‘They threatened to bulldoze my house': fear and violence stalk journalists in Modi's India
At her home in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, Harleen Kapoor* reflects with melancholy on how, since Narendra Modi became prime minister in 2014, she has spent a lot of time in the office instead of out on the powerful human rights exposés she used to work on.
Stories from some of the most deprived areas in the country were her forte. But, she says, in the climate of fear that has built up in India in the past decade, her media outlet has made it clear that her reports on topics such as sexual violence against lower-caste women and the harassment of Muslims are no longer welcome.
When the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), which rules nationally, won power in Uttar Pradesh for a second term in 2022, the outlet told her to stop travelling altogether. Its finances were already fragile, and it feared losing government advertising.
In theory, the press in India enjoys freedom. Anyone looking at the media landscape would find it vibrant, with about 20,000 daily newspapers and about 450 privately owned news channels. No minister has ordered any curtailment of press freedom or freedom of expression. No formal policy of shutting down newspapers or channels has been announced. Reporters are, for the most part, free to travel.
But because of violence against journalists and highly concentrated media ownership, India is ranked among the worst countries in the world for press freedom– 151st out of 180 countries – according to the annual index compiled by Reporters Without Borders.
Press freedom is in worrying decline in many parts of the world, with widespread attacks on journalists - last year was the deadliest on record - and the shutting down of news outlets due to economic hardship.
We are running a series of pieces exploring the threats and challenges faced by media around World Press Freedom Day on 3 May, created to remind governments of their duty to uphold freedom of expression.
'There is no holding anyone accountable any more if you don't report on such stories,' says Kapoor, who says she held off reporting on the many cases of severe gastrointestinal illnesses among devotees at the world's largest religious gathering, Kumbh Mela, this year.
She feared being detained for challenging the official narrative that the festival had been a consummate masterclass in crowd management.
'My children said, 'how will you cope in a cell in the summer without air conditioning and sharing one toilet with 40 other people?' People like me in small towns don't have the resources to survive an onslaught by the police,' she says.
Today, in Modi's India, many journalists say they fear being framed under draconian anti-terrorism laws, or the arrival of pro-Modi gangs at their front door.
Arjun Menon*, also based in Uttar Pradesh, says he received death threats after writing a piece critical of Modi's leadership two years ago.
'Modi supporters threatened to bulldoze my house. I was trolled viciously for being unpatriotic. It's made me meticulous about recording all my conversations and keeping detailed notes just in case I end up in court,' Menon says.
At least 15 journalists have been charged under the anti-terrorism law, the 1967 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, since Modi came to power, according to the International Journalists' Network (IJN). Thirty-six journalists have been detained.
Siddique Kappan was jailed for two years without trial after being arrested on his way to Uttar Pradesh to report on the high-profile case of a Dalit girl who was gang-raped and later died in 2020. He had been picked up by Uttar Pradesh police and accused of belonging to an Islamist fundamentalist group and conspiring to incite violence among Muslims.
India's laws, says the IJN, have been 'weaponised' to silence and intimidate journalists, with the 1967 security law amended in 2019 to allow the authorities to declare an individual a 'terrorist' before any crime is proved in court.
The Delhi-based independent journalist Aakash Hassan, a regular contributor to the Guardian, says he has been visited at home by police and intelligence officials for his coverage of the restive Himalayan region of Kashmir, which is claimed by both Pakistan and India. He has now been banned from travelling outside India, he says, and has had his phone confiscated by police, who demanded his password.
'There are many important stories I have wanted to do, and I should be doing, but fears for my safety and that of my family have stopped me. It's very scary to know that any number of draconian laws can be used to jail journalists. Then you can wait years for a verdict,' says Hassan.
Modi and the BJP are not the first in India to try to suppress media freedom, says the journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. Earlier governments also tried, including the Congress party, now the main opposition. Under a Congress government in 2012, the cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested for depicting parliament as a toilet.
The difference, says Thakurta, is that the Modi regime has 'weaponised law-enforcing agencies to target not only its political opponents but several independent journalists who have not kowtowed to the right wing'.
Large sections of the mainstream media appear to have been turned into subservient mouthpieces. Modi himself has never exposed himself to a press conference to answer difficult questions, not even during the Covid pandemic.
'Never since 1975-77, when former prime minister Indira Gandhi imposed an 'emergency', has media freedom been so shackled and constricted in the country,' says Thakurta.
While dismayed at the suppression of freedom of expression and the fear inhibiting reporters, N Ram, director of the Hindu Publishing Group, says critical voices remain. Stories that embarrass the government do still get published. Independent news websites such as the Wire and Newslaundry continue to criticise the government, along with magazines such as the Caravan.
For a non-official perspective, Indians have started turning to independent YouTube channels and popular podcasters such as Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee and Akash Banerjee, who are all critical of the Modi regime. And in southern India, where the BJP is not in power in any of the five states, there is less fear among journalists.
Last month, Vikatan, a news website in the southernmost state of Tamil Nadu, managed to get a court to overturn the government's move to block it after it published a cartoon showing a handcuffed Modi sitting next to Donald Trump following news of the deportation of Indian immigrants from the US. The Modi government's lawyer had argued that the cartoon was 'detrimental to the sovereignty and integrity of India' and its 'friendly relations with foreign states'.
Ram says independent journalism is not dead. 'There remain spaces and voices that resist suppression and I think we will see more people standing up to pressure.'
