assam. 

Since November 7, Manipur has drawn some attention, at least in the print media.  On that day, in one of the more peaceful parts of the state, a 31-year-old Hmar tribal woman, a school teacher, was tortured and burned to death allegedly by members of the Meitei militant group, Arambai Tenggol. She is survived by her husband, a farmer, and three small children.

The retaliation was swift from the other side as a Meitei relief camp was attacked by suspected Hmar “extremists”, the term often used by the media. Six women and children were abducted. Their bodies were later found in a river nearby. According to the Hmar, these men were armed “village volunteers”.  

Ten of the Hmar attackers were killed by the CRPF stationed near the camp. 

This story is but one of many examples of the complex and layered reality of Manipur today. Whose version do you believe and report? Even giving both sides of the story does not necessarily provide a clear picture of what happened and why, but it is better than giving just one side.

For instance, Sukrita Baruah of Indian Express did attempt this in her front page follow-up story after November 11. It is heartbreaking to listen to the husband of the woman who was killed on November 7 and the loss of hope of a peaceful future.

However, it is Rokibuz Zaman of Scroll who provides us with the granular details and the context behind the killing. An obvious question is: why did the Meitei group Arambai Tenggol target the Hmar woman? A senior police official tells Zaman that the group wanted to send a message and “disrupt the peace” through what he called an “unprovoked” killing. You will not find this kind of detail in the few newspaper reports that have appeared on both incidents. 

A related question we must ask is whether mainstream or “mainland” media’s indifference to Manipur has played some part in the centre and the state government not feeling any pressure to act. In fact, it is only after these recent incidents in November that at least one newspaper, Indian Express, made a strong case for Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh’s dismissal. In its concluding paragraph, the editorial states:

“It is urgent that the trust deficit that has widened over the last one and a half years or so is addressed. But first of all, the Centre must remove the chief minister who has presided over the spreading and deepening conflict in his state. The Centre must ask Biren Singh to go — a decision it should have taken long ago. The time for excuses is running out.”

In fact, the time for excuses ran out a long time ago. And of course, given a tone-deaf government at the centre, which rarely heeds any opinion contrary to the dominant narrative in the media, such editorials, even if they come late in the day, are unlikely to be heeded. 

However, we must still question why the media has been so quiet and not stated the obvious, as the Indian Express has done now. If another state, not ruled by the BJP, had faced this kind of violence over an extended period, would the media have remained quiet? Would there not have been demands for dismissing the government and for central intervention? 

The absence of outrage underlines a couple of realities. One, that even the few newspapers that are occasionally critical of the Modi government continue to tread carefully on issues like Manipur. And second, that the very location of Manipur in India’s northeastern corner brings home the reality that people in the region have complained about for decades: that the tragedies that play out there do not arouse the “mainland”, including its media.  

 

In ‘robust vs rowdy opposition’ binary, Big Media blanks out parliamentary traditions

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on July 11, 2024

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/07/11/in-robust-vs-rowdy-opposition-binary-big-media-blanks-out-parliamentary-traditions

Who would have thought that a session of the Lok Sabha would draw eyeballs the way the first session of the 18th Lok Sabha has?

Since it adjourned, it has been discussed and analysed in a way we haven’t seen in any other session of parliament in recent times. The reason is obvious. There are other voices that are heard, not just those of people on the Treasury benches. And some of these, especially the first-timers, are making a mark.

For the media – which is used to turning everything into the equivalent of the Big Fight, such as the programme that was once aired on NDTV – the focus has largely been on what the newly-minted Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, said in his 100-minute speech that was marked by many interruptions. And Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-hour-long speech, which was not interrupted although opposition members shouted slogans such as “Justice for Manipur” while he spoke.  In those two hours, Modi did not mention Manipur even once.

The media sat in judgement to decide who did better, Rahul Gandhi or Narendra Modi, as if that was the burning issue of the day. Also discussed was whether it was appropriate for the opposition to shout slogans when the PM was speaking or stage a walkout as it did in the Rajya Sabha during his address. The fact that this has been done before, including by the BJP when it was in opposition, was not emphasised.

Rononjoy Sen, a former journalist who is with the National University of Singapore, reminds us in an op-ed in the Hindustan Times that the BJP had disrupted parliament using precisely these tactics in 2010-11 during the 2G scam row. In fact, Sen quotes Atal Bihar Vajpayee as saying that the “most effective way to oppose someone is a walkout” and that, in his view, this ought to be seen as the “highest form of opposition or antagonism”. 

Sen concludes: “A popular news channel recently made a distinction between a robust and a rowdy opposition. That’s a false dichotomy. The opposition can be both as long as it does not stall parliament. In a noisy and cacophonous democracy, such as India, it is unrealistic to expect otherwise.”

The day before Modi spoke, Manipur was mentioned, not just by Rahul Gandhi but more eloquently by the MP from Inner Manipur, professor Bimol Akoijam, a first-timer. Speaking close to midnight to an almost empty House, Akoijam’s words need to be heeded. I doubt if too many people were still watching the live telecast on Sansad TV when he spoke, but what he said was noted by several newspapers, and his entire speech was widely-circulated on social media.

