Indian government ban on 'India: The Modi Question' reflects the country's dangerous history of censorship

Graphic by Sunny Wei ‘23.

Jahnavi Pradeep ’23

Opinion Editor 

The BBC released a two-part documentary in January 2023 titled “India: The Modi Question”, investigating Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s lengthy reign of Islamophobia within the country. Researched and created by a team of filmmakers who are of Indian origin and live in the United Kingdom, the first part of the documentary traces back to Modi’s involvement in the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat, which occurred during his time as the state’s chief minister. The second part of the documentary, released a week later on Jan. 24, builds hereon to Modi’s prime ministership and continued communal politics in governing India. Packed in among horrifying footage of the riots alongside interviews, new and historical, both parts of “India: The Modi Question” probe into the hushed-up politics of the world’s largest democracy and expose the long-simmering anti-Muslim sentiments of its current leader. 

While the BBC documentary did not air in India, it was met with backlash from the Indian state for its content and was quickly dismissed as a mere propaganda scheme against the ruling leader and his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. For instance, as per Naman Ramachandran for Variety, on Jan. 19, Indian foreign service officer and Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs Arindam Bagchi blamed the United Kingdom for “[t]he bias, the lack of objectivity, and frankly a continuing colonial mindset” that permeates what he called a “propaganda piece.” 

What is concerning is that the Indian state has not responded with critique alone, but also censorship. Along with officials publicly condemning the documentary, the Indian government proceeded to employ state emergency powers to ban the circulation of the first part of the documentary on social media platforms. While the documentary was not officially banned within the country, the government used more surreptitious methods to make the piece inaccessible to those in India. Segments of the documentary were banned from YouTube by India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in cooperation with YouTube’s parent company, Alphabet. In a New York Times article, Sameer Yasir discussed how the ministry employed the ban through “‘I.T. rules’ passed in 2021 that allow … [the ministry] to suppress virtually any information that appears online.” Twitter’s ban, while not as extensive as YouTube’s, has also restricted access to parts of the documentary within the country. 

The Indian state response to “India: The Modi Question” is harrowing. The BJP government used draconian laws to censor criticism of Modi and his political agendas, reinforcing the party’s already feared threat to Indian democracy since their ascent to power in 2014. The move to restrict the BBC documentary highlights the dangers of Indian digital surveillance in continuing to encroach on privacy of its people while limiting their access to information and their freedom of speech and press, rights enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian constitution. 

“The move to restrict the BBC documentary highlights the dangers of Indian digital surveillance in continuing to encroach on privacy of its people while limiting their access to information and their freedom of speech and press, rights enshrined in Article 19 of the Indian constitution.”

The restriction of media circulation within India is not a new development of 2023. The country, under the BJP rule, has a history of media monopolization and suppression of opposing intellect, to an extent that journalists, filmmakers and other creators’ lives are at risk. Additionally, the dangers of surveillance are evident in the BJP government’s alleged use of Pegasus software, an invasive high-level software used to tap into people’s personal devices. The software has the ability to turn on phone’s microphones and cameras to spy on their owners. A 2021 Wire article was able to identify 174 targets of the spyware’s clients, among whom were “politicians, journalists, activists, students and many more.” The Wire staff were further able to surmise that since the spyware was sold only to “vetted governments” it would then be “safe to assume that these individuals were targets or potential targets of government or military agencies.” The Indian government came under fire, especially by opposition party leaders, for potential use of the software. Whether or not they were using it themselves, a Hindustan Times article claims that experts probing the spyware’s usage within the country did not receive the cooperation of the BJP government. This position of usage or complacency toward invasive spyware, if holding any validity, is dangerous and encroaches on the privacy of citizens and residents to establish an atmosphere of state-sanctioned control over speech, information and dissent. 

Regardless of if these allegations are true, this atmosphere of media control very much exists in India. Journalists, filmmakers and other activists expressing diversity of thought outside the BJP’s are fired, arrested and even murdered. Gauri Lankesh, editor of the leftist weekly Bangalore-based paper Lankesh Patrike, is one such example. Lankesh was an avid activist for the rights of marginalized minorities of the country and an outspoken critique of right-wing politics and the ruling BJP and Modi. On Sept. 5, 2017, Lankesh was assassinated outside her house, allegedly by right-wing extremists. In 2022, her murder investigation put members of a right-wing group attacking “anti-Hindu” journalists on trial. Furthermore, during her time of death, while crowds rallied to honor her, Modi and the BJP offered no comment. Some BJP supporters even celebrated her assassination on social media platforms. 

