mid a national election campaign in India, its news media is in sharp focus. In the ongoing election, at the crux is the sacred balance between exercising the constitutional right to vote and the willingness to cede civil liberties to support an authoritarian regime, in a country that is perceived as a stable power in turbulent times. The willingness to prioritise efficacy over civil liberties raises questions about the balance between democracy and authoritarianism in India’s political landscape. With a complex socio-political landscape and a diverse electorate, Indian elections have been subject to scrutiny and analysis by both domestic and international media organisations.

Until recently it was believed that the sheer diversity of outlets ensured a range of perspectives, but now, India’s mainstream media has largely been co-opted by the Bharatiya Janata Party and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Recent revelations paint a disquieting picture of media bias, with a substantial segment of journalists decrying a palpable tilt in favour of the ruling BJP and its enigmatic leader, Modi. According to a recent Lokniti-CSDS study, a staggering 80 percent of journalists perceive the media’s coverage of the Modi government as overly favourable, while an overwhelming 73 percent detect a pronounced partisan bias, predominantly in favour of the BJP. Only 3 percent opined that the media displays favouritism towards the Indian National Congress.

In the tumult of today’s political arena, a cadre of valiant souls persists in championing the integrity of media amidst the chaos. For example, Bhavya Dore, of the Global Investigative Journalism Network, spotlights the relentless endeavours of the Reporters’ Collective, spearheaded by founder-editor Nitin Sethi. Their focus? Unraveling the labyrinthine Electoral Bond project. Birthed in 2018, this contentious initiative enabled clandestine political contributions from both individuals and corporate entities. The collective’s tenacious investigation laid bare the project’s dubious inception, its brazen disregard for Reserve Bank of India advisories and the illicit sale of bonds preceding elections. As these revelations reverberate across newsrooms, it’s clear that the discourse surrounding political funding, ignited by the electoral bond disclosures, is casting a formidable shadow over the current parliamentary elections in 2024.

India’s vast media landscape is remarkably diverse with over a billion participants spanning 29 states and numerous languages. Yet, the absence of robust regulation risks morphing this cacophony into a mere “babble” susceptible to manipulation by propaganda machinery. This dichotomy is evident in the unbridled power of social media, where biased commentary and the proliferation of “fake” news deepen political divides. Meanwhile, traditional legacy media, once bastions of independence, now face encroachment by corporate interests aligned with the ruling party, fostering a predictably biased narrative. As media owners enter the political arena, blurring the lines between journalism and political ambition, the sanctity of India’s media ethos hangs in the balance. It is no wonder that this is accentuated in an election season along with the deep fault lines of the divide between the legacy media practices and upstart social media activism.

Further, Modi’s tenure has ushered in a slew of legislative measures conferring unprecedented authority upon the government to shape media narratives, stifle dissent and muzzle opposition. Among these enactments are the 2023 Telecommunications Act, the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill of 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of the same year. Together, these laws represent a formidable arsenal wielded by the state to exert control over the flow of information and silence voices of dissent.

The Dhruv Rathee moment

The 2019 general election earned the moniker of the “social media election” owing to the unparalleled utilisation of social media platforms by politicians and political parties. This concerted effort aimed to directly engage with the public, circumventing traditional media channels. The question remains: in circumventing mainstream journalists and media outlets, do politicians and political organisations authentically convey the whole truth?

In a biased and distant media landscape, the unlikely victor of the 2024 campaign is Dhruv Rathee, a seasoned YouTuber, whose political commentary has sparked a fervent following of over 19 million subscribers on the platform. The 29-year-old YouTuber, based in Germany and of Indian origin, creates what are often referred to as explainers, breaking down information in accessible language and elucidating complex political developments or themes in easy-to-understand Hindi videos.

Case in point is a video titled, “Is India becoming a dictatorship?” released by Rathee on February 22. Since its release, the video has garnered over 25 million views. The video transcends demographic boundaries, resonating deeply with a diverse audience. Amidst the cacophony of political rhetoric, Rathee’s incisive YouTube videos emerge as buoys of truth, captivating audiences across the north Indian Hindi-belt states. From dissecting the intricacies of electoral bonds to shedding light on overlooked protests, Rathee’s content rises above mere entertainment, sparking crucial conversation on democracy and governance. As legislative threats loom over online expression, Rathee remains unwavering in his commitment to holding power accountable and empowering citizens through information, reminding viewers of their pivotal role in shaping the future of the nation.

While we watched

The Rathee phenomenon not only foregrounded the Millennial factor but also exposed fault lines that demarcate pro-government propaganda and voices of dissent and protests.

With his subscription base on YouTube reaching the 10 million mark, Ravish Kumar notes how distant his previous tenure with NDTV appears to him. Along with his loyal audience, he has traversed a new reality that is there to stay in the Indian media scene. While We Watched was a documentary made on the quotidian life of its protagonist Ravish Kumar, an internationally celebrated journalist. It follows Kumar filming in the newsroom, in transit, and in the intimacy of his home, for eight to ten hours every day for about two years to capture the acute existential crisis that both journalists and journalism endure in India.

Reflecting on the documentary, Kumar confesses initial scepticism regarding the potential of capturing his daily routine on film. “I left home, went to the office, entered a small room, and typed,” he muses. However, subsequent events in the Indian media landscape proved Kumar’s doubts unfounded. With NDTV under a new ownership of a corporate house closely aligned with the current regime, Kumar departed from the channel along with his popular primetime show. The documentary ends but Kumar’s journey continues. His loyal audience follows him on his YouTube channel giving him a new lease of life. This transition is nothing short of a testament to the erosion of media freedom in India.

There have been other incidents of heavy handed behaviour with journalists in India. Al Jazeera‘s plans to send a correspondent to cover the elections were thwarted when the individual was denied a visa. Many foreign correspondents have voiced their collective dismay through official statements denouncing an oppressive atmosphere. Similarly, Avani Dias of ABC News was compelled to return to Australia in April after the government refused to extend her visa, alleging that her reporting had “crossed a line.” Earlier, Vanessa Dougnac, a veteran foreign correspondent for various French publications, departed in February following a government-issued two-week suspension of her Overseas Citizen of India card.

Arjun Sethi, a human rights lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Centre, has accused X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and other social media companies of enabling authoritarianism in India. He alleges that these platforms routinely comply with requests to block social media accounts, not only originating in India but worldwide. A classic example was their partnership to censor a BBC documentary highlighting human rights violations during Modi’s tenure in Gujarat. Ironic as it is, Musk, who has portrayed his acquisition of X as a victory for free speech, has justified his compliance as simply adhering to the wishes of governments in countries where X operates.

A free press?

Under Modi’s reign, a remarkable convergence between his BJP and influential media moguls has unfolded. Mukesh Ambani, a close ally of Modi and the force behind Reliance Industries group, commands a media empire of over 70 outlets, reaching an audience of at least 800 million Indians. The recent acquisition of NDTV by Gautam Adani, another industrial tycoon with deep ties to Modi, marked a definitive shift away from media pluralism in the mainstream.

This consolidation has birthed what critics dub as “Godi media,” a cohort of outlets known for their blend of populism and unabashed pro-BJP propaganda. In this landscape, traditional journalistic integrity is under siege, with Modi dismissing journalists as mere “intermediaries” disrupting his direct connection with supporters. Journalists critical of the government face relentless harassment orchestrated by BJP-backed trolls casting a shadow over the once-vibrant landscape of Indian media.

The author is a critic and writer. He splits his time between Toronto, London and Geneva