What follows is excerpted from the second Bhasurendrababu Memorial Lecture, organised by True Dialogue Debates and delivered by former journalist R. Rajagopal in Alappuzha, south Kerala, on February 15. The commemoration of Bhasurendrababu — journalist and political commentator — was inaugurated by Vijoo Krishnan, General Secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha and CPI(M) Politburo member. This is not a full reproduction of the lecture, but an account drawn from it.

The purported legal documents and official letters featured here were sourced from CourtListener, part of the Free Law Project, a federally recognized non-profit organisation in the United States. CourtListener.com is a fully searchable and accessible archive of court data, including growing repositories of opinions, oral arguments, judicial financial records, and federal filings. Founded in 2010, Free Law Project uses technology, data, and advocacy to make the legal ecosystem more equitable and competitive.

On January 21 last month, at 3:28 p.m. EST — around 2 a.m. in India on January 22 — a series of documents appeared on CourtListener.com.

As many as 20 PDF files were uploaded. The files were attributed to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the American securities markets watchdog. To the best of available knowledge, neither the SEC — to which these documents are attributed — nor the Government of India, whose purported letters form part of the documents, has publicly contested their authenticity. These documents have remained in the public domain since January 21, 2026 (EST). Although the contents of the files are not legible on the presentation screen, the purpose here is not to dissect their details but to note that multiple documents entered the public domain on that day.

The issue relates to what is known in the United States as “service methods,” referred to in India as serving summons or notice to parties involved in a case. In this instance, the SEC sought to issue documents to Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani. The documents are linked to a civil case in which the SEC has levelled charges against Gautam Adani, chairman of Adani Green’s board of directors, and his nephew Sagar Adani, executive director of the same board. The Adanis have consistently denied all charges.

The SEC filed a motion requesting a New York court to set a date permitting alternative service of summonses to the defendants. Indian nationals cannot be directly served summonses by foreign agencies like the SEC; however, defendants may waive service if they choose. The SEC stated it had approached Gautam Adani’s counsel. Yet in April 2025, it noted that “neither defendant has agreed to waive service of the summons and complaint.” In the absence of such a waiver, foreign agencies in civil matters must route service through India’s Ministry of Law and Justice under the Hague Service Convention. This made the role of the Indian law ministry crucial.

A preliminary statement in the documents notes that while the SEC had filed charges, India’s Ministry of Law and Justice had twice refused service under the Hague Convention. Reports had earlier indicated that the Indian government was dragging its feet. What remained unknown until January 21 were the reasons cited by the ministry — and that the matter had effectively reached a dead end.

Among the 20 uploaded PDFs was a letter purportedly sent by the Indian law ministry to the SEC. For newsrooms accustomed to covering “sealed-cover” submissions by the Narendra Modi government, this letter could well have been manna from heaven. All that newspapers needed to do was seek confirmation from the law ministry regarding authenticity and, in the event of silence, publish the document while noting that the ministry had neither confirmed nor denied it.

The purported letter stated that the SEC’s forwarding letter “bears no seal and signature and the model form bears no seal of the requesting authority.” On this basis, the Indian ministry returned the documents to the SEC.

The SEC responded, writing to the Indian ministry that the Hague Convention does not mandate a seal or signature on the forwarding cover letter. It maintained that its requests complied with the Convention. The Hague Service Convention, the SEC argued, does not require a seal or signature on the forwarding cover letter, nor does the Model Form require a seal. The watchdog resent the request.

The SEC further cited The Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, stating that demanding a seal and stamp is erroneous and that certification is not required on the Model Form or accompanying documents.

According to the SEC, the Convention only requires the Model Form to be signed by a competent individual. Its requests met these criteria, and the optional cover letter, it argued, should not have been grounds for return.

The SEC’s cover letter was displayed — its second page unsigned — one of the reasons cited by the Indian ministry for returning the request. The SEC countered that the cover letter itself is optional and requires neither seal nor signature.

An image of the purported Hague Convention Model Form showed it signed but without a seal. The absence of a seal had been cited by the Indian ministry. Yet the form itself states “Signature and/or stamp,” a phrase the SEC relied upon in its rebuttal.

On September 12, 2025, the SEC followed up on the requests for service originally sent in February and resent in May.

In November 2025, the Indian ministry responded again, citing SEC procedures and stating that the summonses were not covered under specific categories. The requests were once more returned.

That letter appears to have been the final straw. The SEC then moved a New York court. The uploaded documents show no fresh SEC response to the Indian ministry thereafter. However, the SEC’s court filing states that the ministry’s objection to its authority to invoke the Hague Convention lacked basis.

The SEC’s move triggered rapid developments. On January 23 — just two days after the SEC approached the court — Gautam Adani’s counsel wrote to the court stating that discussions were ongoing with the SEC and requested that the court’s order be deferred.

The court agreed to defer its ruling until January 30, 2026.

Subsequently, the SEC informed the court that counsel for the Adanis had agreed to service of process, eliminating the need for the court to rule on the motion. The defendants, however, retained all litigation rights, including those concerning jurisdiction.

What was resolved in just over a week had, in fact, taken 429 days of back-and-forth since the filing of the original case. Not all delays can be attributed to the Indian ministry. During this period, Donald Trump became the 47th President of the United States, leading to some administrative flux and related pauses. Nonetheless, the sheer number of days required for what is typically a procedural step is illustrative.

Numbers, however, do not tell stories on their own.

In June, a pregnant woman named Sunali Khatun was swept up in Delhi’s drive against alleged illegal immigrants. She was “pushed back” to Bangladesh in “hot haste” within five days — even though the Union home ministry states that verification can take up to 30 days. Following intervention by the Supreme Court, Sunali returned to India on humanitarian grounds.

One process involving a tycoon consumed 429 days.
Another, involving the deportation of a pregnant woman, took only five.

The question remains: when the documents attributed to the SEC entered the public domain, what did India’s paper tigers do?

You’re right. That version became too report-like and lost the sharpness and tone of the original slides. Let me rewrite it properly — as a strong, flowing narrative that keeps everything you said, but with better rhythm, coherence and punch.

Watch the Video Presentation here:

The Silence of the Newsrooms

Let us return to the afternoon of January 21, 2026, in New York. That was when the SEC documents relating to the service of summons on Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani quietly dropped onto the internet. In New Delhi, it was around 2 a.m. on January 22. Too late for most newspapers to carry the development in their January 22 print editions.

So let us grant them that grace. Let us wait for the morning of January 23 — more than 24 hours after the SEC-linked documents had entered the public domain.

Good morning, upcountry India.

The Indian Express arrives. Page 1 is scanned carefully. No SEC-Adani service request story in sight. Perhaps the large advertisement at the bottom elbowed it out. Fine. Let us turn to the business section.

The Economy page does carry an Adani story — tiny, tucked near the bottom. But it is not the SEC development. It is a Press Trust of India report about Adani Energy’s dipping profit. The SEC story remains elusive.

By January 24 — over 50 hours after the documents surfaced — the story finally makes its way to the front page of The Indian Express. Or perhaps it forces its way in, propelled not by editorial urgency but by market tremors. The headline reads: “Adani stocks fall as US SEC plans email summons to Gautam Adani.” Investor jitters appear to have mattered more than the reader’s right to know that the SEC had moved a New York court after 429 days of procedural resistance.

The Times of India — whose parent company’s media school trained me in 1990–91 — never ceases to surprise. The story is on Page 1. Yes, it is a brief. But it is there. The brief points to Page 27.

And so begins a small expedition through the paper. After negotiating the rapids of newsprint, Page 27 appears.

There it is — a larger SEC-Adani story sailing in the Times Business section. Three columns. Five paragraphs. Placed above the “anchor” story. Yet, despite its vast in-house reporting network, The Times has opted for a Reuters report. What kept its reporters so preoccupied that none could be spared for this development? The rest of the page offers no clue.

Next, The Hindu. Usually dependable. Surely this would find space on Page 1. It does not. The colourful NDA advertisement dominates attention. Turning to the business page, the SEC story does appear — a narrow report in the second deck. Once again, Reuters. Once again, a paper with a formidable reporting network relying on a wire copy.

The Telegraph — a paper I once edited — does not carry the story on Page 1 either. On the Business page, the Reuters report sits as a single-column item.

The New Indian Express? I cannot find the story on either the front page or the business page. I deliberately say “I could not find the story,” because newspapers today scatter tiny items across labyrinthine layouts. It is possible the SEC story is camouflaged somewhere. But must readers play Indiana Jones to locate consequential news? Or should newspapers present important developments in ways that are visible and accessible?

