India’s BBC Raid Is Just Its Latest Attack on Press

The timing isn’t subtle either: three weeks ago, the British channel aired a documentary drawing attention to Modi’s alleged role in deadly sectarian riots that swept his home state of Gujarat in 2002. Modi is notoriously thin-skinned on this front: His government banned the documentary and tried to block clips on social media platforms as well as screenings at universities.

Government spokesmen and leaders of Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have lashed out at the BBC, accusing it of maintaining a “colonial mindset”. (The broadcaster has defended the documentary as “rigorously researched to the highest editorial standards”. The documentary cites a UK Foreign Office report raising questions about Modi’s actions during the riots, which claimed more than 1,000 lives, mostly Muslims.)

The tax crackdown was inevitably cheered by the BJP’s vast army of trolls, fueling attacks on Modi’s critics and political rivals. The New York Times editorial board had warned just a day earlier that the government’s attempts to quash the film were another sign that India’s “proud tradition of a free press” was under threat and undermining its democracy. The raid will undoubtedly prompt more such alarms from abroad.

But this train left the station long ago. Press freedom in India has been under attack since the Modi era began in 2014. Until recently, the domestic media – particularly the local language press – were the prime targets of government intolerance and ruling party anger.

I got some glimpses of how this works when I was editor of the Hindustan Times, the leading English-language newspaper in New Delhi. After just two years in power, the Modi government was already displaying an intolerance to criticism I recognized from my previous experiences as a foreign correspondent in Middle Eastern dictatorships. Stories deemed embarrassing to the government or ruling party routinely led to insulting phone calls from ministers and bureaucrats: threats ranged from withholding reports and pursuing criminal charges, to investigations into my personal finances and those of my family.

And yes, there were dire warnings of tax raids.

As an American citizen, I enjoyed a level of protection not afforded to other editors. And the pressure on English-language newspapers in big cities was nothing compared to what my colleagues in the small-town and popular press had to endure.

Things have only gotten worse in the years since I left Delhi. Intimidated into complying with official dictates, many Indian media merely hailed Modi’s abuse of power. Just weeks ago, the most prominent of a dwindling category of independent TV networks was taken over by Gautam Adani, the controversial billionaire and longtime Modi admirer.

More than any action against prominent foreign media, this campaign of coercion and subversion has jeopardized what Indians proudly call “the world’s greatest democracy.” It is no coincidence that Freedom House has only ranked India as “Partially Free” for the last two years; I’d be very surprised if the latest report, due next month, doesn’t extend the series.

But Modi has paid no price for the democratic retreat that marks his rule. Neither India’s economy nor its standing in the free world has suffered.

India’s course is similar to that of Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has used the same combination of economic pressure and intimidation to achieve near-total media domination. Media companies in both countries are similarly vulnerable. Their administrations are able to use the leverage that comes from the government being a major advertiser to silence criticism. Because media companies are often part of large family-owned corporations, owners are particularly vulnerable to bullying and extortion. Independent outlets are bought up and muzzled by businessmen vying for official favors.

In both countries, governments use tax crackdowns and frivolous lawsuits to harass. The intimidation of journalists by troll armies is routine. And supporters of the ruling party do not stand above physical violence, even in the face of the most stubborn critics.

India and Turkey have something else in common: Western leniency has instilled a sense of impunity in their leaders. Erdoğan, who has received little criticism for his bullying in the Turkish media, has been encouraged to target foreign outlets. The BBC raid suggests Modi is making the same leap – and with the same confidence that he needn’t expect a backlash from abroad.

The British government, keen to strengthen trade ties with India, offered only a pro forma defense of the BBC’s independence, and even this was undermined by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who told Parliament he was “with the Characterization” of Modi disagrees with Foreign Office report.

The Biden administration appears to have taken the same stance of see-nothing, hear-nothing. Responding to a question about the controversy with the mildest of bromides, State Department spokesman Ned Price said, “We support the importance of a free press around the world.” He even tempered this indirect criticism with a sermon on “the shared values ​​that… embody the United States and India as two thriving, vibrant democracies.”

The flourishing and vibrant India can be. However, its democracy is neither.

More from the Bloomberg Opinion:

• India’s growing population is an economic virtue: Matthew Winkler

• India may warm to free trade, but not all: Mihir Sharma

• India risks missing its big G-20 moment: Pankaj Mishra

This column does not necessarily represent the opinion of the editors or of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Bobby Ghosh is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering foreign policy. Previously, he was Editor-in-Chief at Hindustan Times, Managing Editor at Quartz and International Editor at Time.

For more stories like this, visit bloomberg.com/opinion