When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


Modi's Fight Against "Fake News" Looks A Whole Lot Like Censorship

The Modi government’s attempts to censor the media and intimidate independent journalism pose a grave danger to Indian democracy.

Photo of a woman holding a remote while watching Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on TV

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on TV

The Wire Editorial

A distinct chill has set in this January.

The first month of the New Year has spelt trouble for anybody interested in India’s future as a democracy – where freedom of expression ought to be guaranteed. Not to speak of our newly minted status as the "mother of democracy."

There are things happening, which must be seen together to understand the reality: Censorship is here.

First, there was a "draft amendment" pushed into the Ministry of Information and Technology’s infamous IT Rules, 2021, last week, stating, in effect, that any news which the Union government’s official mouthpiece, the Press Information Bureau (PIB) regards as "fake," will have to be taken down. Moreover, the amendment gives this power not just to the PIB, but all Union government ministries and departments.

Who has the last word?

Since this privilege has been given only to the Union government, this means, all state governments can be overridden by the PIB fact-check team! If allowed to go unchallenged, it would amount to agreeing that only PIB fact-checkers can do news. The rest of us can pack shop.

A smart government should welcome questions, criticism and feedback.

So why should the PIB not have the last word? Plenty of decent fact-checking has exposed its fact-check team as shoddy, irrational and often, plainly wrong. But we believe at The Wire, that the competence of the PIB is not the point. Even if they were the Encyclopaedia Indica, they cannot be the sole repositories of the truth. This is because their job is to advance the government’s point of view. The job of the media is to get hold of the facts, ask questions of authority and seek accountability. The mouthpiece of the entity that the media must scrutinize cannot start decreeing what the sole truth is.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government enjoys significant popular support. Other governments in the past have, too. Indira Gandhi in 1971 and Rajiv Gandhi in 1984 come to mind. But history tells us the independence of the media matters more when unbridled executive power runs strong. Media matters because "popular" governments often think they are a government in perpetuity. Those myths and delusions need to be corrected. Only questions can do that and keep the government on its toes. A smart government should welcome questions, criticism and feedback. But governments don’t get that until it is too late.

Modi is the first Indian prime minister to never have addressed a press conference.

Photo of the skyline in Ahmedabad during the 2002 Gujarat riots, with smoke from explosions

Ahmedabad during the 2002 Gujarat riots

Wikimedia Commons

BBC in the battle

This regime has gone ahead and jailed journalists, especially in Kashmir, for the precise act of reporting and filed cases against reporters elsewhere. India is among the 30 worst countries of 180 in the world in the World Press Freedom Index of 2022. It is recognized as the Internet Shutdown capital of the world since 2015. In this context, such choke-hold amendments must be recognized for what they are.

It is not as if just views are sought to be edited by an all-controlling regime. India has been unable to conduct the Census 2021, denying us of a vital data set only a government can generate. Before 2019, the government held back private consumption expenditure data as it was unflattering. Unemployment is not recorded properly and data was withheld till elections were over in 2019. COVID-19 death undercounts were shown up by WHO’s figures and global hunger, malnutrition recorded by global agencies are denied by the government.

In such a situation, a free media is more necessary than ever, to keep the population informed. The quality of the information and perspectives that the people get ultimately determine the quality of democracy they live in. Tom-tomming a routine rotational presidency of the G-20 as an award or crown will not strengthen India, but allowing information to flow freely and safely through its length and breadth will.

The censorship of the BBC documentary on the Gujarat violence of 2002, despite giving ample airtime to the then-chief minister of the state and to pro-government analysts is unprecedented in recent times. That it has also happened under the same IT Rules shows how cynically "amendments" can be deployed to protect the image of Narendra Modi.

A threat to more than journalism

There has been other dark news in January too: A CBI court has decreed that journalists are not protected under any law from not wanting to reveal their source.

All these things are connected. The environment is being shaped by the impunity that the Centre displays in its desire to “handle the Media.”

Any attack on independent journalism will come to haunt all Indians next.

These were Modi’s words in the BBC documentary pulled off YouTube and Twitter. This was the one regret he said he had over the Gujarat violence 21 years ago, of being unable to “handle the media.” The lesson he said he learned then is coming to haunt India now. The national media used to preen about the 1975 Emergency being an inoculation against future drives to control the free press. That swag is beginning to sag.

As the noose around independent truth-seeking tightens, it is imperative that everyone interested in the survival of India’s democracy speaks up. It is not a matter for journalists alone. Any attack on independent journalism will come to haunt all Indians next. German theologian Pastor Martin Niemöller comes to mind. If government impunity is allowed to carry on unchecked, there would be no one left to come to the aid of India’s democracy.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


What's Spoiling The Kids: The Big Tech v. Bad Parenting Debate

Without an extended family network, modern parents have sought to raise happy kids in a "hostile" world. It's a tall order, when youngsters absorb the fears (and devices) around them like a sponge.

Image of a kid wearing a blue striped sweater, using an ipad.

Children exposed to technology at a very young age are prominent today.

Julián de Zubiría Samper


BOGOTÁ — A 2021 report from the United States (the Youth Risk Behavior Survey) found that 42% of the country's high-school students persistently felt sad and 22% had thought about suicide. In other words, almost half of the country's young people are living in despair and a fifth of them have thought about killing themselves.

Such chilling figures are unprecedented in history. Many have suggested that this might be the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but sadly, we can see depression has deeper causes, and the pandemic merely illustrated its complexity.

I have written before on possible links between severe depression and the time young people spend on social media. But this is just one aspect of the problem. Today, young people suffer frequent and intense emotional crises, and not just for all the hours spent staring at a screen. Another, possibly more important cause may lie in changes to the family composition and authority patterns at home.

Firstly: Families today have fewer members, who communicate less among themselves.

Young people marry at a later age, have fewer children and many opt for personal projects and pets instead of having children. Families are more diverse and flexible. In many countries, the number of children per woman is close to or less than one (Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong among others).

In Colombia, women have on average 1.9 children, compared to 7.6 in 1970. Worldwide, women aged 15 to 49 years have on average 2.4 children, or half the average figure for 1970. The changes are much more pronounced in cities and among middle and upper-income groups.

Of further concern today is the decline in communication time at home, notably between parents and children. This is difficult to quantify, but reasons may include fewer household members, pervasive use of screens, mothers going to work, microwave ovens that have eliminated family cooking and meals and, thanks to new technologies, an increase in time spent on work, even at home. Our society is addicted to work and devotes little time to minors.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest