In an article titled, "Under Modi, India's Press Is No So Free Anymore," that was published in the New York Times, the authors examine the ongoing restriction of media freedom in India. The Indian government has pressured and shut down some of the media outlets that report the information that is against the government. This act presents a serious violation of the freedom of the press. On March 6 th , Media One television was shut down by India's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting for 48 hours. The primary reason for the shutdown was because the station had covered the "mob attacks on Muslims in New Delhi" that led to unrest. The government saw this as critical to the Delhi police and R.S.S. The R.S.S. is a Hindu social movement with close ties to the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi (Nytimes.com, 2020). The shutdown on the media came out as an attack on press freedom by the government. This act is undoubtedly a violation of the citizen’s right of access to information, which many international constitutions protect.
Since rising to power in 2014, Modi has imposed restrictions on what media covers his government. He has made the media to construct a personality that portrays his government in the positive light. The media in India are only permitted to cover and represent the government in a favorable manner, and any coverage of negative government's action is restricted (Nytimes.com, 2020). Even though the prime minister is transforming India from a religiously diverse nation to a Hindu one, the media should report only the positive side of the government. Ordering for tax investigations and shutdowns are the significant sanctions faced by many media outlets that cover the accurate information that portrays the government negatively.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the Indian government has been controlling the media's coverage of the issue. During the country's lockdown, which led to millions of migrant workers stranded, the government ordered the media to publish "inspiring and positive stories," on the government's efforts to combat the disease. Thousands of newspapers and magazines, as well as television channels, have continually suffered from police raids (Nytimes.com, 2020). The prime minister does not allow any criticism from the media, and any media that publishes information that criticizes the government can risk closure. Ideally, India has lost freedom of press and media are required to work in favor of the government. The restriction of the freedom of press presents India as a totalitarian state.
Freedom of the press is essential to the international community and recognized as a fundamental human right. UNESCO has considered the freedom of expression and freedom of the media as a right to everyone. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international community supports the freedom of speech and freedom of the press as the foundation of other rights. Many international bodies consider a society that allows people to express their opinions and the media to work independently as the promotion of democracy. The focus of international institutions such as UNESCO is to enhance access to the information by the public. The freedom should not be a right to journalists, but of the people to access the information. By limiting the freedom of the media, the government restricts citizens' fundamental right to access information. By limiting these rights, the Indian government goes against international human rights organizations' efforts to promote freedom of expression. Countries that still restrict access to information or interfere with media independence are not considered modern democracies.
The press freedom issue can change by the influence of international organizations such as the United Nations. The U.N. has developed a Universal Declaration of Human Rights through its constitution. All the U.N. member states are required to comply with and respect the press's rights and freedom. The outside influence from the international organization can lead to a change in the restriction on the press's rights and freedom. Besides, the external influence through sanctions can also force the nations to allow the freedom of the press. Restricting trade with countries that violate human rights freely access information can put pressure on the government to change the restriction. Therefore, it is important to have nations adopt policies that allow for the media's freedom and independence, which is a great way to enhance democracy and achieve growth.
The article is not neutral. The author takes sides when presenting the argument. The author seems to criticize the Indian government for the restriction of freedom of the press while taking sides to support the need for such rights. Freedom of press and rights to information are supported as the fundamental rights for every citizen. The author blames the government for interfering with the independence of the media and sees it as something that greatly affects democracy. Throughout the article, the author does not use a neutral tone. Instead, the tone supports one side of the topic and blames the other side. By taking sides in the argument, the article is not neutral.
References
Nytimes.com (2020). Under Modi, India’s Press Is Not So Free Anymore . (2020). Retrieved 23 May 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/world/asia/modi-india-press-media.html .
