‘Propaganda’: MEA rejects BBC documentary on Modi

I am not sure I agree at all with the characterisation that the honourable gentleman has put forward

NEW DELHI: India on Thursday dismissed a BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role during the 2002 Gujarat riots as “propaganda”, with the external affairs ministry saying the film reflected bias and a colonial mindset.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, too, said in the country’s parliament that he “doesn’t agree with the characterisation” of his Indian counterpart in the series. The documentary, India: The Modi Question, has generated controversy since the first part of the series aired in UK on January 17. BBC described the two-part documentary as a look at the “troubled relationship” between the Indian government and the Muslim minority following Modi’s re-election in 2019.

Responding to a question about the documentary at the weekly media briefing, external affairs ministry spokesperson Arindam

Bagchi noted the film has not been screened in India and is not legally available on social media or streaming platforms. He also questioned the timing of the film’s release and the “agenda” behind it.

“I am only going to comment in context of what I have heard about it and what my colleagues have seen. Let me just make it very clear that we think this is a propaganda piece designed to push a particular discredited narrative,” Bagchi said.

“The bias, the lack of objectivity and frankly, a continuing colonial mindset is blatantly visible. If anything, this film or documentary is a reflection on the agency

RISHI SUNAK,

and individuals that are peddling this narrative again.” Bagchi added: “It makes us wonder about the purpose of this exercise and the agenda behind it and we do not wish to dignify such efforts.”

In UK’s House of Commons, when asked about the documentary by Pakistan-origin MP Imran Hussain, Sunak said: “The UK government’s position on this has been clear and hasn’t changed. Of course, we don’t tolerate persecution where it appears anywhere but I am not sure I agree at all with the characterisation that the honourable gentleman has put forward to.”