Now to my home turf.

I cannot find the SEC story in Malayala Manorama. Malayalam newspapers, these days, seem absorbed in the gold theft at the Sabarimala temple.

Mathrubhumi, too — the story eludes me. On January 23, I also fail to spot the SEC-Adani development on the front pages of the two Left newspapers, Deshabhimani and Janayugam.

Across both print editions and paywalled online editions, the SEC-Adani story does not appear — at least not in any visible form — in The Indian Express, The New Indian Express, Malayala Manorama and Mathrubhumi on January 23. The Telegraph, whose e-paper is free, and some others do carry it in one form or another.

As a subscriber to the four newspapers mentioned, I wrote to their editors on the night of January 23, using the email addresses published in their pages, asking why the story had not been reported that day. There has been no acknowledgement since. I cannot even be certain that my emails reached them.

Watch the Video Presentation here:

Who Swam Against the Tide — and What the Newsrooms Chose to Chase

Let us ask the obvious question: who swam against the tide?

We return once more to the afternoon of January 21 in New York — and 2 a.m. on January 22 in India — when the SEC-Adani story broke.

Not all journalists were asleep.

At 4:28 a.m. on January 22 — less than three hours after the SEC documents entered the public domain — a journalist in India had already filed a report.

Devirupa Mitra published a detailed and comprehensive story for the news portal The Wire at 4:28 a.m., proving that where there is the will, there is always a story. It is worth noting that The Wire does not charge its readers; it relies solely on donations.

Now, about the print editions.

The news that day, in my view, was not about the Adanis. The Adanis — who have denied the charges — were part of a legal process that would unfold in court. It is an ongoing matter. Only a court of law can determine innocence or guilt, and until then, the Adanis are entitled to every protection the law affords.

The Wire struck the nail squarely on the head. Its headline placed emphasis where it belonged — highlighting that the Modi government had blocked the SEC request for several months.

That, I believe, was the real story.

The central issue was how the Union government appeared to have responded to attempts to serve summons on defendants facing charges in a country that India publicly celebrates as a friend. The purported documents — uploaded and attributed to the SEC — suggest that the American watchdog contested the Indian law ministry’s objections, citing material under the Hague Convention. What remains unclear, however, is whether the Indian government subsequently challenged the SEC’s version.

Indian citizens have the right to know whether their government misled a regulatory watchdog; whether it stonewalled a legal process with implications for investors; or whether, conversely, the US watchdog’s claims are inaccurate — in which case the Indian government ought not to take that lying down.

Once again, the story was not about the Adanis. It was about the stand adopted by the Indian government.

Yet no newspaper I examined appeared to foreground that aspect. Rarely are Indian newspapers handed, on a platter, a stack of legal documents already in the public domain. Yet in this instance, most chose either to ignore the development for over 51 hours or to underplay it.

I had assumed that at least some newspapers would use the documents — after erecting the necessary journalistic guardrails.

I had assumed that some would frame the story along the lines indicated here: using documents whose authorship had not been contested until February 14, and pressing the issue of the purported position adopted by the Indian government.

But several newsrooms seem to have perfected the art of swallowing inconvenient news when it concerns powerful players. The inevitable result: readers are denied important information.

And then — bouncing back from these depths of professional despair — I discovered renewed hope.

On February 6, Mathrubhumi carried a Page 1 story that restored my faith in the data-gathering zeal of Indian print newsrooms. The newspaper reported, in meticulous detail, how National Security Adviser Ajit Doval went shopping — unannounced — and purchased banana chips. Yes. B-A-N-A-N-A C-H-I-P-S. Banana chips. In Thiruvananthapuram.

The operation, it seems, was blown open when some employees of a space agency recognised Doval and introduced themselves. Hold your breath: he reportedly exchanged pleasantries with them in Hindi and English.

Pulse racing and adrenaline pumping, I read the chips story with the thrill of watching a Mission: Impossible sequence. Mathrubhumi displayed remarkable courage in revealing what could only be described as state secrets — such as the presence of four vehicles and an ambulance stationed outside while Doval selected his banana chip supplies. The report even disclosed how much money he spent on the purchase.

Indian print newsrooms, clearly, are in safe hands — locked and loaded for the mission.

Step aside, without reservation, Ethan Hunt.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to retire.

Thank you.

Watch the video presentation here:

R Rajagopal, Senior Journalist, Former Editor The Telegraph

The post Newsrooms that Swallow Whales appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Page 6 of the Delhi edition of the Express, a blink-and-miss single column had the headline: “MEA dismisses Epstein email with PM reference as ‘trashy rumination’”.

The report below said: “The Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday rejected any suggestion of impropriety after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name surfaced in a reference contained in newly-released US Justice Department files linked to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.”

Although I described the Express as an “early bird” in uploading its E-paper, I was a Late Latif as I was on a train the previous day and I could not access any news because of the patchy data link. When I woke up on Sunday, I had only a vague idea that Prime Minister Modi had been allegedly named.

I was expecting The Indian Express to share with me — a paid subscriber like many others — information on the issue. But try as I might, I could not spot anywhere in the Express report what the email said about Modi. The Express used coded phrases such as “reference” and “claims” without explaining what they were.

A little later, The Times of India dropped. The story was tucked away in one of the Siberian pages but with no enlightenment on what exactly the email allegedly said.

Then it was Mathrubhumi’s turn, which, mercifully, mentioned the details but added at the end that the BJP had alleged that the mail had been “edited”. That landed me in a quandary: if the email is edited as the BJP has claimed, how can I rely on the details the paper mentioned?

An option then was to check what the government is saying. I went to the External Affairs ministry site and saw its statement: “We have seen reports of an email message from the so-called Epstein files that has a reference to the Prime Minister and his visit to Israel. Beyond the fact of the Prime Minister’s official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt.” (For the kind attention of the Express reporter and desk: the MEA says “trashy ruminations” but your headline and copy say “rumination” unless the ministry said so first and made it plural later.)

The ministry’s statement was colourful but did not offer any insight into what the email said. Back to square one.

Surfing the E-papers of The Indian Express and The Times of India (both are behind paywalls), I learnt about the alleged sex life and medical history of Bill Gates and the dexterity of Prince Andrew on all fours on the floor but I still could not figure out what the email said about my Prime Minister. NDTV did not hold back in its headline: “Ex-Prince Andrew Seen On All Fours Over Woman In Fresh Epstein File Images”.

Then The Hindu came through, and it had the quote that matched what Mathrubhumi said. A while later, The Telegraph also reported the quote that matched what The Hindu reported.

For the record, on July 6, 2017, Epstein allegedly sent an email to a contact in Qatar describing Modi’s recent visit to Israel. Reproduced verbatim from the website of the US Department of Justice, Epstein’s alleged email reads: “The Indian Prime minisiter modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED.!”

Is this how Indian citizens are expected to find out information about their Prime Minister?

Below is a quick wrap-up of how some newspapers covered the issue and my thoughts as a former editor. (I have kept out party mouthpieces.) The phrase “Journalism of cower-age” is not my coinage. The credit goes to a clever social media user.

THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 6

Size: Single column

Position: Middle of the page

Relative prominence: Smallest single column on the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” and “certain claims” but does not share with the reader what the “reference” or “certain claims” are.

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 12) has a big splash on the latest Epstein “document dump”, full with pictures and other details. The alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given pride of place in the roster. The after-party that Mira Nair (the headline helpfully gives the detail that she is the “mother of NYC mayor Mamdani” as if he decides which party his mother attends) allegedly went to has a separate story on the page.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9/10

THE TIMES OF INDIA

Edition: Delhi

Page number: 18

Size: Single column

Position: Top of page

Relative prominence: Top but small single column

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? No. The report mentions “a reference” to Modi and his visit to Israel, under the headline, “Govt trashes ‘Epstein files’ email on Modi”. How The Times of India missed a chance to say “Govt trashes ‘trashy’ Epstein ’email’ is a mystery.”

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? Ha, ha, ha. Not at all. The Times of India has a Page 1 bylined article, datelined Washington, on the Epstein files but the report focuses on Gates and others (under the headline, “New Epstein files claim Bill Gates caught STD from ‘Russian girls’,” and studiously avoids Modi. The same article continues (again bylined) as the lead story in the Global page (Page number 26) under the headline “Epstein emails have 100s of references to Trump, likely to shake up US politics”. Evidently, the Indian newspaper is more worried about US domestic politics. The paper has a chart on Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Steve Tisch but not on the purported content of the email referring to “modi”. The paper lists the granular references against “political and business elites” in spite of mentioning in the very first paragraph of the Page 1 report that some of the references are “lurid and unsubstantiated”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 9.5/10

THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: 0 (Could not readily find the report but I did not check the sports page)

Was the same policy followed while reporting other Epstein file entries? No. The same day’s World page (Page 9) has the following as the main headline: “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump, newly-released files reveal”. Gates gets top billing here too.

