Free Speech and Press in India: The Modi Documentary Ban
Ruben Nagesparan Chandrakumar, BS
Free speech and a free press are prerequisites to any free society. Without them, information may be suppressed, and people may be persecuted for deviating from the dogma of those in political power. In India, a society that views itself as a vanguard of freedom—particularly within its region, but also as the largest democracy in the world—both free speech and a free press have been under assault. This threatens the integrity of India’s social functioning and its reputation on the international stage.
The most poignant example of the threat to free speech and press is the banning of the BBC documentary about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in 2002. At the time of the anti-Muslim riots, Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat and has been accused of condoning the violence and failing to protect Muslims. The riots were a direct response to the burning of a train in Godhra, which was blamed on Muslims, provoking instant retaliation. However, the issue of whether the fire was set by Muslims, caused by other factors, or was an accident remains unclear upon analysis by several experts.
Despite the ambiguity and the need for both free speech and a free press to dive into these issues with the seriousness required to find the truth, the government of India has banned the documentary “India: The Modi Question”, using emergency powers and laws. The swiftness of the banning is indicative of an unfortunate trend towards an environment that does not allow the complex issues of the country to be viewed from different perspectives and restricts those who disagree with the government’s narrative. There is no better indicator of a country’s shift to totalitarianism than the shutting down of free speech and a free press.
If Modi wished to set an example of how the country may remain united and to show that he did not partake in—or fail to prevent—the anti-Muslim violence and the Gujarat riots of 2002, he would have been wise to issue an in-depth statement detailing the nuances of the situation and his decision-making during the crisis. Instead, in a manner not unlike a tyrant, he has banned the documentary entirely, setting a precedent that delivers a clear message to all those in the press: free press does not belong in India.