The debate on the lack of ‘freedom of the press’ in India has flared up once again after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to five European nations. In Oslo, Mr Modi attended a joint media appearance with the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre. As the two leaders concluded their statements and began walking away from the podium without taking media queries, a young woman reporter, Helle Lyng, called out loudly: “Prime Minister Modi, why don’t you take some questions from the freest press in the world?” According to reports, the event at the Government Guest House in Oslo was strictly structured as a joint media briefing for official press statements, with no formal Q&A session scheduled or permitted for either leader under the pre-decided diplomatic protocol. 

If the protocol did not include a question–and–answer session, then the young reporter was perhaps looking for her two minutes of fame. But in India, she has now become a celebrity reporter with Mr Gandhi, his party, the opposition, and others opposed to Mr Modi and the BJP. For the record, it may be prudent to mention that this young lady reports for a newspaper with a total circulation of about 14,000 copies and has never written anything on India. So, one can conclude that her understanding and knowledge of India, whatever little she has, will be perfunctory. 

Those criticising Mr Modi for not answering the question asked by this insignificant reporter have conveniently forgotten two important things.  First, earlier in the day, the government of the same reporter had conferred the country’s highest honour on the Indian Prime Minister. Surely if either his track record or his country’s track record on freedom of the press was that abysmal, they would certainly not have done that. Secondly, the ranking of ‘World Press Freedom Index’, where India is at number 157, has been done by an organisation called Reporters Without Borders. They mostly use a sample of 130 to 150 individuals and 18 NGOs to arrive at their conclusions. Surely this sample size can hardly represent the verdict of the entire world on 195 officially recognised countries.  

Amid the widespread discussion over India’s ranking and Prime Minister Modi’s decision not to take reporters’ questions, Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi overlooked the significant deliverables achieved during the trip. For someone holding a Constitutional position, the more important matter should have been the results of the trip rather than reducing the discussion to why the Prime Minister did not answer a question asked by an insignificant reporter that, by all counts, was against the protocol. 

In today’s world, ‘Freedom of the Press’ is not limited to accredited journalists or formal journalism. In this era of the ever-present social media, this freedom is equally applicable to every individual in the country. Formal reporting and journalism are only a part of the media these days; informal reporting and media participation are a much larger phenomenon. And by no stretch of the imagination, India’s formal or informal media lack ‘freedom.’ Every day, members of the opposition and other individuals are invited by the media on prime-time shows to express their views, and they do so without fear or restraint. These guests have no hesitation in making even repulsive personal comments against the Prime Minister and others. 

Indian judiciary’s decisions are so often challenged by and in the media by vested interests with impunity. There is no limit to the range of issues that are discussed in the media, both formal and informal. The political or other discourse one hears in the Indian parliament at times puts all right-minded Indians to shame. Today, the Indian media is all over the country, and even a small communal or state action against any individual finds space in the national media. Can all this happen without freedom of expression or freedom of the press?

The problem in India is that those who advocate that India lacks freedom of the press or expression are actually fighting losing personal battles against the establishments in more ways than one. Politically, Mr. Gandhi, his party, and other opposition leaders have no counter to the popularity that the BJP leadership currently commands in the country. Most regional parties that treated their local state as a personal fiefdom are now either on the brink or afraid of losing their grip, with an aggressive BJP making decisive inroads. West Bengal and the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir are good examples in this regard.

Yes, there is no doubt that the Prime Minister is not known to indulge in too many press briefings or question-and-answer sessions. Leaders across the world have their own styles and preferences. But for Rahul Gandhi to comment that ‘When there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. What happens to India’s image when the world sees a compromised PM panic and run from a few questions?’ was malicious, derogatory, and smacked of a personal attack on the country’s Prime Minister. Taking their leader’s cue, Congress party’s spokesperson Supriya Shrinate stated on prime-time national TV (Times Now) that ‘the Prime Minister ran away with his tail in his legs instead of answering the reporter’s question.’ Many other political analysts and opposition leaders also went too far, making derogatory comments about the government and the Prime Minister. All one can say is that if India did not enjoy an unlimited freedom of expression, both Mr Gandhi, his party’s spokesperson, and others would never have dared to make such comments. 

The opposition and other anti-establishment individuals normally call the Indian mainstream media ‘godi media’– a media that is controlled or works only for the government. Yet, it is the same media that allows them to vent their frustrations, allegations, and insinuations against the government and the Prime Minister, which are mostly baseless. Surprisingly, the same people kept silent on the happenings, at times anti-national, within the state of West Bengal for the last fifteen years, just because Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister, was one of their key leaders in the I.N.D.I alliance. If the media reported these incidents, these worthies were always quick to either brush them off or justify them out of a compulsion to support the TMC in West Bengal. Why didn’t they encourage journalists to dive deeper into the truth behind the misadventures occurring under the TMC government? Did this not amount to curtailment of the freedom of the press by the very people who today are shouting at the top of their voice about the lack of such freedom in the country?

The Press Freedom Index lacks validity because it does not compare equivalent metrics across countries. In all probability, it tends to be motivated in awarding rankings. The size and selection of its sample are highly questionable. Every country, and its society, has its own yardstick in this regard, as each country is different in more ways than one from the other. This is a clear case where no one solution fits all. Each country finds its own equilibrium in this regard as it suits it. Importantly, one must understand that such freedoms are dynamic and do not remain consistent. Today, the USA is at number 64, and that ranking certainly does not mean that the people in the USA have suddenly been gagged. Fortunately, in India, barring a few aberrations in the past, the country has always enjoyed such freedom after independence.

END OF ARTICLE