TELLING CLUE: The newspaper has a very important piece of news on Page 8: “Newspaper reading made mandatory for students in 800 skill centres in UP”. The eagerness to protect students from the “trashy rumination by a convicted criminal” (the Indian foreign ministry’s description of the alleged Epstein entry on the PM) must have made the newspaper drop the report. If so, a question pops up: shouldn’t the students be protected from such details as “Epstein’s partner presented girl to Trump”?

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 10/10

THE TELEGRAPH

Edition: Calcutta

PM-Epstein report: Page 2

Size: Three columns

Position: Second deck

Relative prominence: Prominent but for some reason, the alleged sex life of Bill Gates is given top-of-the-page play than the purported reference to the PM, Trump and Israel.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The report quotes verbatim from the purported Epstein file, under the headline “Centre rubbishes Modi mention in mail”.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 5/10

THE HINDU

Edition: Delhi

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Long double column

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Prominent but shoved down the page

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. The Hindu has carried the longest and fairly comprehensive report on the issue, compared with the other newspapers I saw.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 4.5/10

MALAYALA MANORAMA

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Three columns

Position: Top of the page

Relative prominence: Prominent but light font headline, blue background and colourful standalone picture below overshadow the report. But the newspaper is the only one I saw that says in the headline the news first and then the reaction: “Epstein file has a Modi reference; Centre dismissive”.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes. It is mentioned clearly

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6/10

MATHRUBHUMI

Edition: Thiruvananthapuram

PM-Epstein report: Page 9

Size: Five columns

Position: Below the fold

Relative prominence: Somewhat prominent because of the double-deck headline in red.

Does the report specify what the Epstein file allegedly says about Modi? Yes, it is mentioned clearly. But the headline is a bit confusing. The headline says “Epstein files: Centre denies allegation that Modi’s name is mentioned”. As far as I can understand from the statement of the external affairs ministry, it has not explicitly denied that Modi is mentioned in the email (neither has it confirmed but chooses the double-edged phrase “so-called Epstein files”. What the ministry has denied is the veracity of parts of the claims in the email, as far as I can understand.

JOURNALISM OF COWER-AGE SCORE: 6.5/10

WHAT AN EDITOR SHOULD DO (According to me)

To be sure, Epstein is a jerk whose claims should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. But a newspaper cannot dismiss any information without trying to verify it.

A newspaper’s principal role is to inform its readers. An editor has the final say on which news to carry and where to carry it but they have no business spiking any information concerning the Prime Minister or any elected representative or public figure if it involves public interest.

If an editor is not sure of the authenticity and is unable to verify it, they should see if the information is free of filthy language and indecent comments. If so, the editor should share it with the reader with an admission that the authenticity could not be verified. Even if the information has bad language, it should either be paraphrased or the nature of the information made clear and then published if it involves public interest. India’s foreign policy definitely involves public interest. Also, if the information turns out to be false later, it can be displayed prominently. Public figures always get a second chance. In any case, the newspaper is not levelling the allegation but merely reporting what has been released in another country under intense public pressure, survivor advocacy and binding legislation.

As a measure of extreme caution, the editor can get the information vetted to see if some of the specifics could be verified. From Epstein’s mail, the first question that pops up is: did Modi visit Israel around the time the purported email was said to have been sent? In short, did Modi visit Israel around July 6, 2017? Yes, Modi did visit Israel from July 4 to 6, 2017. This is what the Ministry of External Affairs had said on July 05, 2017: “Marking the 25th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India visited Israel from 4-6 July 2017 at the invitation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. This historic first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel solidified the enduring friendship between their peoples and raised the bilateral relationship to that of a strategic partnership.”

Second question: After referring to Modi and the US President, the purported email says “they had met a few weeks ago”. Did Modi and Trump meet a few weeks before? Yes. On June 21, 2017, Brookings, the US-based think tank, had announced: “Three years into his term, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit two countries with which India has close partnerships. He will return to Washington on June 25-26, this time for his inaugural meeting with President Trump. Following that, he will travel to Israel on July 5-6 for the first-ever visit by an Indian premier. For Israel, the growing relationship with India is part of a wide-ranging effort to deepen its relationship with major Asian powers including India, China, and Japan. On June 21, The India Project and the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings hosted an event, with one panel each focused on India’s relationship with the United States and Israel.” In focus during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the U.S. was his establishment of a personal equation with U.S. President Donald Trump, the Hindu Net desk reported on June 27, 2017.

Third and million-dollar question: Did Modi dance and sing in Israel? We don’t know. We don’t even know if the email writer used the phrase figuratively or literally. What we know is that Modi and Netanyahu hit it off very well. This is what NDTV reported — rich in details of statecraft — on July 6, 2017: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu today took a stroll on the beach, their natural warmth and chemistry on full display. The two prime ministers hitched up their trousers and waded barefoot into the surf together at Olga beach in northern Israel. They had gone to the beach to see a demonstration of a mobile water desalination unit. Later, they drove together in the mobile water desalination unit — which looked like a dune buggy – and were seen sipping samples of water from wine glasses, even raising a toast.” Most readers are certain to remember the beach pictures so vividly described in the NDTV report. (This was five years before the Adanis gained control of NDTV.)

With the information available so far and the subsequent as well as persistent claims by Trump and the silence by Modi, an editor has only one option: the information must be published but without being judgemental and without casting aspersions on the Prime Minister or how his foreign policy is conducted. The responsibility of the media to inform the public assumes paramount importance here. Besides, withholding information can sometimes harm the person or organisation a newspaper could be seeking to protect. In the absence of clarity, readers may speculate and imagine the worst possible scenarios that are far more damaging than what may have actually taken place. Maximum transparency possible, provided the information does not affect public order or harm national security and is within the limits of decency, is always the best policy.

Then the editor faces a big question: Should the purported claims of a beast like Epstein be published? The answer does not lie in the character of Epstein but in the question why Epstein mentioned Modi. Then other purported mails come into play, including those involving Anil Ambani. Then comes the very BIG question: Were the Indians dealing with Epstein even after his atrocities were known? The Wire reports: “The most significant communications occurred in May 2019 – barely six weeks before Epstein’s arrest on federal charges of trafficking underage girls – as India’s general election results were being counted.” Considering these details, my answer is: Yes, the purported contents of the email must be published.

The next question is how to play it. Almost every newspaper, except a party mouthpiece, I saw wrote the story as a denial. None of the reports began with the news: that the Prime Minister’s name figured in the purported mail and what the mail said. Most news reports chose to begin with the denial, regardless of the fact that they had not reported the email content earlier. Some editors try to justify this by saying TV has already shown the news and the print wants to take it forward. Then why do reports on the speeches of Modi and Amit Shah attacking the Opposition (which are shown ad nauseam on TV) begin with the same attack in the newspapers the next day and not with the Opposition’s reaction? The uniform manner in which most newspapers have begun the story with the external affairs ministry’s denial raises the question whether it was choreographed or whether the default response from the media now is to highlight the official response.

Of course, Epstein was among the worst scum on earth, whose utterances have no ring of credibility — a factor that must have influenced the decision of the editors who decided to bury the news. But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too. Why, then, did some of these newspapers publish Epstein’s claims against Gates and others in detail and prominently in spite of them issuing denials? Why didn’t these newspapers begin the story with Gates’s denial, instead of Epstein’s lurid claims?

Of course, editors can and should decide what they should highlight in a story. The Wire led with the Ambani angle, which is of far greater significance and which ties into the Modi reference. In a brilliant report by Devirupa Mitra and with the headline “Epstein Messages Reveal Anil Ambani Using Sex Offender’s Access to Pitch Modi’s Agenda With Trump”, The Wire nails it. The Wire also reported that “Newly released email exchanges between Bharatiya Janata Party leader Hardeep Puri and Jeffrey Epstein – though confined to business networking and investment discussions – cast doubt on the BJP’s earlier claim that Puri’s appearance in a message from Epstein amounted to little more than casual “name-dropping”. I could not readily see this information in the legacy newspapers I buy. AND THE WIRE IS FREE, UNLIKE THE LUMBERING LEGACY GIANTS WHO CHARGE MONEY BUT WITHHOLDS INFORMATION OR UNDERPLAYS IT. The point is: highlight what you want but do not begin with a denial and do report the full information as long as it is printable.

