The Guardian view on India’s tax raid on the BBC: Modi v the media
Following the deadly sectarian riots in Gujarat in 2002 – in which more than 1,000 people, overwhelmingly Muslims, were killed – Narendra Modi, then the state’s chief minister, was asked whether he would have done anything differently in retrospect: “The one area where I was very, very weak … was how to handle the media,” the now prime minister replied.
This week’s multi-day raid on BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai by tax authorities came just weeks after the government lambasted the corporation and blocked its documentary on his handling of the riots and treatment of the Muslim minority in India. The authorities say this is routine. But, as many in India have made clear, this looks more like retaliation than regular bureaucratic proceedings. A spokesman for the ruling Bharatiya Janata party took the opportunity to describe the BBC as the “most corrupt organisation in the world”. It also follows a clear pattern of intimidatory “tax surveys” at domestic media companies that have displeased the government, and at other organisations, including Oxfam India.
Mr Modi’s government has overseen a systematic and escalating crackdown on free media, dissent and civil society more generally, particularly where its aggressive majoritarianism has been challenged. Last year, human rights and press freedom groups warned that journalists have been baselessly charged under counter-terrorism and sedition laws and prevented from travelling abroad. Their targeting has emboldened Hindu nationalists to harass them online and in person. Indian companies and journalists are clearly at greatest risk. But the decision to take on the BBC is an indication of the BJP’s growing confidence.
Allegations that Mr Modi was complicit in 2002’s violence are not new, though the documentary revealed that a British government document found him “directly responsible” for not stopping the killing of Muslims. Mr Modi, who has always denied any culpability, was cleared of all charges by a supreme court panel. By using emergency powers to block a programme never due to be aired in India, forcing social media companies to take down posts containing clips and links, and detaining students who planned screenings, officials merely fuelled the desire to watch it.
Similarly, attacking the BBC does far more to discredit Delhi than the broadcaster. India is enjoying being courted by other nations as an economic giant and counterweight to China in Asia. This year, it will host the G20; there is talk of a White House visit for the man who was barred from entering the US after the riots. But its standing rests not only on its economic and geopolitical might, but also its democratic status – despite its erosion by Mr Modi.
The contrast between the outspoken criticism from embattled voices in India and complaisance from powerful leaders elsewhere, is glaring and disgraceful. David Cameron’s government led the international rehabilitation of Mr Modi. The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, tweeted in celebration of Air India’s new multibillion-pound contract with Airbus and Rolls-Royce even as authorities rifled through desks and seized journalists’ phones. That Mr Modi cares about his international reputation is evident from the attempts to silence critics. India’s partners should urge it to restore and respect the democratic values, including free media, that it boasts about.