Lankesh is not alone. In an article for the New York Times, Rollo Romig charts how the “Committee to Protect Journalists has been keeping track of 35 cases of Indian journalists murdered specifically for their work since 1992, and only two of these cases have resulted in a successful conviction” as of 2019. Reporters Without Borders notes 58 journalist deaths within India since 2003. Dissent outside traditional journalism is also under threat under Modi’s rule. Indian activist Teesta Setalvad was arrested in 2022 on the basis of trying to falsely smear Modi by investigating the same Gujarat riots covered by “India: The Modi Question.” Furthermore, an article for The Hindu chronicles how the Human Rights Watch Report of 2023 documented that “Indian authorities had ‘intensified and broadened’ their crackdown on activist groups and the media through 2022.” The threat to dissent has created an atmosphere wherein opposing intellect, if created, has no place. Documentary filmmaker Anand Patwardhan’s work covers the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, however, he fears officially screening his work in the country. In 2020, Patwardhan spoke to the New York Times about his film “Reason,” covering the death of Indian activists, and how the government banned its screening in Kerala. Students were also arrested for trying to screen another of Patwardhan’s movies, “In the Name of God,” and classrooms were stormed by men who, the article explains, “shouted slogans and kept saying that the film offended their Hindu sentiments.” 

It then becomes obvious that those within the country dissenting against the BJP and Narendra Modi live in a country that poses an immense threat to both their works and lives. This directly conflicts with freedom of speech as per article 19 of the Indian constitution, whose meaning has been manipulated by the current Indian government. The only place where diverse thoughts and opinions may find a platform to challenge the country is from outside it. Yet, the Indian state still finds ways to censor these works and dismiss them under different pretexts. For example, in 2016, the BBC aired a documentary titled India’s Daughter that chronicled the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case that took place in New Delhi. As per the BBC, the film’s set screening on NDTV was “outlawed by the Indian authorities on the grounds of ‘objectionable content,’” and filmmaker Leslee Udwin was accused of disrespecting Indian women as well as breaking prison contracts to gain interviews with the guilty. 

There is no safe space for dissent against the Indian government or any of their politics. Those in India are left without access to anything but what the government wants them to engage with. The 2023 BBC documentary becomes yet another example, dismissed by the Indian government as the product of a colonial mindset. The dismissal removes the critical understanding of how Indians have no safety in creating media within the country, and must turn outward to find any place from where they can offer perspectives without fear of death. And yet, even from outside, their thoughts are successfully silenced by the Indian government. 

““India: The Modi Question” is a chance for audiences to hold the BJP government responsible for Hindu nationalism and violation of the secular vision of India through Modi’s direct involvement in communal riots targeting Muslims.”

“India: The Modi Question” was created by a production team of Indian filmmakers who conducted in-depth research on the topic before the BBC aired the docu-series on their channel. To recap, the documentary exposes that Modi was directly responsible for the anti-Muslim Gujarat riots of 2002, which took place against the backdrop of the Ayodhya Hindu-Muslim tension. The Sabarmati Express, filled with Hindus traveling from Ayodhya, was supposedly stopped in a Muslim-majority region and attacked and torched by Muslims, successfully killing 58 passengers. In retaliation, Hindus attacked different Muslim neighborhoods across the state, killing over 1000, demolishing religious sites and displacing families into refugee camps. The BBC documentary follows Modi’s involvement in the state-sanctioned retaliations against Muslims after the incident concerning the Sabarmati Express. Modi has long been faced with criticism for his complacency as chief minister during the riots, but the documentary sheds new light by holding him directly responsible for the event. It verbalizes a somewhat known Islamaphobic history for audiences across India and the globe, threatening Modi’s self-perceived reputation as the changemaker of India. 

Its contents cannot simply be discarded as propaganda for its audiences. The documentary follows in-depth interviews with party leaders, journalists, riot victims, activists and others with direct connections to the event, enabling honest storytelling. Banning it dismisses the positionality of its creators and their desire to share a story important to them with audiences who might find it equally important to themselves. It reflects the country’s long-standing intolerance toward critique and their abuse of power to do away with it. This then also does injustice to those within India who desire to engage with materials outside the BJP perspective. Indian citizens and residents must have the right to access information to help inform, educate and allow them to hold power systems in check. “India: The Modi Question” is a chance for audiences to hold the BJP government responsible for Hindu nationalism and  violation of the secular vision of India through Modi’s direct involvement in communal riots targeting Muslims. 

