K.S. Muralidharan
There is a widely held view that the space for anti-establishment media in India is shrinking. Indeed, whatever criticism of PM Narendra Modi in particular that we get to see, is mostly limited from the so-called but easily recognizable secular satraps who make a show of their “anti-establishmentarianism.”
Unfortunately, most of such criticism owes itself to their inherent biases and not to any objective reading of the issue under consideration.
Now, an inclination or a “self-professed bias” by itself is acceptable so long as it does not impinge on a sound judgement of the issue or does not mischievously resort to misleading or outright lies, to peddle its falsity as true, or its fiction as fact.
The question that comes to mind after hearing their criticism is: Is it not possible to critique Narendra Modi without resorting to such dubious practices? It certainly is — he is as much fallible as the rest of us — but we rarely get to see an objective validation of their angst against Modi.
Consider veteran commentator, Swaminathan Aiyar’s latest article titled ‘Will Kejriwal in jail sway voters? Not a chance” published in the Times of India. Coming from an embedded liberal who is uncomfortable with anything that remotely aligns to Hindutva, Ayodhya or any issue dear to the majority community, and RSS for instance, the heading of this article at first comes as a surprise. While it hints that his views may be in sync with that of Modi’s BJP, it turns out to be more of a red herring. Aiyar eventually reveals himself inside out to the discerning eye, as he always does.
Aiyar states that historically all political parties have misused laws and executive powers to harass opponents and protect their own. Which is right of course, but then he leapfrogs from there and declares that the BJP has been the most guilty of all at it.
This is the height of misleading the public, unless Aiyar is ignorant, which obviously he is not. How can he forget or dismiss the fact that the entire opposition was jailed by the Congress during the emergency in 1975–1977? It is to date the most glaring example of legislative and executive misuse of powers. And yet Modi’s BJP is the number one villain?
The Congress right since the Nehru years and all through his family members’ reign of Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and later, Sonia Gandhi’s remote control rule during the UPA regime, amended the Constitution dozens of times, to protect their turf. And yet, Modi is the number one villain?
It was not even an open secret that the CBI under Congress rule was a gilded cage as described by the courts. The investigating agencies were misused, not just to target its opponents, but to foist patently false cases against them.
The CBI under Congress led UPA and even earlier was functioning as the Congress Bureau of Investigation, and the Congress nonchalantly abused and misused it to broker power deals with its own allies such as the SP and BSP to shore up its numbers when faced with the real threat of losing power. As home minister in UPA-II, Chidambaram upped the game even further with the infamous Ishrat Jahan case and other cases, to not only stop the Modi juggernaut but also to create the bogey of saffron terror, in the name of secularism. Can such level of misuse of the CBI which went against the country’s interests, be forgotten or diluted, in an attempt to brand the Modi government’s use of the investigating agencies as the worst example in history?
Incidentally, the number of political cases being pursued by the ED under Modi is only around 3% of the total number of cases, and even among them, many of the cases pertain to the period before Modi assumed power. So in a majority of cases it is only a matter of the chickens coming home to roost, or to put it grandly, the law finally taking its course.
To ignore this humongous record of instances of wilful and deliberate abuses of power and dub the BJP as the biggest villain of all, is not even lazy journalism, but a betrayal of Aiyar’s embedded bias against the BJP.
It is true that the BJP has set the ED and CBI against the opposition on various charges of corruption, and you don’t need to be a Sherlock Holmes to deduce that. The targeting of its opponents may be selective, but mind you, there are credible corruption charges, and should we refuse to take any action to bring them to book, until everyone from both sides are hauled up before the law, so as to “balance” such action for the benefit of those who are squeamish about selective action?
Aiyar then goes to state that the crackdown on NGOs, independent institutions and other avenues of dissent has resulted in India sliding in global indices measuring democratic and human rights, and that newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the Guardian have mourned this descent. So, should we accept what the Western media says at face value and as the Gospel truth, when for example, the politics, media and social media is full of vitriol and diatribe of the worst kind from all sides of the political spectrum?
Aiyar cannot be unaware of the fact that the crackdown on NGOs is based on credible evidence of wrongdoing and not providing information as sought for in accordance with the law of the land, by them.
As for the crackdown on dissent, well, we are still waiting for the crackdown, which is like waiting for Godot! For instance, those who shouted ‘Death to Modi’ slogans in the farmers protest, are freely going about their sickening spiel, while sundry politicians openly state their wish to break Modi’s bones, etc. etc. amid much more such horrific examples. But we are supposed to turn a blind eye to all this and instead believe that India is hurtling towards dictatorship all because a few high-profile armchair intellectuals in the west say so and their secular comrades at home like Aiyar peddle this as the truth and the whole truth!
There is nothing wrong in having a healthy respect for the western media, but not by showing yourself to be stupid!
It’s not just about Swaminathan Aiyar, but almost the entire secular eco-system in particular, who keep showing up their inherent prejudices against Modi and the BJP, when they critique his policies, performance, politics and governance.
In the past we have seen outstanding examples of anti-establishment journalists like Arun Shourie (till unfortunately he turned rogue in the Modi years) and many more mentored by the one and only Ramnath Goenka of the Indian Express group, the original and the last of the anti-establishment media mogul. Today, while the anti-establishment space has shrunk, the market for it also has diminished, which should make for an interesting case-study by political historians.
However, it will not be wrong to say that the quality of criticism that we get to see against Modi is far from objective. What we want to hear is a reasoned and objective analysis, and not some peer-reviewed prejudice.
Surely not everything is hunky-dory but those critical of Modi are missing the wood for the trees, by aligning their views with those of the opposition, and making judgement calls without considering what the other parties did when they were in power. Politics cannot be seen in isolation, and everything — the choices we make and have, the performance of the political parties, etc. — is relative.
Observe that the critics of Modi consciously take care not to compare Modi to the competition. For they know that it will instantly de-value their criticism. So the only way to legitimise their prejudiced criticism is to form an informal caucus, wrap it up as secular/liberal, and peddle it with approval from their peers in the western media, who will amplify this fake narrative and warn us that democracy is under threat under Modi!
2024 will end up as a bigger threat — but only for the liberals’ version of what Indian democracy ought to be. But they will, like now, still be free to talk up and chalk up their conspiracy theories and not be jailed for that, though the bulk of the opposition will be cooling their heels in prison due to their own misdeeds.
The stage is set for the next narrative that will be built on majoritarian dictatorship. With the singular difference that under this dictatorship, the people will be free and fearless to have their say.