* Names have been changed to protect identities
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of LGBTQ+ book readings
The US supreme court has ruled that schools must give children the chance to opt out on faith grounds from listening to storybooks being read out loud that feature gay and transgender characters, in a landmark decision that will be seen as striking a blow for religious rights in education. In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable. The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities. In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'. One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child. The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period. The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy. In the ruling, the conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote: 'We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.' At the end of Alito's judgment, the ruling stated: 'Until all appellate review in this case is completed, the [school] board should be ordered to notify [parents] in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction.' The ruling prompted a fierce dissent from the liberal justice Sonya Sotomayor, who said that public education was intended to be a unifying experience for children and 'the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny'. But she added that concept would become 'a mere memory' if pupils were 'insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs'. The ruling comes against a widespread conservative backlash in public schools and public libraries across many places in the US, but especially Republican-run parts of the country. The backlash has often sought to remove books that social conservatives find objectionable – often those that involve depictions of LGBTQ+ themes or racial inequality. The American Library Association estimates there are at least 112 proposed state laws concerning schools and public libraries that seek to expand the definition of what is deemed obscene or harmful to children and to limit librarian staff's ability to determine which books they hold in their collections. In a statement, Catholics for Choice, which opposes the court's ruling, said: 'The Supreme Court decided that it is okay for parents to teach their children to discriminate and judge people who are different than them.' Taylor Tuckerman, a CfC vice-president, said: 'It's also important for children to learn that our differences – religion, sexual orientation, gender expression, race, economic backgrounds, and more – contribute to a thriving community and are not something to be ashamed of.'
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules schools must let kids opt out of hearing LGBTQ+ books
The US supreme court has ruled that schools must give children the chance to opt out on faith grounds from listening to storybooks being read out loud that feature gay and transgender characters, in a landmark decision that will be seen as striking a blow for religious rights in education. In a case that exposed the passions surrounding the US's religious-secular divide, the court sided with parents in Maryland who protested that they were left with no means of shielding their children from the contents of six storybooks they found objectionable. The ruling means that the Montgomery county board of education – which administers schools in some of Washington DC's most affluent suburbs – must provide opt-out facilities. In the case, Mahmoud v Taylor, three sets of parents, comprising Muslims, Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, complained that the board's policy in effect forced their children to hear storylines that they alleged promoted 'political ideologies about family life and human sexuality that are inconsistent with sound science, common sense, and the well-being of children'. One book, Uncle Bobby's Wedding, features a gay character who is getting married, while another, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, is about a transgender child. The parents in the case filed a complaint after education authorities decreed that parents should not expect to receive prior notice before one of the books was read out loud in class, thus enabling a child to leave the room for that period. The ruling was handed down after an initial hearing in April at which several of the court's conservative justices – who form a 6-3 majority on the bench – appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs' case after lower courts refused to force the education authorities to change its policy. More details soon …
Spectator
2 days ago
- Spectator
India's war on English makes no sense
India's Hindu nationalist rulers are waging war on the English language. They like to claim it is the language of colonial subjugation. Amit Shah, the home minister and a powerful ally of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has predicted that the day is coming when Indians who speak English will feel 'ashamed' to do so. In his eyes, the English language is a legacy of colonial rule and should be stamped out. It is hard to think of anything more stupid and counterproductive than this shameless campaign. Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the opposition Congress party, was withering in his condemnation: 'English is not shameful; it is empowering. English is not a chain; it is a tool to break the chains.' Hear, hear to that! The English language has helped, not hindered, India in the modern era Shah has long railed against colonial rule in India. He and others in the Indian government argue that the British Empire 'enslaved' Indian minds long after the Raj. 'I believe that the languages of our country are the ornament of our culture. For our history and culture to be understood, it cannot be done in foreign languages.' This is nonsense. Attacking English speakers in India ignores the larger truth that the country has no real national language of its own. Hindi, the official language of central government, is little more than an artificial 20th century construct. Even the Hindustani of Bollywood films is spoken mainly by Indians concentrated in the 'cow belt' of northern India. The rest of the subcontinent speaks hundreds of regional vernaculars. English is the only language that binds the whole together, a genuine lingua franca. Why belittle it? Much official daily business across India would be difficult, if not impossible, without English. It is the language of business, science and technology across the country. Proficiency in the language can often lead to better employment prospects and higher earnings. That's why many aspirational Indians want their children to go to a school where lessons are taught in English – it is a means of escape from the rigid caste and class hierarchies that persist across the country to this day. Roughly 129 million people speak English across the country; that is second only to the United States in terms of overall numbers of English speakers. When Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first post-independence leader, delivered his famous 'Tryst with Destiny' speech on the eve of India's independence in August 1947, he did so in English. That speech, widely celebrated for its eloquence, marked the real end of colonial rule in India. How odd that Nehru's modern-day successors don't appreciate the language he spoke in. Shah's assault on the English language has inevitably sparked nationwide debate about the enduring legacy of British rule. That is what he wants to focus on. It has also prompted renewed suspicions about what this campaign is really about, which is less welcome for the government. Ministers would prefer Hindi to take precedence over English when it comes to language. Why would that be? Is it just a coincidence that Hindi is spoken primarily in northern India, which is where the ruling BJP party gets most of its votes? Voters elsewhere, who do not speak Hindi, are right to be suspicious. Opposition politicians likewise have their doubts. The Congress party claims the government does not want poor Indians, trapped at the bottom of society, to learn English because it doesn't want them to move ahead in society and attain equality. Maybe, maybe not. What can be said with certainty is that the English language has helped, not hindered, India in the modern era. Its rulers should be celebrating the country's English-speaking millions, not denigrating them in a petty and manufactured language war – to make a meaningless point about the colonial past.
