Skip to main content

Demand to lift ban on Modi documentary 'not blanket endorsement' of BBC, British rule

Counterview Desk 
In a public statement on censorship of the BBC documentary “India: the Modi Question”, a group of Indian scientists and academics, expressing dismay at the government's decision to censor the documentary and the actions taken by University administrations to stop its screening, has said, “Our criticism of censorship should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of the BBC or of the British establishment.”
The statement refers to "Indian scientists and academics," which also includes those who are temporarily residing abroad. Those who have floated the statement include Suvrat Raju (ICTS), Madhusudhan Raman (Delhi University), Koel Das (IISER Kolkata), Suchitra Mathur (IIT Kanpur), Alok Laddha (Chennai Mathematical Institute), Supratim Sengupta (IISER Kolkata), Shivani Upadhyaya (UC Berkeley), Ronak Soni (University of Cambridge), Rahul Varman (IIT Kanpur) Ankan Paul (IACS), Ravinder Banyal (IIA, Bangalore), and Sugata Ray.

Text:

We are a group of Indian scientists and academics.
We are dismayed at the censorship of the two-part BBC documentary, “India: the Modi Question”. The Indian government has had the documentary removed from social media under the pretext that it is “undermining the sovereignty and integrity of India”. This justification does not withstand scrutiny and the removal violates our rights, as Indians, to access and discuss important information about our society and government.
University administrations across the country have tried to prevent the screening of the documentary. This violates the principles of academic freedom. Universities should encourage open discussions on social and political questions. Such discussions are crucial for the proper functioning of a democratic society. It is unacceptable for Universities to block the expression of some views, merely because they are critical of the government.
We note that the BBC documentary does not raise any fundamentally new points. Already, in 2002, the National Human Rights Commission “reached the definite conclusion that … there was a comprehensive failure of the State to protect the Constitutional rights of the people of Gujarat, starting with the tragedy in Godhra … and continuing with the violence that ensued in the weeks that followed.” Numerous scholars, filmmakers, and human-rights activists have reached similar conclusions over the past twenty years.
In spite of this, those who were instrumental in encouraging and enabling the violence in Gujarat in 2002 have never been held to account. This accountability is crucial, not only to prevent a repeat of such events but also to reverse the communal polarization that threatens to tear the country apart today. Therefore, the questions raised in the BBC documentary are important. Banning the film will only further silence the voice of the victims of this violence.
Needless to say, our criticism of censorship in India should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of the BBC or of the British establishment. We are aware that Jack Straw, who appears in the documentary, was the British foreign secretary in Tony Blair’s cabinet. In this role, he was responsible for spreading falsehoods about “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction”, which were dutifully repeated by the BBC and used to justify the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
So we encourage viewers of the BBC documentary to supplement their information with the voluminous and reliable material produced by Indian scholars and activists, documenting both the horrific events of 2002 and the appalling situation faced by minorities in the country today.
To add your name to the list of signatories, click here. The institutional affiliations given in the list are provided only for purpose of identification, and the signatures do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutes.
---
Click here for signatories 

Comments

Post a Comment

NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor

TRENDING

The farmer's burden: How oil, war, and climate are rewriting the price of food

By Vikas Meshram   The scorching flames of the Middle East conflict are now slowly reaching the kitchens of ordinary people. The true price of this war is paid in daily markets, vegetable shops, and in the shattered minds of farmers. Expensive crude oil, skyrocketing fertilizer prices, and rising agricultural costs are together creating the conditions for global food inflation — and this crisis is directly tied to what people eat and drink every day.
Post a Comment
»

India's nuclear euphoria: The hard economics policymakers ignore

By Shankar Sharma*  There is a sort of newfound euphoria sweeping India with respect to nuclear power — and in particular, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). In political speeches, policy documents, and newspaper editorials, the word "nuclear" has acquired a fresh, almost romantic glow, as though a technology once synonymous with catastrophe at Chernobyl and Fukushima has been quietly reinvented.  To be sure, the challenges of climate change and India's growing electricity demand are real and urgent. But enthusiasm is not a substitute for analysis. A hard look at the global evidence, the domestic cost picture, and the practical hurdles of nuclear deployment raises questions that this national conversation urgently needs to confront.
Post a Comment
»

Beyond the 'silent relocation' narrative in Bangladesh's Chittagong Hill Tracts

By Dr. Mohammad Asaduzzaman*  In recent years, a narrative has emerged from the rugged and forested terrain of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), portraying the region as the site of a “silent relocation” — a mass forced migration of Bangladesh’s non-Muslim ethnic communities into neighboring India and Myanmar.
Post a Comment
»