BBC documentary on Modi: Is it against India?

BBC documentary, The Modi Question, reinforced the perception that Prime Minister Modi has not been kind towards Muslims, the largest minority in India. Though the government and the ruling BJP desperately tried to paint the broadcast as a renewed effort to tarnish the image of the Prime Minister, the documentary succeeded in telling the story of the hostility of the RSS and the BJP toward Muslims under the leadership of Narendra Modi. It has also dented the image of India as a secular country. The BJP's effort has been directed towards building a narrative that a conspiracy is at work to stop India's march towards becoming a world power. However, the Sangh Parivar appears to have had little success in this regard. The apparent implication of the documentary is the lowering of India's standing as the biggest democracy in the world.

We can only wonder about the government's response. Is it logical to expect the government to act differently and refrain from showing anger? We can only appreciate the fact that the Foreign Ministry was restrained in his expression: "This is a propaganda piece designed to push a particular discredited narrative. The bias, the lack of objectivity, and a continuing colonial mindset are blatantly visible."

But the government could not continue with it. It ordered Twitter and other social media platforms to block the documentary. The government invoked the IT Rules of 2021, which allow the government to order the blocking of such broadcasts in cases of emergency to maintain public order and relations with foreign countries. The government made a case for undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India. The government has forwarded the logic that the documentary undermines the authority of the Supreme Court of India, the highest court in the land, by defying its verdict. The verdict exonerated the Gujarat government and Modi, then the Chief Minister of the state, in the Gujarat riots case.

Undoubtedly, the government's argument is weak. It clearly demonstrates the inability of the government to counter the facts that have been presented in the documentary. The BBC claims that the documentary series examines the tensions between India's Hindu majority and Muslim minority and explores the politics of Modi in relation to those tensions. It also asserts that the broadcaster has done rigorous research for the documentary.

A look at the content of the documentary only reveals that the BBC's claim is not wrong. The broadcaster has certainly maintained the highest standards of journalism and exhibited no deficiency. There is no attempt to exaggerate incidents or colour them. The documentary accommodated enough Hindutva voices and took the help of experts to examine the topic.

The use of an unpublished report of the British Foreign Office in the documentary is really embarrassing to the government. The report raises questions about Modi's actions during the post-Godhra riots, which killed more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. The BBC may not accept that it has yielded to the pressures, but its decision to limit the broadcast to the British audience only proves it. The clarification by the BBC that none of its staff in India was involved in the production of the documentary clearly indicates the pressure.

The conspiracy angle does not have many takers. The attempt to associate the BBC's documentary with the "colonial mindset" also does not make any sense. Congress leader and staunch anti-colonialist Shashi Tharoor has rightly rejected the government's assertion and said that Indian sovereignty is not that fragile to be threatened by a documentary. He also sees no threat to India's security. He describes censorship as unwarranted. The government's move encouraged opposition leaders, including Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, to defy the censorship by tweeting the link to the BBC documentary.

It is significant that students across the country are protesting against censorship and organizing public shows to broadcast the documentary. When administrations in central universities, including the JNU, try to disrupt these shows, it only reinforces the perception that India's democracy is in deep crisis. Does it make any sense to bar the public from viewing the documentary? If the government finds objections to the factual aspects of the content, it should contradict them.

Many have questioned the timing of the broadcast. They argue that after two decades of the Gujarat riots, Hindus and Muslims have reconciled, and the broadcast would refresh the wound. The argument seems weak. The fact is that the minority has helplessly accepted the situation. However, another argument that the broadcast ahead of the coming elections in states and the general elections in 2024 may benefit Prime Minister Modi and the BJP in polarizing votes is not entirely baseless. It cannot be denied that the broadcast may add to polarization.

At the same time, it is also true that the RSS needs no external help to sustain its anti-minority campaigns. Recent assertions of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat are an example of it, in which he accuses Muslims of suffering from a superiority complex and puts conditions on the community if it wants to live in peace. In this context, we can recall Home Minister Amit Shah's election speech, in which he invoked the Gujarat riots and justified the state's actions against Muslims. We just see no indication of the BJP's abandoning its politics of communalism.

We should view the documentary as an eye-opener that has pointed out inadequacies in our democracy. The documentary traces the deterioration of minorities' conditions to the Gujarat Riots. It covers the period from 2014 to date as well. In a way, it addresses the minority question in contemporary India and inspires us to examine the state of our democracy. The documentary has also exposed Indian media, which hardly bothered to visit victims of CAA, mob- lynching, and the Delhi riots.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)