Along with the sly methods to ban the documentary on social media platforms and discredit the work, the state has also attacked individuals attempting to find ways around the ban to access and watch the film. Students across the country attempted to watch the documentary despite the ban, using a VPN on their phones and personal devices. They also attempted screenings on their college campuses. However, their attempts have been thwarted by government protest. For example, student activists at Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi were detained by the police and screenings were restricted by the university itself. The case has been similar at Jawaharlal Nehru University. In another Delhi university, the power supply was cut off before screening. In addition to being similar to the suppression of Patwardhan’s movies, this further alienates those within India from beginning to form any vision and educate themselves on any opinion that differs from the narrow nationalistic vision of the government.

The reception of “India: The Modi Question” reflects how journalism, filmmaking and other forms of media and activism continue to face challenges within the Indian state. While it is getting increasingly difficult for the government to manage ways to censor media within the country in our ever-growing digitally connected world, there is still a dangerous surveillance campaign prying into people’s lives. Modi’s censorship of the BBC documentary in India is an example of the state still attempting to control the media consumption of its people. It emphasizes the dangers of creating or engaging with opposing intellects in India by exposing the threat it poses to careers and lives of activists of different kinds. India is currently under a threat to its democracy, and we must continue to push and challenge the state in ways that we can, while finding the tricky balance of protecting the lives of those who are brave enough to speak up. The documentary is one step toward a continued effort to find ways to confront the government and champion the torchbearers of truth that have suffered at the hands of the state. 

Due to Environmental and Ethical Concerns, Firecrackers Should No Longer Be Used for Diwali Celebrations

By Jahnavi Pradeep ’23 

Staff Writer

 As November comes around annually, I prepare myself for a time of celebration and festivity. In the time of this pandemic, Diwali is a light of hope, an opportunity to get out of the drudgery of online classes and celebrate. However, as I partake in this celebration, there is a lingering thought in the corner of my mind asking me if I am celebrating with awareness. As the holiday season engulfs us, we must rethink the ways in which we celebrate and ensure that we are doing so with a sense of sustainability and responsibility to health and the environment. 

Traditionally, Diwali is celebrated by lighting “diyas” or oil lamps. However, since around the 1940s, the rampant usage of fireworks to mark the occasion has made its way into the festival. 

While growing up, my grandfather would buy sacks of fireworks, called firecrackers or just "crackers" in India, for all of us to celebrate, and Diwali would be filled with the noise and smoke of firecrackers burning all over the city. However, today, caught amid the climate change crisis, we must pause to reconsider these crackers’ place in Diwali celebrations. Crackers are pollutants, harmful to both our health and the environment, and to purchase them is to bolster an industry of fireworks factories that employ child labor. 

Diwali fireworks have led to a 30-40 percent increase in recorded breathing problems. The fireworks’ chemicals contain “a mixture of sulfur-coal compounds, traces of heavy metals, and other toxic chemicals or gases.” All of these lead to breathing problems, and bursting the crackers in such a rampant manner puts many people, especially the elderly and vulnerable, at risk. 

Additionally, amid a pandemic, we must realize how bursting crackers demonstrates our privilege and negligence toward those who are more at risk for health issues. Along with harmful smoke, the crackers also produce noise pollution, detrimental to both people and animals. This pollution leads to a sense of anxiety, sleep disturbance and, according to The Indian Express, “asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, allergic rhinitis, lower respiratory tract infections, and lung cancers.” 

In light of the pandemic, some state governments in India passed a ban on the usage of crackers for Diwali. However, while the government called for the ban, it was not entirely carried out. According to The Hindu, “bursting of firecrackers could be heard across Delhi and its neighbouring areas on Diwali night even though a ban was imposed on its sale and use in the national capital region in view of rising air pollution and COVID-19 pandemic.” Hindu groups, including many Bharatiya Janata Party members, argued that the bursting of firecrackers was an essential part of the festival and should not be banned. 

However, caught in the middle of a pandemic and facing global warming, we must rethink how we can do justice to both festivities as well as environmental consciousness. We must work to celebrate festivals like Diwali with these dangers in mind. Given that fireworks are only a recent addition, perhaps we can return to lighting diyas as the main attraction. We can draw rangolis, make sweets and, in a safe manner, come together with friends and family, preserving the essence of the festival. After all, Diwali is the celebration of good over evil, and we must not forget that even in the excitement of the celebration. 

