According to a press release from his office, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar “interacted” with a group of Indian Information Service probationers on February 15. While asking them to be “real protectors of democracy and nationalism” he described the “dumping of information” as “another way of invasion” and “he called for bold and effective steps to neutralise it”. The Vice President further “underlined the need to remain alert to counter the doctored narratives to run down India’s growth story”.
The Vice President’s formulations indicate that, for him, “dumping of information” implies “doctored narratives”; that just as “dumping of goods” damages a country’s industry the “dumping of information” through which “doctored narratives” are spread is designed to damage a country, including its economy. And, since “dumping of information” is an “invasion” it needs to be robustly and immediately countered. The remarks came a day after the survey began of the BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai to ascertain if the organisation had infringed provisions of India’s tax laws. It would not be completely illogical to infer that perhaps he was indirectly referring — and approving — the need for strong action to counter BBC’s “doctored narratives”.
It can be no one’s case that any organisation — Indian or foreign — should be allowed to break Indian laws, including those relating to taxation. Any action necessary to ensure adherence to Indian laws should be taken. However, in the BBC matter, the perception that the action was a consequence of its documentaries India: The Modi Question is and will continue to remain strong despite the Indian revenue authorities officially stating the survey had led to indications that tax had not been paid “on certain remittances” and “several discrepancies and inconsistencies with Transfer Pricing documentation” had also emerged. There is little doubt that if, as is now possible, the tax authorities take further action and impose penalties and taxes the matter will reach the courts.
While the opposition parties saw the BBC survey operation as an attempt to muzzle the press, the BJP, on its part, called the British news organisation “corrupt” and “rubbish”. It also accused it of indulging in “anti-India propaganda”. This is similar to the attitude that the Vice President has advised to aggressively counter the “dumping of information” and “doctored narratives”. Of course “doctored narratives” have and should be countered. The question is what is the best way to do so. Strong language may warm the cockles of nationalist hearts but does it count with international opinion? Oftentimes the rapier point of a logical argument backed by evidence is far more effective than a bludgeon.
Obviously, in the BBC’s case, a not-so-subtle bludgeon has been used. Perhaps that has been so to inform the foreign media that they have to respect the same redlines as the Indian media. What is significant is that on February 14, the day the survey began, Air India — now completely owned by the Tata conglomerate — announced its decision to buy Boeing and Airbus aircraft for its fleet. That day, as the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) announced in a media release, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Joe Biden had a “warm and productive” phone call during which the two leaders also “welcomed the announcement of a landmark agreement between Air India and Boeing as a shining example of mutually beneficial cooperation…”. On the same day, the MEA also announced Modi had a “video call” with French President Emmanuel Macron and the Tata and Airbus companies leaderships “on the occasion of the launch of a partnership between Air India and Airbus”.
Now, while Airbus aircraft are equipped with British Rolls-Royce engines, the fact that Modi decided to engage with the US and French presidents on what is essentially a commercial deal between companies was an unmistakable message to the British government and industry to rein in its media organisations so that they do not cross India’s current redlines. Of course, political leaders encourage bilateral and multilateral commercial activities between their companies, invite investments and sometimes their governments iron out difficulties which may be coming in the way of specific business arrangements. However, seldom do they engage themselves so directly as Biden, Macron and Modi did on February 14. For the former two, Air India’s decisions would result in direct manufacturing jobs but in Modi’s case that would not be so — though the growth in aviation would lead to economic growth.
The Modi government has upped the ante with the BBC in particular and the foreign media in general on anti-India and especially anti-Modi reporting. The tax authorities surveys and the official statement at their conclusion demonstrate that. It is interesting that no Western government, not even the British, was critical of the survey. That will fortify the Modi government’s belief that so long as the Indian market can confer advantages to Western commerce and industry, the West’s liberal media’s criticism of its policies and actions need not be taken seriously. And, with the US, in particular, considering India as an important partner to counter China, a significant security component has been added to the allure of the Indian market.
There is little doubt that Western liberal opinion will continue to remain critical of the Modi government’s policies, especially on its perceptions of violation of minority rights. It strongly appears that the government has decided that it will completely disregard Western liberal opinion and media because it is convinced that they cannot harm India’s growing ties with the Western world. However, the tax survey against the BBC indicates that that disregard will turn to punitive action not only against the erring media organisation but against that country’s business when redlines are crossed.
This approach may work but it is efficacy is always uncertain. This is because both media and business lobbies can sometimes put unbearable pressures on Western governments not to allow India to get away with its carrot-and-stick policies. Thus, the Vice President’s advice and the government’s approaches have to be leavened with prudence.
The writer is a former diplomat