On the question of placement in newspapers, was this not a blind Page 1 report? How am I affected if “Bill Gates caught STD” or not? Should I not be bothered more about India’s foreign policy than Gates’s alleged medical affliction? Let alone Page 1, the Modi reference report has not made the main slot even in inside pages in the English legacy newspapers I buy. Hindustan Times has a Page 1 mention in a small box at the bottom of the page but that too focuses on the government denial.

The British press can be accused of many things. But when it comes to accountability, the British papers sometimes do what needs to be done. I leave you with the front pages of three “quality”, not tabloid, British newspapers although the revelations involving the former prince are not comparable with the entries linked to Indians so far.

Author’s Note: Epstein’s alleged email has spelling mistakes and, like many rich people, he did not believe in capital letters. I have reproduced the quote exactly as it appears on the US DoJ site.

About Author

Senior Journalist, Former Editor The Telegraph

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post When Some Titans Of Indian Media Crawled On All Fours, Like Ex-Prince Andrew, To Cover Up Or Bury The Indian Links in Epstein Files appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Former Editor Meets ‘Former Terrorist’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

So, I do have a June 4 story that began in 1989 when Rajiv Gandhi lost the election, which I covered as a cub reporter at 21. “Covered” is presumptuous. I was more or less zipping around Trivandrum on a two-wheeler gifted by a friend, reporting “untoward incidents” for Venad Pathrika, the afternoon newspaper I was working for then. Again, it was an election that would turn fateful for the country that sent me to Calcutta.

After the journalism course at the Times School in Daryaganj, I had been shortlisted for The Economic Times in Bangalore but I was reluctant, having contracted typhoid from the southern city during a two-month internship with The Times of India and generally unable to find anything of interest there. The only open slot then was Jaipur Times of India, an edition that faced the somewhat unique and unfortunate threat of “cannibalism”. The Times of India Delhi edition, probably the best newspaper in the country then with a powerhouse of talented journalists, would reach Jaipur by around 10am or before that, and many readers in Jaipur would prefer to wait rather than take the Jaipur edition, which meant the biggest competitor of The Times of India in Jaipur was The Times of India from New Delhi! But that was not a factor for me.

I had been schooled that journalists should pursue journalism, not what circulation managers do. I was willing to go to Jaipur (anything to escape Bangalore) when my classmate who was earmarked for Calcutta Economic Times landed a position in a US university. Calcutta badly wanted a trainee because of the elections of May 1991. Delhi asked for volunteers and my hand went up, possibly because I had never been to Calcutta and our classmate Mohuya’s mother used to tell us such endearing stories about the city while feeding us luchies when we deliberately landed up at her home at Vivek Vihar just before dinner. That’s how I reached Calcutta, lost my way and ended up in Harish Mukherjee Street, instead of the nearby Hazra Road, and found Maharashtra Bhavan instead of Maharashtra Niwas. Which suited me best because I could not have afforded the better Niwas.

One or two days later, Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. Needless to say, I was devastated and I was scared I would descend to depression with no one to talk to. I think only the collegiate atmosphere at the Calcutta Economic Times saved me. I was also asked if I was “LTTE” once or twice because the term had acquired currency after the assassination and I used to roam around central Calcutta in a lungi after work. The questions were good-natured, meant to impress me with the familiarity of geopolitical coinages. I took it in my stride as ribbing, which it was.

I sometimes wonder which was the toughest election I had been associated with in terms of newspapering. I think my friend and former colleague Harshita will choose the 2004 election when The Telegraph headlined it Power of Finger and illustrated the page with an oversized but real-life inked finger.

My choice will be the Bengal Assembly election of 2001. Both pages had a common link: the genius of Deepayan Chatterjee, our deputy editor. What new thing can you say when the Left Front keeps winning election after election? When I was at my wits’ end, I used to literally “look up” to the six-plus-foot Deepayan. He is almost always kind but when his brain was whirring and you intruded with your rabbit-caught-in-the-headline-look, he would glare at me. Then, always, always, without fail, he would lean forward, take a headline sheet, scrawl something carelessly as if it is the grocery list and pass it on to me. I was speechless, as I often was when Deepayan’s creative gears started shifting, especially when World Cup Soccer finals were over at some unholy hour on some far corner of the earth and we had only a few minutes to release the page.

In 2001, I was speechless because leaping at me from the headline sheet was what I consider the best election headline I had seen in my career. The headline: 1977, 1982, 1987, 1991, 1996, 2001…

The ellipsis was the coup de grace. A hint that the chain will continue, which was not very difficult to predict. Little did we know then that within a decade the Red Fort would crumble?

Personally, the hardest election for me was the 2021 Assembly election. Almost everyone, except our bureau chief Devadeep Purohit, predicted that Modi will make mincemeat of Mamata. I was especially proud of my colleagues because of the exceptional work they produced. We cut down on traditional reportage and focused on what Bengal stands to lose if the zealots came to power.

Our senior journalist Chandrima Bhattacharya wrote on short notice, again the story spotted and amplified by Devadeep, what turned out to be the best report of the election. Chandrima wrote on how Modi called Mamata “Didi O Didi” — an extremely difficult copy to write unless you are personally wounded and affected. The Telegraph gave maximum coverage to the blockbuster song, Nijeder Mawte Nijeder Gaan. I remember that the result day in 2021 was May 2. May 1 was a no-print day and we were working from home.

On April 30, while leaving the newsroom well past 2am, a colleague asked me: “Will we see you again here?” The unstated suggestion was that the BJP would not spare me if the party came to power in Bengal. The BJP did not come to power in 2021. As it turned out, September 29, 2023, was my last day in the newsroom or virtual newsroom as we were working from home. Not many in the desk got to ask me if that was my last day.

Since October 2023, I have travelled widely in Kerala and some parts of India and realised that I have friends I had never met before or even heard of before. I also realised that I am a bad speaker but some people, for some reason, like to inflict on themselves bad speakers like me. Especially students. I even campaigned for a candidate (who lost). But I had no idea what I would do on June 4, the result day. Around mid-May, my friend and Media One channel editor Pramod Raman asked me if I would like to be at their studio for three days till the result day. I reluctantly agreed.

When the exit polls were flashed, I wondered whether I should still go. I was in two minds. Until I received a message from a Muslim friend I had met during one of my travels in Malabar: “Are the exit polls true? I am very afraid.” The message gutted me. I did not know what to say. Eventually, I told him to keep the faith. Then I thought I should go to the studio. On June 3, I was welcomed to the studio with the warmth and the hospitality Malabar is known for. But I could sense the tension in the production rooms. So thick that you could cut it with a knife. The cliché is true. I felt it first-hand. No one told me they were tense and if so, why they were tense. They needn’t have told me. I was standing on Ground Zero of media oppression in India. Media One, run by a Muslim management but which has several journalists and other employees from other faiths too, had been abruptly banned by the Centre, triggering a long and expensive legal battle that the channel won emphatically.

The Supreme Court judgment in the Media One case should be part of the curriculum in all journalism schools. Also, the way Pramod and his team navigated the crisis. Unlike some of the “powerful” media houses, they did not cave in.)

On June 4, I reached the studio around 1.30pm. By then, there was a sea change. It was becoming increasingly clear that the BJP would not get a majority on its own. Ajims, Nishad and Pramod (the untiring journalists who were broadcasting from 5am) were on air. Someone asked me to wait in the editor’s office. Then someone from the production room saw me and waved me over. I think the desk knows where someone from the desk would like to be. I stood in one corner of the newsroom, reluctant to intrude.

I am glad I did not go to the editor’s room straightaway. The mood at the production room, packed mostly with young journalists, was infectious. Someone shouted: “Smriti trailing badly.” A cheer went up. So did a round of applause. Then they began feeding memes based on popular movie scenes. The great actress KPAC Lalitha’s meltdown in a scene was flashed when Smriti Irani’s plight was shown. “I need a headline,” another voice. PT Nasar, a veteran journalist I respect a lot, piped in: “Smritinaasam (The destruction of Smriti, and here a reference to the recollection of Smriti Irani’s tenure as minister and the Amethi conquest of 2019).” The response: “Yay.” I was in shock. It happens when you have an adrenaline rush after a long time. “Am I back in my newsroom?” I asked myself. “Tharoor has closed the gap. He is leading now.” Another cheer, another round of claps. Until a few minutes earlier, Shashi Tharoor was trailing. “Tharoor widening the gap. I need a headline.” “Turbo Tharoor.” Turbo is a full-on Mammootty action flick now running in Kerala movie halls. Unable to sleep, I had seen the movie less than 24 hours earlier on June 3 night. Another meme is on screen.