According to The Hindu, Akoijam said, “The hurt, the anger has thrown a nobody like me to be part of this temple of democracy, beating the BJP cabinet minister. Think about the pain. I will keep quiet the moment the Prime Minister opens his mouth, and the nationalist party says that Manipur is a part of India and we care for the people of that state.”

While I doubt that the Prime Minister heard Akoijam, the next day in the Rajya Sabha, he did mention Manipur. In another long speech, he devoted five minutes to Manipur. Yes, five minutes after maintaining silence for almost 15 months.

This momentary mention made front-page news in most national newspapers the next day. But there was little by way of a critique of what he said in those five minutes, most of which was devoted, as usual, to criticising the Congress and placing the blame for what has happened in Manipur on the past. There was not a hint of acknowledgement that perhaps his government at the centre, and his party’s government in the state had fallen short. 

Only The Hindu, in a strong editorial, called him out and pointed out that “Manipur, unlike what Mr Modi asserts, is not any close to normalcy.”  It emphasised that “bluster and mere acknowledgment of the crisis will not solve the problems in Manipur and Mr Modi has to become proactive in leading changes that will lead to peace and reconciliation.”

As for others, the Indian Express waited until Rahul Gandhi visited Manipur on July 8 and met the displaced from both sides of the divide to comment. Compared to the editorial in The Hindu, the Indian Express editorial was muted in its criticism of Modi’s government. Instead of pointing out the centre’s role in allowing the situation in Manipur to deteriorate as it has, the paper praised Modi and wrote: “In his RS speech, the PM rightly spoke of the necessity to ‘go beyond politics and bring peace and stability’ to the state.” It is inexplicable that the media cannot see the politics that the BJP, at the centre and in the state, has played in allowing the crisis to fester.

The Manipur story doesn’t begin and end with statements made in parliament or slogans shouted by the opposition.  As Akoijam eloquently stated, “The silence on the Manipur tragedy is not unique, it reflects this general continuity of colonialism. A national party like BJP will be comfortable with the silence on Manipur... If you hear the anxiety and pain in my voice, please go back and see the 60,000 people languishing in relief camps, don’t talk about Partition Remembrance Day till then.” He was reflecting on the reality of his state, which is now divided to the point where it appears inconceivable that it can be put together again.

The other story that could be drowned out, literally, by all the shenanigans that we have yet to see in the forthcoming budget session of parliament is the appalling state of India’s infrastructure.

In the state of Bihar, more than a dozen bridges collapsed within a fortnight. How could this happen? Will anyone be held accountable? 

Hindustan Times followed up with this story that tells us about the pathetic situation in the state, where a maintenance policy is formulated after a bridge collapse rather than after it is built.

 

Apart from the bridges in Bihar, in the last month, there have been multiple reports about airports where roofs have collapsed or where there are serious leaks. In Delhi, the national capital, Terminal 1 had to be shut down because the roof over the driveway collapsed, killing a taxi driver and injuring others. The same thing happened at a new airport in Rajkot. And Lucknow, Guwahati, and the north Goa airport also reported leakages. Why is this happening, especially in newly-built or refurbished airports? Who is responsible?

I am waiting to be proved wrong, but I doubt if this story will be pursued as assiduously as the one of the collapsing bridges in Bihar. Many airports are run by Adani companies. Who will dare to bell that cat?

Manipur, misinformation, Revanna: Three issues ignored by Big Media this election season

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on May 2, 2024

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2024/05/02/manipur-misinformation-revanna-three-issues-ignored-by-big-media-this-election-season

The absence of something in the media is often not noted, especially in election season. But this morning, some readers of English newspapers in Mumbai, the city where I live, might have noticed the absence of Narendra Modi on their front pages. Barring The Indian Express, which had a front-page advertisement by a TV channel about an “exclusive” interview with the prime minister, a story on increased GST collections literally trumped anything Modi might have said the day before.

He still features in all newspapers because he has not ceased making controversial, and therefore newsworthy, declarations. 

In this last fortnight, since my previous column, Modi’s speeches have dominated the news cycle. Beginning with his provocative, inaccurate and hate-filled speech in Banswara, Rajasthan on April 21, where he called Indian Muslims “infiltrators” and declared that the Congress planned to give away the ordinary person’s hard-earned money to those “who have many children”, Modi has continued daily to make statements that have featured prominently in the media.

The front page of The Indian Express a day after Modi spoke in Banswara.

 This is probably a well-calibrated media strategy by the BJP to ensure that the dominant narrative in these elections remains focused on what Modi says. It also ensures that the Congress party, the focus of Modi’s attacks, must constantly counter everything he says. Its response, however, rarely gets the same prominence as Modi’s statements. 

