ARYAN FASCISM
Why India Is Using Emergency Laws to Ban a Documentary About Prime Minister Modi
Astha Rajvanshi
Mon, January 23, 2023
Narendra Modi - 2002 - Gujarat - Chief Minister - Prime Minister - India
Narendra Modi (then Chief Minister and now Prime Minister of India) heading to riot-affected areas in Ahmedabad Gujarat, India on February 28, 2002. Credit - Kalpit Bhachech—Dipam Bhachech/Getty Images
Last Tuesday, the British Broadcasting Corporation released the first episode of “The Modi Question,” a two-part documentary series that tracks how the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi climbed the political ranks of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party during his time as the Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat.
The documentary was originally broadcasted in the U.K., but it quickly generated hype in India after unauthorized video clips began circulating on social media platforms, reminding viewers of Modi’s controversial role in the 2002 Gujarat riots—and prompting the Indian government this week to block it from being aired on Indian platforms.
What is the documentary about?
The 59-minute documentary takes an in-depth look at the 2002 Gujarat riots—one of the worst outbreaks of religious violence in India since the country’s Independence in 1947. It traces how the riots erupted after a train carrying Hindu pilgrims in the northern state of Gujarat was set on fire and killed 59 people. The Muslim community was held allegedly responsible for the incident, leading to heightened retaliatory attacks and the deaths of over 1,000 Muslims.
The riots took place under Modi’s watch, who at the time was Gujarat’s Chief Minister. Raw and chilling footage reveals how the police stood by as Hindu mobs attacked Muslims and religious attacks took hold of the state.
Why is the documentary so controversial?
In India and abroad, questions about Modi’s complicity in abetting the violence have generated controversy for decades, but the BBC documentary goes a step further in highlighting his role through expert commentary — it reveals that a previously unpublished report from the British Foreign Office held Modi “directly responsible” for the “climate of impunity” that enabled the violence and said it had “all the hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing.” The BBC also uncovers other memos by the British government and Western diplomats, including the former British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who unequivocally criticizes Modi’s conduct at the time.
However, the documentary also features interviews with former BJP politicians who support Modi and strongly deny his involvement in the riots. They cite the Indian Supreme Court’s verdict in 2013, which stated that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.
Read More: How India’s Record-Breaking Population Will Shape the World
According to Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of the NGO Human Rights Watch, Gujarat has always been one of the most sensitive issues for Modi because he demonstrated “passivity in the face of large-scale ethnic violence.” But, Roth adds, Modi shows intolerance towards a range of criticism due to fear of reputational harm, and his reaction to this documentary is no different.
“People tend to assume that India is a democracy, that there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to free expression,” says Roth. “But Modi is not abiding by the requirements of free expression in the way that a Democratic leader should.”
Representatives for the BBC and India’s foreign affairs ministry did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for comment.
401733 09: A mob of Hindus wielding swords and sticks back off after Indian Rapid Reaction Force officers stopped them from attacking a small group of Muslims March 1, 2002 in Ahmadabad, India.Ami Vitale—Getty Images
Can the government block the documentary from being aired in India?
Under the emergency powers granted by the country’s information and technology law, the Indian government has already issued orders to YouTube and Twitter demanding that they block any content related to the documentary from being published on their platforms.
Kanchan Gupta, a senior adviser to the Indian government, announced the news on Twitter on Saturday, calling the documentary “vile propaganda” which undermined “the sovereignty and integrity of India” and had the potential to “adversely impact India’s friendly relations with foreign countries.” The decision was backed by various Indian ministries, including the Ministry of External Affairs, which found the documentary pushed a discredited narrative, cast “aspersions on the authority and credibility” of the Supreme Court, and created “divisions among Indian communities.”
So far, YouTube and Twitter are complying with the Indian government’s orders. Over 50 tweets containing links to the documentary have been taken down, according to the Lumen database. They include tweets by Derek O’Brien, a member of the Indian Parliament, as well as Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan and American actor and political activist John Cusack.
Media organizations and digital rights activists have long criticized the IT laws that enable the Indian government to censor social media content. The laws have been challenged in the Supreme Court, as well as multiple High Courts, with proceedings currently underway.
What has the Indian response to the documentary and the government’s decision been?
Critics of Modi say the block affirms Modi’s ardent base of supporters, who have decried it as “colonial” and “white” propaganda. “The bias and lack of objectivity and frankly continuing colonial mindset are blatantly visible,” Arindam Bagchi, spokesperson for the foreign affairs ministry told reporters at a press conference last Thursday.
But according to Roth, the “principal victims” of Modi’s censorship are Indian citizens. Therefore, minimizing valid concerns raised about Modi in the documentary as colonial partisanship “shirks responsibility for his own intolerance of legitimate criticism.”