It is a scene from Bhramayugam, a Mammootty blockbuster in which the character played by the great actor keeps captive a man who seeks shelter in his manor. “You can’t go. I won’t allow you to go,” the most famous voice in Kerala is telling the captive. On the split screen, the image of a loser (I think it was Rajeev Chandrasekhar but I am not sure) appears. The suggestion: Mammootty’s character is telling the losing candidate that he cannot go to Parliament. Then Sabir asked me: “Would you like to come upstairs from where the figures are being updated?” I went up.

What a scene it was! It was one of the most breath-taking sights I have ever seen. The top deck — from where the figures are being fed to the on-screen charts — overlooks the studio floor from where the live telecast is going on. On the floor, the dashing Nishad is on fire. It is the principal duty of Nishad and Ajims to ensure that the coverage does not flag. Both were soft-spoken when I met them the day before.

But in front of the camera, they were tigers on the hunt. Behind me was the electric hubbub of the desk, unable to suppress the excitement as it became clear that Modi will fall short of majority. Ahead and down below on the brightly lit floor, Nishad, Ajims and Pramod were kicking their coverage into high gear and memes were flying thick and fast. That is the magnificent image that will stay with me forever. Later, Pramod and Nasar Sir took me to a nearby shop to have tea. On the way, an almost apologetic Pramod asked me: “Don’t take it otherwise. May I ask you what your headline would have been tomorrow had you run the newsroom? I wanted to ask you live on TV but I did not.”

I am glad Pramod, always reasonable and who insists on hearing the other side before passing judgement, did not ask me that question on air. Because I would not have had an answer. I told Pramod that I need a newsroom to think up a headline. I usually go blank and the reaction around me — even while working from home for months, I used to communicate constantly with as many colleagues as possible, especially Harshita — helped me to pick a headline.

When I told Harshita about this, she also asked me to think about what I would have done. I politely declined to answer. I don’t want to return to that space and place. But I am sure my headline would not have been on Modi (a headline on Modi would definitely have titillated social media but I would have kept it for an inside page). My headline most probably would have been on the people, especially the people of Uttar Pradesh. Just a simple “Thank U”, perhaps? Who knows? “U” opens up a lot of possibilities to work on as subsidiary visual ideas, besides Uttar Pradesh: Uttam Pradesh, U-tubers, Uniters, Unbreakables, U-turners….

Or, a tweak of Lincoln to say THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATION? Or, if I focused on Modi, would I have shrunk the entire Page 1 by 56 per cent in recognition of the deflation of the Big Chest? I don’t know. Now you know why I am too reckless for newsrooms.

That night, I messaged my friend in Malabar who was alarmed by the exit polls: “Sleep well tonight. We are safe.”

The dark clouds have only parted. They still hang heavy over us. Even now, anything can happen. Still, the night of June 4 was one of relief. We needed to breathe. We did. Late that night, I received a message from a friend in Uttar Pradesh. It read: “My kids asked me the reason for my happiness today. I told them that you will realise the value of this day many years later, then you will thank me and countless others who fought against tyranny.” I replied: “Well said, Saheb. And I will tell my grandchildren that I knew you.”

I don’t know if my account makes a story, especially against the backdrop of the sacrifices made by many, including Umar Khalid who is still in jail; the whiplash journalism pursued by Ravish Kumar and Ajit Anjum and several others; the selfless crusade of Teesta Setalvad, Harsh Mander, Roop Rekha Verma and many, many volunteers; the sharp political instincts of Yogendra Yadav and Parakala Prabhakar; and the hope kept alive by Dhruv Rathee. But I do hope my account answers my friends’ questions.

This is my June 4 story.

N.E. Sudheer, the foremost bibliophile I know and a no-nonsense commentator, writes in TrueCopyThink. (Of course, you may say little has changed with Modi and he retains his destructive powers but there is one priceless change. We are no longer afraid, especially no longer afraid to hope and to dream)

HOPE

A pluralistic Opposition, steered by a redoubtable civil society, will certainly preserve “India”. The democracy of Nehru will have sparkling evolutionary progressions

DREAM

All that I am visualising now is Modi falling prey to opportunistic politics and leaving Parliament one day after losing a confidence motion. The sengol must also accompany him. This is the dream of an ordinary citizen who takes pride in the idea of India. Had the popular verdict been otherwise, we would have been afraid even to dream.

(The author is a senior journalist; this is from his social media post)

Related:

The handover at Rae Bareli

The post My June 4 Story: The Day Results to the 2024 Elections came in appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The following is a list of stories I missed reading in the nine newspapers I buy and read online, and where I saw them. Others may have carried these stories but the point is I am reacting as a reader or audience as the suits classify us, not as a journalist.

In the latter half, I air my views as a desk hand.

1. The abandonment of Muslims (Saw it in multiple interviews by Karan Thapar and others for The Wire and read about in The New York Times. The photographs in The Times were outstanding, you cannot look at them without (tears) welling up.)
2. The electoral bonds. (The ready-to-report story that the mainstream media dropped like a hot potato. Most of the original stories I read in The News Minute-Newslaundy-Scroll. The Hindu and The Indian Express did carry some original stories but wasted them with the lukewarm display.)
3. The radical transformation of Rahul Gandhi (By Meena Kandasamy in The Wire; by Rahul Bhattacharya in The Economist)
4. The political and economic transformation of the Congress (articulated through its manifesto) (Yet to see a comprehensive copy. Perhaps, the pink press has carried but I don’t read business papers now as I cannot understand most of the jargon they write. I wonder if the reporters and subs also understand.)
5. The tempo-van meltdown. (I badly wanted to read a full-page collection of stories on this. About the van, about robber-barons, about how much cash fits in — with legal as well as demonetised notes. I am not joking. When Harshad Mehta claimed that he gave a crore to Narasimha Rao, a magazine tried to fit Rs 1 crore into a suitcase and found the brand which can. Oh, how green was our newsroom valley then, and now a cracked-earth desert!)
6. The breathtaking role played by civil society in the elections. (The New York Times)
7. The lies of Modi and the inability of most of the paper tigers to call him a liar. Some newspapers exhausted the thesaurus to steer clear of the word “lie”. (Ravish Kumar and Ajit Anjum all the way)
8. The rise of Uddhav Thackeray from an entitled member of a dreaded clan to a leader who has earned respect. (Multiple YouTube channels)
9. The valiant battles fought by Tejashwi Yadav and Akhilesh Yadav. (Social media)
10. The uncompromising ideological armour built by MK Stalin and Udhayanidhi. (Media One TV)

11. Dhruv Rathee, Ravish Kumar, Ajit Anjum, Karan Thapar and countless others who exposed how irrelevant the so-called mainstream media has become.
12. Umar Khalid, Siddique Kappan, Mohammed Zubair and several others who have paid a price for standing up to the regime. (Scroll, The Telegraph)
13. Kani Kusruti and her gesture at Cannes, the “Sudappi from India” post by Shane Nigam. (Malayalam media)
14. Above all, Shikha. Some of you may wonder who Shikha is, which probably means you are a newspaper-reading, English-speaking citizen. A homemaker in Rae Bareli, Shikha has voted for the BJP twice. Now, she is asking questions. Her questions need not reflect any sea change on the ground and Modi can still be re-elected. But the point is she has neither forgotten nor forgone her right to ask questions. (Mahol Kya Hai)

There must be several other stories that were untold. I leave it *to *you to decide what you missed.

Headlines

I will end with a small note on headlines. This may sound *like *nitpicking to laypersons. I request you to indulge me.

1. Which one is the best headline of the 2024 elections so far? My vote is for “The Audacity of Hate”. (The Guardian editorial on Indian elections)
2. Modi was not being “bitter”. We must choose our words with care and precision. Just as the golden hour in a heart attack and in a crime scene investigation, all you get in a headline is a few words. Choose wisely. Venom must be bitter but I don’t know. I have tasted it in only those I have helped. Call venom venom, poison poison, toxic toxic and hate hate. Divisive is not a synonym for raw, unvarnished hate.
3. I see a tendency among subs to abridge words like Opposition to Opp, governor to guv, president to prez. Nothing wrong with them. My son says econ for economics (econ is more apt also, I think, considering the con jobs that are pulled in the name of economics). Some newspapers have already graduated to Maha for Maharashtra and Raj for Rajasthan. I am waiting for Him for Himachal and Ben for Bengal and Shyam for Shyambazar.

