Before the advent of the satellite television revolution (private TV channels) in India, people were dependent on the state-owned media establishments like the All India Radio (AIR) or Doordarshan (DD) to deliver news. Obviously, since they were controlled by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, they were allowed to shell out only that news which was palatable to those in power. So, those who had a nose for real news would tune into BBC radio (English, Hindi and Urdu).
After 2014, when mainstream TV channels turned godi (lapdog) media, social media came to the rescue and people logged into YouTube news channels and alternative-media news portals to check the unofficial version of politics and major events. Even today, there is a marked difference between how foreign media covers India and the way in which mainstream Indian news organisations look at major events rocking the country’s political landscape. The recent anti-CEC protests news coverage is a textbook case study about this assertion.
International Media: Rights and Accountability
Reuters headlined its report, “India detains thousands, locks down Delhi to foil election chief protest”. It reported more than 2,000 detentions, suspended mobile internet and closed metro stations. Reuters described the protests as a major test for the government.
The New York Times used “Indian Police Round Up Protest Leaders and Lock Down Delhi” and described the demonstrations as “the biggest challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his 12 years in office.” Reuters also reported the Indian mission to the UN calling international concerns “an unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of India.”The mission defended restrictions as “reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order.”
Reporters Without Borders stated: “Covering events of public interest is not a crime. It is their job.” The Guardian’s editorial headline, “He cannot arrest his way out of a democratic crisis”, argued that “Demonstrators’ demands for electoral fairness deserve answers, not arrests and intimidation.” The BBC reported police and paramilitary personnel “stationed behind barricades and ropes, preventing people from entering the protest site,” alongside road closures and drones.
DW called the operation ‘extraordinary’ and said “roads across India’s capital were sealed, police checkpoints established and public transport heavily disrupted.” Al Jazeera published an opinion piece titled “Modi is in trouble,” arguing that the protests had “exposed India’s hollowed-out democracy.” The article also said: “Under Modi’s watch, problems have accumulated like barnacles on the side of the ship.” These were editorial judgments, not neutral news findings.
NPR’s headline, “Indian Police Round Up Protest Leaders and Lock Down Delhi,” described a “sweeping security crackdown across New Delhi” as young people challenged a voter-list revision. The Financial Times reported “Police arrest leader of India’s ‘Cockroach’ movement as protesters take to streets” and “India’s ‘Cockroach’ movement plans more protests after release of leaders.”
CNN described the movement’s target as “the 62-year-old chief of the Election Commission that holds the keys to India’s democracy.” The Associated Press described the episode as “India cracks down on youth protests as anger grows against Modi and election chief.” It also reported that demonstrators accused the revision of “disenfranchising over 130 million eligible voters.” The focus extended beyond turnout to the cause and state response.
Indian Television: ‘Flop Show’ and ‘Anarchy’
Scroll did a media analysis on how TV channels covered the protests as ‘anarchy’ and ignored the detentions of journalists. It reported that Republic TV displayed “CJP Flop Show” during the 10 October protest. ABP News asked: “Could not get support… Has this CJP demonstration failed?” Another banner declared: “Movement Vs Anarchy… Anything goes in the name of protests!” NDTV India’s on-screen graphics listed “20,000 personnel deployed,” “35 temporary jails” and “seven-layer barricading.”
Another graphic labelled the detainees as “600+ criminals in custody.” Scroll questioned the use of ‘criminals’ without explaining whether those detained had criminal antecedents. Detention is not the same as conviction. India Today used the headline “CEC Gyanesh Kumar security increased amid SIR protests” and later reported “Rahul Gandhi leads march to Supreme Court against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.” Times Now Navbharat’s debate archive featured these titles, translated from Hindi: “CJP protest: A flop show in Delhi – what next?” and “Metro and trains shut: is this the opposition’s final battle over the CEC”.
The Times of India reported police defending the denial of permission on the grounds that earlier demonstrations had caused disruption. The police said the earlier protest showed organisers’ “inability to manage their supporters.” Police said the organisers had “failed to comply with legal directions and their own written assurances.”
RSS mouthpiece, The Organiser described the gathering as an “unauthorised protest” and headlined its report “CJP leaders detained ahead of unauthorised protest.” Another headline said the Mumbai event had “low turnout, clueless crowd, angry residents and strong counter-protest.” Another right-wing portal, OpIndia framed a related report with the question: “How Al Jazeera misleads about Modi govt, Gyanesh Kumar, SIR.”
Reporting with Freedom Won’t be Easy
However, not all was doom and gloom if one moved away from the narrative of the established, pro-government mainstream channels and portals. Independent journalists like Ravish Kumar, Ajith Anjum, Saurabh Shukla, Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Mohammed Irfan (the Wire), Sohit Mishra, DB Live and thousands of social media news portals ensured that we get the real story behind the protests.
The core problem of media coverage of any anti-establishment news in India was best described by Rajdeep Sardesai at the Press Club of India to condemn the crackdown on the media during the anti-CEC protests. He said, “First, none of this should surprise anyone. It is a combination of what I call the Gujaratification and the Kashmirisation of the media. If you want to see what has been happening in Gujarat over a long period, Section 144 is routinely extended every six months. Since the Patidar agitation, particularly in 2015, journalists there have faced difficulties in reporting what they see.
“In fact, Delhi is still privileged to have a lot of legacy media and a certain degree of media plurality, which does not exist in Gujarat at the moment. Kashmir is even worse. What has happened is that the patterns we have witnessed over the years in Gujarat and Kashmir have now reached Delhi’s doorstep. Frankly, this Delhi model has spread across the country. You only have to look at how the police now handle protests in different parts of the country and the kind of relationship they have with the media.”