This is compounded by the fact that banning a documentary that was not otherwise popular in India has only invited more viewers, says Hartosh Singh Bal, the political editor of Indian magazine The Caravan, who also appears in the documentary as a commentator. “Frankly, the ban has been pretty stupid because it’s attracted far more attention to the documentary than would have been otherwise possible,” says Bal. He adds that it is now being screened across school campuses as “an act of resistance” among teenagers who previously viewed these events as a dated chapter in history.
“In some senses created far more awareness than the government could have expected,” adds Bal, noting that it has brought new relevance to the conflict.
While the events of 2002 catapulted Modi into his current position, Bal says he remains extremely sensitive about his international reputation and still wants to be viewed as a statesman. But clamping down on this documentary in what Bal calls a “ham-handed fashion” will only confirm the expectations of his fiercest critics.
Why India Is Using Emergency Laws to Ban a Documentary About Prime Minister Modi
Astha Rajvanshi
Mon, January 23, 2023
Narendra Modi - 2002 - Gujarat - Chief Minister - Prime Minister - India
Narendra Modi (then Chief Minister and now Prime Minister of India) heading to riot-affected areas in Ahmedabad Gujarat, India on February 28, 2002. Credit - Kalpit Bhachech—Dipam Bhachech/Getty Images
Last Tuesday, the British Broadcasting Corporation released the first episode of “The Modi Question,” a two-part documentary series that tracks how the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi climbed the political ranks of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party during his time as the Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat.
The documentary was originally broadcasted in the U.K., but it quickly generated hype in India after unauthorized video clips began circulating on social media platforms, reminding viewers of Modi’s controversial role in the 2002 Gujarat riots—and prompting the Indian government this week to block it from being aired on Indian platforms.
What is the documentary about?
The 59-minute documentary takes an in-depth look at the 2002 Gujarat riots—one of the worst outbreaks of religious violence in India since the country’s Independence in 1947. It traces how the riots erupted after a train carrying Hindu pilgrims in the northern state of Gujarat was set on fire and killed 59 people. The Muslim community was held allegedly responsible for the incident, leading to heightened retaliatory attacks and the deaths of over 1,000 Muslims.
The riots took place under Modi’s watch, who at the time was Gujarat’s Chief Minister. Raw and chilling footage reveals how the police stood by as Hindu mobs attacked Muslims and religious attacks took hold of the state.
Why is the documentary so controversial?
In India and abroad, questions about Modi’s complicity in abetting the violence have generated controversy for decades, but the BBC documentary goes a step further in highlighting his role through expert commentary — it reveals that a previously unpublished report from the British Foreign Office held Modi “directly responsible” for the “climate of impunity” that enabled the violence and said it had “all the hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing.” The BBC also uncovers other memos by the British government and Western diplomats, including the former British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who unequivocally criticizes Modi’s conduct at the time.
However, the documentary also features interviews with former BJP politicians who support Modi and strongly deny his involvement in the riots. They cite the Indian Supreme Court’s verdict in 2013, which stated that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.
Read More: How India’s Record-Breaking Population Will Shape the World
According to Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of the NGO Human Rights Watch, Gujarat has always been one of the most sensitive issues for Modi because he demonstrated “passivity in the face of large-scale ethnic violence.” But, Roth adds, Modi shows intolerance towards a range of criticism due to fear of reputational harm, and his reaction to this documentary is no different.
“People tend to assume that India is a democracy, that there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to free expression,” says Roth. “But Modi is not abiding by the requirements of free expression in the way that a Democratic leader should.”
Representatives for the BBC and India’s foreign affairs ministry did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for comment.
401733 09: A mob of Hindus wielding swords and sticks back off after Indian Rapid Reaction Force officers stopped them from attacking a small group of Muslims March 1, 2002 in Ahmadabad, India.Ami Vitale—Getty Images
Can the government block the documentary from being aired in India?
Under the emergency powers granted by the country’s information and technology law, the Indian government has already issued orders to YouTube and Twitter demanding that they block any content related to the documentary from being published on their platforms.
Kanchan Gupta, a senior adviser to the Indian government, announced the news on Twitter on Saturday, calling the documentary “vile propaganda” which undermined “the sovereignty and integrity of India” and had the potential to “adversely impact India’s friendly relations with foreign countries.” The decision was backed by various Indian ministries, including the Ministry of External Affairs, which found the documentary pushed a discredited narrative, cast “aspersions on the authority and credibility” of the Supreme Court, and created “divisions among Indian communities.”
