‘We are seeing a culture of intolerance’

Interview with Vinod Jose, executive editor of “The Caravan”.

IN the last week of January, there were grievous attacks on the freedom of the press, with sedition charges being slapped on several journalists. On February 1, the Twitter handle of The Caravan was withheld. Vinod Jose, the publication’s executive editor, told Frontline about the harassment his team had been subjected to. He advocated new business models to minimise dependence on government as well as corporates for revenues. Excerpts from the interview:

Why do you think Twitter withheld the handle of “The Caravan” following a directive to this effect from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology?

I have no idea. Unfortunately, there is no transparency in information coming from either the government or Twitter as to why this was done. Whatever we know is from media reports.

What could have been the immediate trigger?

The decision was taken on February 1, three days after 10 sedition cases were filed against members of The Caravan family in five States [four of which are ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party]. The complainants had problems with The Caravan’s coverage of the farmers’ protests. But we had given coverage to both eyewitness accounts and the police version of the events. I don’t understand why the complainants have a problem if The Caravan fairly reports both sides. The profession of journalism will cease to exist if we do not give voice to eyewitnesses who are speaking contrary to what the government may want to be published.

How do you view the recent spate of first information reports (FIRS) and arrests of mediapersons?

are that even as early as the evening of January 26, sizeable sections of the government and the Sangh Parivar had come to the conclusion that the “nationalism versus sedition narrative” had stuck solidly against the agitation. The decision to go all out against those who supported the farmers’ agitation was taken apparently on the basis of this. That was how journalists such as Mandeep Punia and Dharmendra Singh were arrested and tortured by the police and sedition charges were slapped against senior media personalities Rajdeep Sardesai, Mrinal Pande, Zafar Agha, Paresh Nath and Vinod K. Jose and Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor. The decision to clear the Ghazipur agitation venue on the Delhi border on the night of January 28 was also made on the premise that the farmers’ unions were on the

We are seeing a culture of intolerance. The people in power can be seen restraining journalists from doing their job freely. It can be done in multiple ways. It can be done through advertising, by influencing publishers or individual journalists. When one resists such attempts and does fair journalism, there is targeting. Nothing else explains why India’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index, which was 101 a decade ago, is now 142.

Is the crackdown on a free press and on civil society members an attribute of successive governments or specific to the current dispensation?

Under the current government, it is a matter of record how sedition cases have gone up. A number of human rights advocates, activists and intellectuals are in jail in multiple cases. Laws are passed without proper discussion or consensus, thereby triggering protests, first with the CAA [Citizenship (Amendment) Act] and now the farmers’ protests. Far too quickly, a democratic polity is being changed into an authoritarian system.

“The Caravan” has been a critical voice against the government and its policies on a range of subjects. Have you or anybody else in your organisation experienced any form of coercion or threat from any individual or party over the publication of such reports and stories?

There are probably a few instances of people in position of power filing cases against The Caravan. When we published a story on the National Security Adviser Ajit Doval’s son running a company in a tax haven in the Caribbean islands, Doval’s son filed a defamation suit against The Caravan. We were point

back foot on account of the sedition narrative around the Republic Day violence.

However, the manner in which the farmer leader Rakesh Tikait took on the Uttar Pradesh police who were deployed massively to vacate the Ghazipur venue caused a setback to this operation. Seeing a conspiracy behind the Republic Day violence, he accused the BJP’S political leadership, including Prime Minister Modi, of creating a volatile situation. His impassioned, tearful statement that the Ghazipur venue would be vacated only if the police trampled on him went viral in seconds. This in turn resulted in a huge public response, leading to a mammoth rally attended by thousands of farmers and youth on the next day.

The Modi government hit back by cutting off services

ing out duplicity of standards in the Doval family, where the father had written extensively against tax haven companies while his son had one. Essar filed a case against us in Gujarat, while Reliance sent multiple notices. Four of our journalists were attacked while on the ground reporting on the Delhi violence of 2020. Two male reporters were physically attacked and a woman journalist was molested by a mob.

In October 2020, one of our journalists was assaulted in police custody. He was covering a protest after the family member of a lower caste house help committed suicide after alleged sexual harassment. The aggrieved family wanted an FIR to be registered. The Caravan journalist was outside the Model Town Police Station; he was taken inside the police station and beaten up.

Are these incidents sporadic or is there a larger pattern of coercion directed against “The Caravan”?

The recent developments [seem to be targeted], first with the sedition cases, which had the same charges and the same order being filed in 10 different cases in five different States. When we read the FIR, there seemed to be a design in each one of these cases that had sedition charges and were filed simultaneously. The government seems to be intolerant towards covering the farmers’ protests or for that matter any story that crosses a certain line that it draws. But our professional journalism always went to two sides of an issue and it will continue to do so, so that people are kept informed.

Has the response of the media fraternity to the series of punitive actions against journalists been adequate?

Unfortunately, no. We can do better and we have done better under government pressure in the past. I don’t want to speculate on the reasons, but certainly our media organisations are not speaking truth to power as much as what is expected in a democracy.

Could this be because of the fear of losing advertisements? Is it time we developed more

such as water, electricity and the Internet at the agitation venues. New restrictive measures such as installing concrete barricades, embedding nails in the road and enhancing deployment of security forces around all the agitation venues followed. The social media responses of international celebrities such as the pop singer Rihanna and the young Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg commenting on the blocking of the Internet at the protest sites evoked widespread global support for the farmers’ agitation.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) and the United States State Department too took notice of the situation and advised the Indian government to accept the right of farmers to protest. In a statement seeking to strike a balance between the government innovative business models to support independent journalism? How do you see such endeavours taking shape in India?

We have delicate media models, under which one must rely on the government for advertisements in most instances. If The New York Times, which for over 100 years depended on advertisements, turned around in a decade and brought in a subscription-first business model, I do not understand why we cannot produce quality journalism and ask for subscription. That will free us from the government- and corporate-controlled revenue model, and we will be able to uphold the ageold practice of seeking accountability. Reinstating our commitment to free and fair journalism and telling the reader that we need their support translates into people responding.

The First Amendment in the U.S. gives a range of protections to the press in that country, including ruling out prior restraint. Do we need similar laws?

Of course, there is a need for that. In the case of the U.S., if we pay attention to what happened in that country, especially after the Great Depression, there was a massive boycott of the news media. The circulation fell drastically because of the media’s alleged role in aiding the depression. There were Hollywood movies in the 1930s in which journalists and the media were portrayed as villains. This crisis led to an interesting course correction in the American press, led by the then owner of Time magazine, Henry Luce. He constituted a commission, known as Hutchins Commission, which included philosophers, public intellectuals and scientists, and wrote a report on the role of the media in a democracy. A famous social media responsibility model came out in the Hutchins Commission report. If in the middle of the 20th century, a wise intervention by Time magazine’s owner could save the American press and help people develop trust in the media, it is unfortunate that in India we see no attempt of that nature, even as the trust of general people in the media is fast eroding, if not already eroded.

and the farmers, the U.S. State Department said: “We recognise that peaceful protests are a hallmark of any thriving democracy, and note that the Indian Supreme Court has stated the same. We encourage that any differences between the parties be resolved through dialogue. In general, the United States welcomes steps that would improve the efficiency of India’s markets and attract greater private sector investment.” This statement was made in response to questions from The Wall Street Journal. The UNHRC and the U.S. State Department statements specifically recommended that Internet services around the agitation venue be restored. “Unhindered access to information, including the Internet, is fundamental to the freedom of expression and a hallmark of a thriving democracy,” said the U.S. State Department.

At the level of national politics, the farmers’ unions welcomed a delegation of opposition MPS to the Ghazipur venue but they were prevented from having close interactions with the agitating farmers. They were: A.M. Arif and S. Venkateshan (Communist Party of India (Marxist)); Supriya Sule (Nationalist Congress Party); Harsimrat Kaur Badal (Shiromani Akali Dal); N.K. Premachandran (Revolutionary Socialist Party); M. Selvaraj (Communist Party of India); Hasnain Masoodi (National Conference); Tiruchi Siva and K. Kanimozhi (Dravida Munnetra Kazhakam); Saugata Roy (Trinamool Congress); and Thol. Thirumavalavan (Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi). The police stopped these MPS at the first concrete barricade.