As I said, nothing wrong with them if that is your house style. I am guilty of allowing Kejri for Kejriwal. So, I have forfeited my right to lecture.

Still, I will try to briefly explain why acerbic and arrowroot-biscuit-chewing (for ulcers) chief-subs used to dustbin subbed copies that wrote Opp or Oppn. Journalism is the most repetitive creative job in the world. Which makes it vulnerable to cliches, triteness and boredom. So, you need to play around with words to make it original each time you give a headline. The moment you say Opp, it means you are lazy to work on the headline and you go with a cliche. But challenged, you will think of new ways. Then you will think about the kernel of the story, its politics and its hidden nuances. Shortcuts kill the unique features of each story.

A drill you can follow after work so that your deadline is not affected:

1. Be convinced like a fanatic: every copy has a perfect headline. You just need to find it. Nothing can beat the high of a reasonably evocative headline falling into place.
2. Take a headline with Opposition or Guv or Prez.
3. Work on it till you can say the same thing with Opposition or without the word opposition.
4. Draft five headlines for the same copy: single column, double, three columns, 4 columns and eight columns. 5, 6 and 7 columns will fit if any of the five fit.
5. Always work on a sixth headline. Something wacky and wild. It will be your private collection that will make you proud one day.

(The author is a senior journalist; this is from his social media post)

Related:

The handover at Rae Bareli

The post Elections Stories I missed in the newspapers that I buy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Momentous occasions usually skim over me like the flat stone in a game of ducks and drakes.

Exhibit One: When I got married, I forgot to change into the shirt I had bought with my savings from the Debonair shop on the Grand Arcade in Calcutta and tied the knot (actually a crimson garland that is used to break fasts unto death) in what I was wearing overnight.

Exhibit 2: At the 75th anniversary of the Anandabazar Patrika in 1997, when Prime Minister I.K. Gujral signalled fresh general election, I was still marvelling at then editor, Aveek Sarkar’s suggestion that it was ABP that taught CPM how to spell Harkishen Singh Surjeet in Bangla. The thread was broken by the rushing feet of agency reporters scrambling to call in from landlines the news alert at a time mobile phones were a luxury. I was blissfully unaware that the Prime Minister had just then announced the biggest announcement of the day.

The old habit almost repeated itself in Rae Bareli on Friday — the penultimate day of campaigning here — when Sonia Gandhi said something that hardnosed political reporters would not pay much attention to because the generational change in the Congress had already taken place years ago.

I was at the rear of the audience on the ITI grounds in Rae Bareli, where the Jan Sabha attended by Akhilesh Yadav, Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi was winding down with Rahul’s blistering speech.

Then Sonia took the podium and started speaking. I had already worked my way forward, threading through the multitude so that I could catch a closer glimpse of the dais. Then I paused.

“I entrust Rahul to Rae Bareli,” Sonia told the audience, most of them made up of those who suffer in silence as 21 Indians hold as much wealth as the 70 crores.

I am not sure whether the Hindi word “saump” translates better as “entrust”, “cede”, “hand over” or “dedicate”.  

The handover marked a milestone in an extraordinary journey in public life in the world. Having represented Rae Bareli — an unrivalled name for a century as far as political recall is concerned (my mother gasped when I told her this evening where I was when she made the weekly call to check on me) — for decades, Sonia was saying farewell in the briefest manner possible but with unmatched elegance.

This note is not for any news columns. My quota for the month is over and I came to Rae Bareli on my own and not as a journalist, careful not to tread on any oversensitive toes.

Now comes the occasion — personally momentous but not so under any other yardstick— that sailed past me. Harshita Kalyan, among the journalists I now respect the most and my former colleague, called me and asked me if I recall a coincidence. I did not.

Harshita reminded me that I had covered the very first campaign rally of Sonia in Calcutta in 1998 on the great Brigade Grounds, where Indira Gandhi and Bangabandhu Mujib Ur Rahman held a gigantic rally after the birth of Bangladesh when India took on Nixon and did not blink when he sent the Seventh Fleet.

I think it was Sonia’s third or fourth meeting after the campaign debut in Sriperumbudur where Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. I was assigned by deputy editor Deepayan Chatterjee to cover Sonia’s speech. I don’t think I did a memorable job, focusing more on how the previous speakers tortured the audience until Sonia arrived. I remember vaguely Harshita, who would speak her mind then as now, asking me why I wasted precious space on the others while the focus should have been on Sonia.

In hindsight, I think I was influenced — if not blinded — by the anti-Congressism sweeping Indian newsrooms, especially English, and a Khan Market variety of wordplay that couched the unkindest and most condescending labels and sobriquets in words that I found difficult to decipher without a dictionary. “Dowager” was a particularly patronising term where as “So near, yet so far” was done to death whenever photographs of Sonia appeared in newspapers. It was as if newsrooms could not wait for Sonia to enter politics — so that they can criticise her for doing so.

I suppose that is the done thing in a democracy: no quarters asked and none given. But I did not find the same sniggers and the same scrutiny being applied to Narendra Modi.

In fact, few public figures in India have faced relentless and unfair attacks as Sonia has — starting with her place of birth, the partner she chose, her accent, her skin colour, her part-time job, her clothes, her children…. Does any person indulging in such regressive behaviour have a place in a modern society? In India, they have a perch in high places.

Then in 2004, she showed how out of touch most of the editors were with what was happening in the country. “India Shining” was everywhere — when the Indian cricket team beat Pakistan in Pakistan in a one-day match it was “India Shining”. Perhaps, that was symptomatic: a bunch of highest paid players owned by a private club were being toasted as the symbols of India’s prosperity! Was it any different from the pride of India being equated with the gains of Ambani and Adani (till the tempo van hit the road)? But Sonia literally led the Congress by foot and put together an implausible coalition — a testimony to her political sagacity and accommodative nature.

The greatest — and hard to contrive — gift of Sonia was her ability to bring out the best in others. I remember a story (I don’t know if it is true but it is such that I want it to be true) in which a communist veteran tells a profusely perspiring Sonia at his modest flat in Delhi summer that the only AC there was in his bedroom. You are like my daughter. Will you mind if I invite you there so that you can be more comfortable while we talk, the veteran asked Sonia. Sonia apparently laughed and readily moved to the bedroom. Only those who respect each other can make such an offer and accept it.

I am sure you did not miss the point here that the greatness of the gesture lies more with the communist veteran than with Sonia. I never tire of telling this story, perhaps because somewhere deep down I give the credit to Sonia also for making him respect and trust her judgement.

Sonia again stunned the know-it-all pundits by declining to be Prime Minister. All these are well-known. I mentioned it here only because the best-ever edition of The Telegraph was brought out by Deepayan Chatterjee when Sonia gave up the post. That edition remains by all-time favourite although I suspect Harshita will choose the 2004 verdict edition with the Power of Finger headline that showed our former colleague Nupur’s inked finger. These are now a days worth losing your job for.

Sonia presided over a political system that undoubtedly was the most just and invested heavily in equity and empowerment. I do not know of any dispensation that piloted so many projects in such a short time (of course with the prodding of the Left) that empowered so many people.

By then, the India Shining armchair specialists were back, sniping and griping that the national wealth was being frittered away on the wretched and the damned. What about “development”, they groaned, unwittingly or otherwise making it the most treacherous word in Indian politics that helped Modi legitimise his run for national power.

At Rae Bareli this afternoon, as I was pushing to maintain my balance amid the heaving crowd, I heard Sonia say “Fear not”. She also underscored the need to respect others, protect the helpless and fight whoever it may be for the rights of the people — isn’t this what journalism also claims to aspire to, however hollow and laughable it may sound in many a newsroom?

It also struck me that countless mothers have little option but to entrust their children to God. In an extraordinary and reciprocal play, Sonia has the fortune of entrusting her son with Janata Janardan, a phrase that has lost is meaning over the years and the butt of ridicule in cynical newsrooms. 

Equally, Rae Bareli could not have asked for a better choice to call as its own and protect as its own. (Those making a face about dynasty and fief and other phrases but have a problem with inheritance tax, please remember: Sonia did not bequeath Rae Bareli to Rahul. It is not Sonia’s to do so. She has done it the other way round. Rahul will have to earn Rae Bareli as his guardian.)

I have no access to a newsroom now but I could not resist the temptation to wonder what would have been the headline had I led a team in producing a paper. Without hesitation, it would have been: GRACE.

(The author is a senior journalist; this is from his social media post)

The post The handover at Rae Bareli appeared first on SabrangIndia.