So far, YouTube and Twitter are complying with the Indian government’s orders. Over 50 tweets containing links to the documentary have been taken down, according to the Lumen database. They include tweets by Derek O’Brien, a member of the Indian Parliament, as well as Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan and American actor and political activist John Cusack.
Media organizations and digital rights activists have long criticized the IT laws that enable the Indian government to censor social media content. The laws have been challenged in the Supreme Court, as well as multiple High Courts, with proceedings currently underway.
What has the Indian response to the documentary and the government’s decision been?
Critics of Modi say the block affirms Modi’s ardent base of supporters, who have decried it as “colonial” and “white” propaganda. “The bias and lack of objectivity and frankly continuing colonial mindset are blatantly visible,” Arindam Bagchi, spokesperson for the foreign affairs ministry told reporters at a press conference last Thursday.
But according to Roth, the “principal victims” of Modi’s censorship are Indian citizens. Therefore, minimizing valid concerns raised about Modi in the documentary as colonial partisanship “shirks responsibility for his own intolerance of legitimate criticism.”
This is compounded by the fact that banning a documentary that was not otherwise popular in India has only invited more viewers, says Hartosh Singh Bal, the political editor of Indian magazine The Caravan, who also appears in the documentary as a commentator. “Frankly, the ban has been pretty stupid because it’s attracted far more attention to the documentary than would have been otherwise possible,” says Bal. He adds that it is now being screened across school campuses as “an act of resistance” among teenagers who previously viewed these events as a dated chapter in history.
“In some senses created far more awareness than the government could have expected,” adds Bal, noting that it has brought new relevance to the conflict.
While the events of 2002 catapulted Modi into his current position, Bal says he remains extremely sensitive about his international reputation and still wants to be viewed as a statesman. But clamping down on this documentary in what Bal calls a “ham-handed fashion” will only confirm the expectations of his fiercest critics.
Manish Singh
Sat, January 21, 2023
The Indian government has ordered YouTube and Twitter to take down videos and tweets about a BBC documentary that is critical of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued the directions “for blocking multiple YouTube videos” and "over 50 tweets" linked to the videos of the first episode of the BBC documentary, Kanchan Gupta, an adviser to the ministry, said Saturday.
The ministry issued the directions under the IT Rules, 2021 that gives the ministry the authority to take down posts that it deems undermines the sovereignty and integrity of India, and has "potential to adversely impact India's friendly relations with foreign countries as also public order within the country," Gupta said. Both YouTube and Twitter complied with the directions, he said.
Gupta called the BBC documentary a “hateful propaganda.” Multiple ministries, including MEA, MHA and MIB, examined BBC's "malicious documentary" and found it "casting aspersions on the authority and credibility of Supreme Court of India, sowing divisions among various Indian communities, and making unsubstantiated allegations," he wrote in a Twitter thread.
The BBC has not broadcasted the documentary in India.
BBC aired the first episode of the two-part documentary, "India: The Modi Question" on January 17. The series addresses the 2002 communal riots in the western Indian state of Gujarat, where Modi was the Chief Minister at the time. Nearly 800 Muslims and over 250 Hindus died in the riots, according to official figures.
The violence erupted after a train carrying Hindu pilgrims caught fire.
A Special Investigation Team appointed by India's apex court a decade later said Modi had taken the steps to control the riots. Another petition questioning Modi's exoneration was dismissed last year.
The BBC series says Modi's governance has been "dogged by persistent allegations about the attitude of his government towards India’s Muslim population," according to the description on its website.
"This series investigates the truth behind these allegations and examines Modi’s backstory to explore other questions about his politics when it comes to India’s largest religious minority."
Arindam Bagchi, the spokesperson for the Indian foreign ministry, said this week that the documentary is a "propaganda piece designed to push a particular discredited narrative. The bias, the lack of objectivity, and frankly a continuing colonial mindset, is blatantly visible."
"If anything, this film or documentary is a reflection on the agency and individuals that are peddling this narrative again. It makes us wonder about the purpose of this exercise and the agenda behind it and frankly we do not wish to dignify such efforts."
BBC said in a statement that the documentary examines the tensions between India's Hindi majority and Muslim minority and explores the politics of India's PM Modi in relation to those tensions.
"The documentary was rigorously researched according to highest editorial standards. A wide range of voices, witnesses and experts were approached, and we have featured a range of opinions – this includes responses from people in the BJP [India’s ruling party]. We offered the Indian Government a right to reply to the matters raised in the series – it declined to respond,” a BBC spokesperson said.
This isn't the first time a documentary on Modi has stirred debate. Disney-owned Hotstar, India’s largest on-demand video streaming service with more than 300 million users, blocked an episode of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” that was critical of Modi. An uncensored version of that episode aired on YouTube in India.
No comments:
Post a Comment