Later, they wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla saying that the site looked like the border “between India and Pakistan” and that the “condition of the farmers resembled that of prisoners in jail”. They conveyed to the Speaker their “strong protest” against the Delhi Police’s action in preventing them from meeting the farmers and urged him to “take such steps as you deem fit and proper to protect the rights of the elected Members of Parliament. They [police] didn’t allow us to cross even the first barrier. After that, we could see some 10-12 layers of barriers. We could not see anything other than police personnel there.”

Opposition MPS from ten parties wrote to Home Minister Amit Shah asking him to direct the authorities to restore electricity, water and other amenities at the protest sites. The signatories to this letter included Elamaram Kareem (CPI-M); Binoy Viswam (CPI); Digvijay Singh (Congress); Sanjay Singh (Aam Aadmi Party); Manoj Jha (Rashtriya Janata Dal); Ram Gopal Yadav (S.P.); Tiruchi Siva, N.R. Elango, T.K.S. Elangovan and P. Wilson (DMK); M.V. Shreyams Kumar (Loktantrik Janata Dal); P.V. Abdul Wahab (Indian Union Muslim League); and K. Raveendra Kumar (Telugu Desam Party).

ORCHESTRATED VIOLENCE

The letter pointed out how the violence during the January 26 tractor parade was perpetrated by some agents provocateurs and how the entire farmers’ movement had denounced it. The letter states: “But now in the guise of the violence on 26th, [the] government is trying to distort the protest and disperse farmers using force. In many protest places, police manhandled protesters and cut electricity and water supply. Every day, pro-government groups are reaching the borders and attacking farmers. These are very unfortunate and we request you to urgently intervene and do the needful for withdrawing police action against farmers, restore electricity, water and other amenities in protest spots and take strict action against those groups trying to perpetrate violence.”

SIGNS OF DESPERATION

By any yardstick, these developments, especially the international responses to the Internet ban and other restrictions, were a setback for the Modi government, denting its image. Tomar’s statement that the agitation was confined to “one State agitation” in the Rajya Sabha was made after all these international responses. Even more importantly, the fortifications around the agitation venues are growing.

At the political level, say Sangh Parivar insiders, these aggressive manoeuvres and postures signal a high level of confidence and that there are reasons for this. Said the Lucknow-based RSS activist: “Foremost among them is the shift of the agitation’s leadership from the unions active in Punjab to the ones in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, especially the Tikait family. All major parties in the national and regional political establishment have, from time to time in the past few decades, faced farmer agitations led by the Tikait family, including Mahendra Singh Tikait, Rakesh Tikait’s father. And every time, the members of the family have shown that they are amenable to negotiations and persuasions. We believe history will repeat this time too and that we can pull through without changing the government’s original stand.”

FARMERS’ RESOLVE

Indeed, an objective assessment of the track record of the Tikait family and many other farmer leaders of Uttar Pradesh underscores the RSS leader’s observation. However, farmer union leaders hailing from almost all parts of the country assert in unison that the past actions of one or the other leader cannot be held against them. A senior farmer leader told Frontline: “The farmers of India and their union leaders know that they are facing an unprecedented situation as far as their livelihoods are concerned. We have devised new ways to deal with this situation. And in doing this we have new approaches and new resolutions. You will not find us buckling. In our view the aggressive assertions of the representatives of the Modi government, including Tomar, are all triggered by desperation and we shall face it calmly and unitedly.”

On their part, the farmer leaders, from Tikait to Darshan Pal and Sukdev Singh Korikalan, have reiterated their resolve to continue the agitation peacefully. In a telling gesture, Tikait and others have started planting flowerbeds around the concrete barricades and embedded nails that the security forces have put in place. In the mahapanchayats he addressed in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, Tikait referred to these fortifications and said that “when a king is afraid, he does fortification”.

Making a reference to the nails embedded on roads, he made a more dramatic comment: “The people of the khap panchayat will take out these iron nails, and take them to the office of the khap panchayat. These will be shown for 400 years that this was done in Delhi. They [the authorities] want to stop [farmers] by embedding iron nails, but we will lie on these iron nails, and the masses will cross over to the other side.” Clearly, it is this fighting spirit that has kept the agitation alive through the past two months. The farmers on the ground at the Delhi siege and those supporting them from the villages assert that this will see their struggle through all the machinations of the propagators of the “Big Lie”. $