Given the extent of the prime minister’s half-truths and outright lies in the last fortnight, it is incumbent on the media to fact-check. This has not been a norm in mainstream media and in the last decade, since the BJP and Modi came to power, such fact-checking is notable for its absence. 

However, in recent days, at least some in mainstream media are doing what ought to be routine. Perhaps this is happening because it is election season, and even though the outcome seems predetermined according to political pundits, there is always a sliver of uncertainty. 

 

Some newspapers, like The Hindu, ran a fact-check after Modi’s Banswara speech, especially on what he claimed was in the Congress party’s election manifesto. Scroll called out Modi’s lies in a clear and incisive article headlined: “Fact-checking five days of Narendra Modi’s speeches: A catalogue of lies”. And even a mainstream TV channel like Aaj Tak, not known for being even slightly critical of Modi in the last decade, ventured to point out rather gently that what he had stated in Banswara was not based on facts. 

Ironically, Modi’s statements turned into a bonus for the Congress as journalists and ordinary voters began downloading its manifesto and reading it. Election manifestos are rarely the subject of any prolonged discussion in the media. 

Apart from these fact-checks, there were also a couple of strong editorials, such as this one in The Hindu.  Yet, despite the reporting and comment on Modi’s speeches, and complaints by the Congress and concerned citizens, the Election Commission of India took its time to decide whether what he said violated the Model Code of Conduct. As has been extensively reported, instead of sending Modi a notice in response to the complaints, the EC chose to skirt around the issue by sending a notice to BJP chief JP Nadda. 

Simultaneously, and perhaps attempting to appear even-handed, it also sent a notice to the president of the Congress, Mallikarjun Kharge, in response to speeches by Rahul Gandhi and Kharge during the campaign. At the time of writing, there have been no further developments on these notices.

Moving away from Modi and his election speeches, the other major story this last fortnight was the sex abuse controversy involving Prajwal Revanna, the MP from Hassan who belongs to the Janata Dal (Secular), founded by former prime minister HD Deva Gowda, who also happens to be Revanna’s grandfather. He is the JDS candidate again for the same seat.

Mainstream media’s response to this terrible scandal, where literally hundreds of women appear on recordings where they are being sexually abused by Revanna, needs to be noted. While the media has focused on the tapes, their provenance, how they were made public, the motives of the people who did this, and the impact of this on the BJP which has partnered with the JDS in Karnataka, little attention has been paid to the women who were at the receiving end.

The story that must be investigated is not just why Revanna recorded these abuses, or how those tapes got out, but the system that allows these powerful men to exploit powerless women. It is precisely this imbalance in the power structure that led to global focus on sexual harassment at work in 2018, including in India, following the exposé by the Washington Post and the New Yorker about Hollywood producer and serial abuser Harvey Weinstein. The outrage then led to many more exposés. It also resulted in demands for change in the system that permitted this type of exploitation to continue unchecked. 

The Revanna scandal, and earlier Sandeshkhali in Bengal, tell us that not enough is known yet about the extent of sexual exploitation within the political system. Even if it is known, it has not been exposed. Incidentally, while many mainstream television channels focused on the Sandeshkhali scandal, where women had allegedly been sexually abused by politicians belonging to the governing Trinamool Congress in the state, they have barely touched the Revanna scandal. The JDS is an ally of the BJP in Karnataka whereas the TMC is fighting the BJP in Bengal. 

This seamy side of Indian politics and political parties is a story that has barely been told. There are a few instances that pop up now and then. But the message from the Revanna episode is that in a situation where the power equation is so grossly skewed as in India, women without power are silently bearing the worst kind of sexual exploitation. It is a terrible indictment of our system and needs to be thoroughly exposed.

Let me end with the other absence that mainstream media has yet to fully rectify, its reporting on Manipur. May 3 marks one year since the beginning of the ethnic strike that has divided the state, where thousands have been displaced, and several hundred killed. The violence has not abated and continues almost every day.  

It is a time for us in the media to introspect. To what extent has our sporadic coverage of the troubles in this north-eastern state over this year, contributed to the union government’s callous indifference to Manipur? 

There have been spurts of media focus on Manipur, such as in June last year, when the May 3 incident of two Kuki women being paraded naked and thereafter raped by a mob of Meitei men became public with the release of a tape of this incident. Or more recently, because of the violence that occurred during the elections. But regular reporting in mainstream media on the horrific levels of daily violence and difficulties that ordinary people on both sides of the divide encounter has been largely missing. 

In fact, the complete story of what happened on May 3 is only just beginning to emerge. The Indian Express in a front-page story on April 30 – headlined, “Manipur chargesheet: Women paraded naked made it to police Gypsy but told no key, left to the mob” – tells us the extent to which the local police were complicit. The story is based on a chargesheet filed by the CBI, which is investigating the incident, last October in the Gauhati High Court. 

A more detailed piece by Makepeace Sitlhou in Article 14 tells us what the survivors of this assault are going through. Together, these articles remind us that the price of the media ignoring the tragedy that has unfolded in Manipur is being paid every day by the people in the state who have survived the violence.