Additionally, while evaluating if the Diwali celebration is staying true to its intent, we must be aware of the horrors of the firecracker industry bolstered on this day. The firecracker industry in India carries a history of child labor. Young children were used for rolling fireworks and stuffing explosives into them because they had tiny hands and fingers that would ensure precision. Working in unsafe conditions, the children’s jobs expose them to harsh chemicals, injuries and lifelong health issues. While there has been a decline in child labor in the industry, we cannot neglect its presence and history. When we burst these crackers in celebration, we are also bolstering these young children’s trauma and suffering. This act of celebration is definitely not in line with the intent to celebrate Diwali and honor the triumph of good over evil. 

Right now, we have  an opportunity to reevaluate the ways we celebrate Diwali and other festivals, keeping in mind an awareness of the times we are in and the changes that we and the environment are going through. It is an opportunity for us to review some of our practices while staying true to the festivals and their intent. 

Indian Media Focus on Drug Scandals Obscures the Country’s Crises

By Jahnavi Pradeep ’23

Staff Writer 

Bollywood film and its supporting industries have long been a source of fascination and devotion for Indian audiences, permeating our lifestyles and making us experts on its movies and stars. However, this obsession has pervasively occupied media and government focus in recent times, making it a playground for controversy and moral debates. This has strengthened misogynistic discourses within the country and replaced media spaces meant for more critical national information. 

The media focus on the Bollywood industry began with the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput in mid-June. The resulting investigation has heavily focused on his girlfriend, Rhea Chakraborty, who was recently arrested on charges of supplying him marijuana. The media coverage has repeatedly slandered her and spread several conspiracy theories. Had she intentionally made him overdose? Was she trying to steal his money? Even leading news platforms such as Republic TV — a right-leaning prominent Indian news channel — painted her in a negative light, insinuating that she was a gold digger who had murdered her boyfriend. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? 

The case also led to a separate drug probe in which other Bollywood stars were questioned for their involvement with marijuana. Interestingly, all of the accused so far have been female actors. 

This issue illuminates moral debates about women in India. There have been long-standing stereotypes against women in the film industry, regarding them as morally loose since they perform and showcase their bodies on screen. Adding in drug use only furthers the patriarchal practice of policing female bodies. Associating women’s usage of recreational drugs with the death of a man demonstrates the perceived danger of such behavior and results in criminal allegations against women. 

Recently, a relative of mine mentioned how there will only be a change in drug usage and other habits in the common people when more prominent names are punished. Surely, if drug usage in everyday people is a problem, there is a better and more systematic approach to this, one that does not involve a smear campaign against solely female celebrities. Additionally, if we are debating recreational drug usage (mainly marijuana), why are only women being pulled into it? It is hard to believe that no men use marijuana. 

Media outlets have become saturated with accused actresses’ names flashing across the headlines of different papers, tablet screens and ordinary conversations. In this process, other news, such as that regarding the pandemic, has been pushed to the sidelines. The government recently claimed it had no data on the deaths of health care workers and migrant workers. This reflects the irresponsibility of the government to support its biggest sources of support during this time. Tracking the numbers of deaths is the least the government can do to pay respect to these workers. If headlines and government agencies can find so much information relating to one superstar’s death, why can’t they document the deaths of thousands of heroes? 

The Indian government has consistently centered itself around ideologies. Is this another tactic for the government to shy away from their responsibilities and preoccupy their citizens with more sensationalized headlines? Silence is the only thing honoring these workers’ deaths. 

Mahua Moitra ’98, a member of India’s parliament and a Mount Holyoke alum, spoke to these events via Twitter. “Turning SSR into Bihar vs Maha & now a new Bollywood drama to focus attention from -23.9 percent GDP growth, Centre’s default on state’s GST dues, China border fiasco & host of other issues. No one plays the distraction game better than ModiShah!” one Tweet read. 

Another of Moitra’s tweets stated, “Once the ModiMedia stops obsessing over Bollywood dramas maybe they’ll ask the @BJP government questions about what really matters.” 

The other day, when I told my friend about my article, she laughed and told me to keep myself and my social media apps safe from the government. Have they achieved their goal? To use controversies to incite fear in their citizens and use this as their ruling weapon over open and well-informed media and structural change? 

Media in India has become a platform for patriarchal discussions on morality, drugs and Bollywood, instead of grounds for more meaningful conversations such as the pandemic and the government’s response to it. Is the Indian media hiding its reality behind the Bollywood industry’s controversies and feeding this to the cinephilic commoner instead of important news on government policies and responsibilities?