1. SC Garg, the Economic Affairs Secretary when the Electoral Bonds were rolled out and later the finance secretary, has said on record that the “we” were not aware that the SBI was “clandestinely” recording the unique numbers of the bonds at the deposit and encashment stages. This admission/disclosure is nothing short of an earthquake that throws up several other questions. Yet, how many of you read it in how many newspapers? 

2. Is Garg saying that the largest bank in the country went rogue behind the government’s back? Can the finance ministry just wash its hands of?

3. Or does his disclosure mean that the finance ministry was kept in the dark and some other government department with overriding powers and asked SBI to record the numbers? If so, would this mean the breakdown of the Cabinet System and the clearest indication yet of the operation of a deep state? Besides, if a section of the government told SBI to record the details, how does it make the business hotshots who swear by Modi look? Have the barons been taken for a royal ride and information was being collected on the suckers for future and perpetual blackmail?

4. Only the SBI’s standard operating procedure (SOP) can shed light on whether someone empowered it to record these details without telling the finance ministry. But SBI has apparently cited third-party interest to keep the SOP under wraps. This is nonsense because we already know about the donors and recipients. Who is this third party? How can third-party confidentiality be cited for information already known? All that is being asked is the process through which the information was recorded.

5. If someone or some group in SBI acted on its own and recorded the details on its own, the issue enters uncharted territory. Garg calls it unlawful, and the question does arise if the government had given this kind of autonomy to the SBI. We also cannot escape the question whether this individual or group is the biggest whistle-blower in the world after Snowden. Should the person/group be rewarded or punished?

6. Garg makes some questionable claims. That the Bond Scheme actually did such a meticulous job that we should be thankful! He also says Jaitley should be congratulated. Garg conveniently glosses over the fact that these details would have remained unknown had not the Supreme Court come down hard. The role of the Teflon-coated bureaucrats who can justify and rationalise anything has not been examined. Garg sounds like a character out of “Yes, Prime Minister”. Smooth-talking, self-effacing and keen to blame SBI and defend his political bosses.

7. This brings us to the role of Jaitley. Newspapers are strangely silent on this. He is no more but that does not mean that the role he played in the Bonds should not be put under the microscope. Two of his pet themes (which he would have wanted to be his legacy) now stand discredited: his crusade against pre-retirement decisions vulnerable to post-retirement inducements and the electoral bonds.

Besides, if he really did not know that SBI was secretly recording the details, isn’t this another instance of him being allegedly kept in the dark after demonetisation? What does it speak of his role in the Modi dispensation? What does it speak of journalists and editors who ate out of the hands of some ministers who projected themselves as those who knew it all?

A story is crying to be done. We can only wait and pray when newspapers will bless us with such a story.

8. The SBI: Hero or Villain? No story yet on how the bank collated data in three days after seeking time till after the elections. No story on the drama behind the scenes, who took the decisions.

Imagine if such a thing had happened if a non-BJP government was in power. We know Gujral was sleeping when he was named PM, we know how many times Shivraj Patil changed clothes daily, we know what was served at UPA meetings but we don’t know about the biggest U-turn in India since independence by a behemoth bank!

(The author is a senior journalist; this is from his social media post)

The post PSST! Shall we inform the reader or let sleeping bonds lie? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We see when you are awake,

We know if you’re with or against us,

So be quiet for goodness sake.”

— a parody modelled on the popular song Jingle Bells sent by a former IAS officer to the author

 “Surveillance and Freedom of Press”.

In mid-December 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission concluded that the employees of Rite Aid, a pharmacy chain, acted on false alerts from its facial recognition systems, followed customers around stores, searched them and ordered some to leave. If the customers refused, the store called the police to confront or remove them, at times in front of friends and family. Rite Aid used facial recognition technology to falsely identify people of colour and women as likely shoplifters. Rite Aid’s actions disproportionately affected people of colour, especially Black people, Asians and Latinos, all in the name of keeping “persons of interest” out of hundreds of Rite Aid stores in cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Sacramento, the commission said.

This is just one example of how surveillance technologies are intruding into our everyday life, including in fields as essential and indispensable as medicine purchases.

In journalism, surveillance kicked in long before technology achieved the cutting edge status that it has today.

One example is the practice of government offices maintaining registers and making it mandatory for journalists to make an entry identifying the officials they are meeting on a particular day. This was not the case earlier: journalists with accreditation, which is granted after careful and strict scrutiny by government-appointed bodies, could enter government offices and speak to officials, usually in the afternoon when the workload sometimes eases. The register system is primitive but very effective.

If an article that is unpalatable to the government is published on a particular day, all that the government needs to do to identify the source is to check the register and see which officials met the journalist concerned. This strikes at the very root of source confidentiality. Source confidentiality has no legal backing in India, but is considered vital for the functioning of the Press. If sources can be identified by vindictive administrations eager to invoke the Official Secrets Act at the drop of a hat, journalism and accountability – and democracy, by extension – will be the ultimate sufferers.

I mentioned this to point out that sophisticated technologies are not needed if a government decides to undermine the pillars on which a democracy is built. But as the case of the Rite pharmacy showed, more advanced the technology, more vulnerable it is to misuse.

Often, civil society – journalists and lawyers included – fail to spot the symptoms of a surveillance raj or regime.

I request you to recall how we looked the other way after some initial murmurs when almost our entire urban stretches were brought under closed circuit TV and other surveillance cameras. Along with law enforcement agencies, private entities, including households, jumped into the surveillance cauldron and installed camera after camera in every nook and corner.

Along with this came, the craze for pointing smartphones at anything and everyone and snapping pictures without showing the basic courtesy of asking permission. In the process and without realizing it, we became the most surveilled society in history, bigger than what even the Orwellian Big Brother could do.

Fighting crime and monitoring traffic violations were cited as excuses for condoning the invasion of the surveillance cameras. So much so that, modern law-enforcement agencies have almost forgotten the pre-CCTV skills of deduction, detection and collection of evidence.

When we hear of a crime now, the first question we involuntarily ask is: “what about CCTV footage” or “where is the CCTV footage?” As if, before CCTVs became fashionable, no crime could be solved. The question – “where is the CCTV footage?” – is also an admission that we have practically given up our precious right to privacy and that we now consider it unusual if we are NOT under surveillance.

It is often said that some police stations in some parts of the country have corners beyond the reach of CCTV cameras, where bribes are exchanged and third-degree methods are deployed -– away from the prying eyes of the cameras that can incriminate public servants.

I am tempted to recount a story I had heard when I was a trainee journalist in the early 1990s when cell phones had not made their presence felt in India. I am not sure if the story is true but my objective is to merely illustrate how intrusive technology has become in a matter of decades.

A very important person in New Delhi used to “disappear”, every once in a while, to conduct an extramarital affair. Some of his rivals within his own party decided to settle scores with him. One day when the VIP was spending time with his lover in a guesthouse, someone called a police station and reported that the minister is missing. With no cell phones to track him and his staff tight-lipped, the police launched a man-missing search. Eventually, a very exasperated — and angry — VIP was found in the guesthouse.

Now, in the age of cell phones, the VIP would have been spared the embarrassment and the police could have saved the resources used for the manhunt. Three decades later, earlier this week on Christmas Eve, a retired IAS officer sent me a parody modelled on the popular song Jingle Bells.

One stanza went like this: “We see when you are sleeping, we see when you are awake, we know if you’re with or against us, so be quiet for goodness sake.”

From the crude register, we have now come to the age of Pegasus, a spyware that can only be bought by government agencies.

Now it is possible not just to snoop on what reports a journalist is working on, it is also possible to plant evidence against the journalist to implicate the journalist in trumped-up cases. I hope the enormity of the crisis is clear for you.

This ability of State-sponsored actors to embed themselves in the deeply private corners of watchdogs has grave implications for not just journalism but also the judiciary, the Opposition and the other checks and balances the republic has put in place after much thought and deliberation.

As if all these are not enough, we now have to cope with Artificial Intelligence also. Technology usually has three phases: enormous advantages, frightening potential for misuse and reassuring antidotes.

I hope we reach the third stage fast enough.

However, I must digress here and speak about at least one instance of how technology has helped. The media is no saint or angel. It has its share of devils.

Recently, in Kerala, a minister’s aide was accused of taking a bribe from a job aspirant. A channel went to town with the news. The young aide would probably have been hanged in a media trial. But, fortunately for him, a video surfaced, showing him at a wedding venue in another district at the time when the accuser claimed that money was handed over outside the secretariat. Even without the video, in the good old days, accounts by eyewitnesses at the wedding would have been sufficient to establish his innocence. But of late, our media trials and television channels make me wonder if we have forgotten a principle that forms the cornerstone of jurisprudence: presumed innocent until found guilty.

I blame the media as well as a section of lawyers who are willing to appear on TV and comment on cases that are sub judice. Both the media and the legal fraternity need to exercise restraint on this front. I did not elaborate on the Pegasus scandal because all of us know enough – or too little – about the scandal.

The sheer sweep of the Pegasus scandal that broke in July 2021 was astounding: the spyware was allegedly used on Opposition leaders, judges, journalists, investigators and statutory officials.

Fewer than 30 months later, on October 30, this year, Apple sent alerts to Opposition politicians and journalists that State actors may have tried to break into their iPhones. Among the politicians were some of the senior-most public figures and well-known journalists in the country, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and The Wire news portal co-founder Siddharth Varadarajan.

Let us pause for a moment and dial back to the latter half of the 20th century. The offices of the Democratic Party were sought to be bugged in an election year in the US during the Nixon presidency.

The Washington Post newspaper focused on the Watergate scandal for 788 days – until President Nixon was forced to resign. The Pegasus scandal in India was far bigger than the Watergate scandal in its sweep and reach. If one party was targeted in the US, a wide cross-section of society, including several pillars of our republic, were suspected to have been targeted. Yet, the political and ethical outrage in India was limited in its intensity.

I quote from a column I wrote for The Telegraph newspaper this month. An American judge played a decisive role in the Watergate case. Judge John J. Sirica “kept badgering defendants and witnesses on matters not covered in the indictment —namely, the financial and institutional involvement of the White House”. The judge took the “contentious step of passing exceptionally long provisional sentences on the defendants” (which allowed the accused to ponder the punishment for a few months). Sirica indicated that if the defendants spoke frankly at the hearings, the sentences would be reduced. Sirica ordered Nixon to surrender his recordings of the White House conversations to federal prosecutors. “Almost single-handedly, with great courage and risk to his reputation, Sirica had broken the case wide open.”

In India, the Pegasus controversy reached the Supreme Court. A court-appointed committee concluded last year that malware was found in five out of 29 phones submitted to it, but the use of Pegasus could not be confirmed. The committee said the Centre “has not cooperated” with the investigations. Parts of the reports were made public but the full files remain in sealed covers. In May this year, the apex court said an early date would be set for examining the status of various recommendations made by the committee.

Just days ago – that is December 28, 2023 – months after the Supreme Court looked into the allegations, Amnesty International issued the following statement. This is what convinced me that I must speak here today. Please keep in mind the names may sound familiar but these are NEW, I repeat, NEW revelations.

I quote from the Amnesty statement. “Amnesty International, in partnership with The Washington Post, has unearthed shocking new details about the continued use of the highly invasive spyware Pegasus to target prominent journalists in India, including one who had previously been a victim of an attack using the same spyware.

Forensic investigations by Amnesty International’s Security Lab confirmed that Siddharth Varadarajan, Founding Editor of The Wire, and Anand Mangnale, the South Asia Editor at The Organised Crime and Corruption Report Project (OCCRP), were among the journalists recently targeted with Pegasus spyware on their iPhones, with the latest identified case occurring in October 2023.”

“Our latest findings show that increasingly, journalists in India face the threat of unlawful surveillance simply for doing their jobs, alongside other tools of repression including imprisonment under draconian laws, smear campaigns, harassment, and intimidation,” the head of Amnesty International’s Security Lab said. “Despite repeated revelations, there has been a shameful lack of accountability about the use of Pegasus spyware in India which only intensifies the sense of impunity over these human rights violations.”

The Security Lab recovered evidence from Anand’s device of a zero-click exploit which was sent to his phone over iMessage on 23 August 2023, and designed to covertly install the Pegasus spyware. A zero-click exploit refers to malicious software that enables spyware to be installed on a device without requiring any user action from the target, such as clicking on a link. The attempted targeting of Anand’s phone happened at a time when he was working on a story about an alleged stock manipulation by a large multinational conglomerate in India, the Amnesty statement added.

The Union home minister is fond of speaking about “chronology”. The latest Pegasus chronology is telling: On August 23, OCCRP seeks the company’s comment. Within 24 hours, the Pegasus spyware was sought to be planted in Anand’s phone. How is it that a spyware only a State agency can buy gets activated when a private company is asked a question? I am scared to name the company here because I do not know whether in the one hour I took to travel from Calcutta to Howrah, if the company has obtained a legal order barring a public debate on the issue.

The NSO Group, which owns the Pegasus software, told The Washington Post that it sells its products only to government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and that its technologies are licensed for the sole purpose of fighting terror and major crime. Indian authorities have until today provided no clarity or transparency on whether they have procured or used the Pegasus spyware in India, Amnesty said.

Please note the point that someone in our country is repeatedly and with impunity targeting the working tools of journalists again and again. The operative phrase here is “again and again”.

The Amnesty revelations suggest spyware abuse is continuing in India unabated EVEN AFTER the highest court of the land looked into the issue. If this does not terrify you, what will? I am compelled to ask this question: have our institutions, have our pillars, have our civil society, and have our collective voice lost the will and ability to stop shadowy players who declare with defiance “We don’t give a damn”?

How long will we allow these thugs with technology to violate our freedoms and our very lives? Can we name any other democracy whether such things are exposed but no one -– absolutely no one -– is held accountable?

Against that backdrop, I am constrained to ask: has large sections of Indians entered a post-morality, post-probity phase, much like the era of post-truth? I hope I am wrong and your answer is a resounding “no”. But if you also think that we have been sucked into a post-morality phase, democracy as we know it is in deep peril.

Our democracy will check all the boxes: the world’s largest elections, quick results, a clear majority and a government that swears by the Constitution. But beneath the surface – if journalists are unable to fulfil their responsibilities because of fear of surveillance, if judges are constrained to speak out after retirement and large sections of the minorities and the marginalized live in fear – it would mean that our democracy has been hollowed out in front of our eyes which are blinded by the dazzle of its outer shell.

As I conclude, I come to the most important point of this conversation. Have we realized how surveillance of journalists and others has turned on its head one of the fundamental principles of democracy?

The GOVERNED are supposed to keep a watch over the GOVERNORS.

Unfortunately, in our time, it is the governors who are keeping the governed under surveillance.

With great sadness, I recall the immortal words of US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in 1971 in the Pentagon Papers case: “The founding fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in a democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.” I spoke of my grief because of the current deplorable cosiness between large sections of the media and the governors. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.

So, what must civil society, which includes lawyers, do? I have no answers but I humbly place the following questions before you.

• It was the legal fraternity that took the lead in the freedom struggle. Will history forgive you if you remain silent now when divisive forces are threatening to rip apart our country that was built painstakingly with invaluable contributions from your predecessors, too?
• Unlike laypersons, you know the law. Have you exhausted all legal means possible to protect journalists from the curse of surveillance and infiltration?
• Like Judge Sirica of the US, are you badgering all stakeholders again and again to intervene?
• Have you filed petition after petition to the government to launch an independent inquiry into all cases of surveillance that do not include national security?
• Have you asked the government to disclose whether it had any contracts with foreign surveillance companies?
• As citizens, do you not want to know about the entire report of the Supreme Court’s technical committee in the Pegasus case? Have you discussed what you can do to ensure that the report is made public?
• Have you held enough street-corner meetings, press conferences and other discussions so that retired judges get more opportunity to speak out?

Please do not remain silent. Speak up and continue to speak. You know how to do that without breaking the law. Somewhere, someone will hear you.

Quietly and behind the scenes, Pope Francis this month took a significant — not adequate but significant nevertheless – step towards recognizing LGBTQ rights. The new rule allows Catholic priests to bless same-sex couples as long as the blessing is not connected to the ceremony of a same-sex union. This was considered impossible in March 2021. But the Pope worked behind the scenes to reach a consensus. In his traditional Christmas greetings to members of the Curia, the bureaucracy that runs the Vatican, Pope Francis said: “Let us remain vigilant against rigid ideological positions that often, under the guise of good intentions, separate us from reality and prevent us from moving forward.”

Perhaps we have an answer there. Perhaps we can negotiate and work around the rigid positions on all sides so that the governed can always hold the governors accountable. No one can scale up such a conversation and lead these negotiations better than lawyers. You owe it to this country.

Thank you. 

(Delivered on December 29, 2023 at the 14th All India Conference of The All India Lawyers Union in Howrah, West Bengal by the author, Editor, The Telegraph)

The post Surveillance and Freedom of Press – A call to public action appeared first on SabrangIndia.