This is not only a vindication of CJP’s relentless media watchdog efforts but also an institutional acknowledgment that prime-time news debates can fuel communal hatred when stripped of neutrality and balance.

The Spark: Bahraich Violence and its media afterlife

The case traces back to events of October 13, 2024, when communal violence erupted in Bahraich’s Maharajganj area during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Loud music played near a mosque led to clashes, gunfire, and the death of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, sparking retaliatory violence across the area. Shops, homes, hospitals, and vehicles were vandalised or set ablaze.

Just two days later, India TV aired Coffee Par Kurukshetra, ostensibly to discuss the incident. But instead of sober reportage, the show sensationalised the tragedy, demonised Muslims, and presented the violence as part of a larger “civil war” allegedly being prepared by Muslims against Hindus.

The episode was hosted by Sourav Sharma, with panellists including Professor Sangeet Ragi, Pradeep Singh, and Shantanu Gupta — all of whom used the platform to make sweeping, inflammatory claims against Muslims.

The complete complaint may be read here.

The Complaint

On October 21, 2024, CJP filed a complaint, later escalated on November 6, 2024, underlining the show’s dangerous narrative and violation of broadcasting standards.

CJP pointed to several troubling aspects:

• Loaded language and visuals: The anchor introduced the show with terms like “stone-pelter army”, “extremist Muslims”, “civil war” and “conspiracy”. Aggressive visuals and background music heightened the fear-driven narrative.
• Vilification of Muslims: The broadcast portrayed Muslims as perpetual aggressors and “outsiders,” even invoking Partition to argue Hindus had historically suffered because of Muslims.
• Misuse of religious practices: The Azaan was singled out as disruptive; panellists questioned why Hindus should tolerate it. Muslim festivals were painted as threats to Hindu ways of life.
• Distortions of historical figures: Gandhi and Ambedkar’s words were misquoted or wrenched out of context to argue that they too had warned against Muslims.
• No counter-voices: No Muslim speakers or neutral voices were invited. The discussion was entirely one-sided, with the host tacitly endorsing the communal tone.
• Dangerous calls to action: Guests openly suggested Hindus should “come out with sticks” to defend themselves, with rhetoric escalating to cosmic metaphors of “gods versus demons.”

CJP stressed that airing such a programme without any verified police investigation or neutral reporting amounted to spreading disinformation, promoting hostility, and abandoning journalistic neutrality.

The Broadcaster’s Defence: Freedom of press or abdication of duty?

India TV, in its reply dated November 5, 2024, defended the programme by arguing:

• The show was live, unscripted, and based on free debate; responsibility lay with guests, not the broadcaster.
• The channel did not endorse guest views, which were “diverse perspectives.”
• Freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) protected the airing of controversial opinions.
• CJP’s complaint had “selectively quoted” panellists and distorted context.

India TV insisted the host had asked probing questions — such as whether Ram Gopal’s removal of a flag justified his killing — and claimed that presenting historical parallels and references to riots was legitimate.

The Hearing: CJP vs. India TV

The matter was heard by NBDSA on May 29, 2025. CJP reiterated that the show, aired at a time when no official police findings were available, had irresponsibly created an “us vs. them” dichotomy, depicted Muslims as violent conspirators, and stripped the broadcast of neutrality.

The broadcaster doubled down, arguing that controversial views cannot be censored in a democracy, and the complainant had failed to show factual misquotations.

NBDSA’s Findings: A one-sided, communal narrative

After reviewing the broadcast and submissions, NBDSA made several critical findings:

1. Deliberate theme and panel selection

• • The broadcaster had pre-selected a divisive theme and only invited speakers supporting that narrative.
  • No dissenting or balancing voices were included, making the debate fundamentally biased.

The order noted “The Authority found that a particular theme was chosen and thereafter only those persons who have strong views in support of that theme were invited to express their views.”

2. Violation of neutrality

• • Anchors are obliged to moderate and prevent communal provocation.

The order noted “The broadcaster did not include the speakers who could express other side of the picture, and thus the discussion was not balanced and was one-sided. This is clear violation of principle of neutrality under the Code of Conduct. The broadcaster is advised to have such discussions in the programmes keeping in mind the principles of neutrality.”

The Order: Strong directions against India TV

NBDSA’s order issued the following directions:

• Content removal: India TV must delete the impugned broadcast from its website, YouTube channel, and all online links. Written confirmation of compliance must be submitted within 7 days.
• Institutional circulation: The order will be circulated among all NBDA members, Editors, and Legal Heads.
• Public record: The order will be hosted on NBDSA’s website, included in its Annual Report, and released to the media.

The Authority clarified that while its findings apply to broadcasting standards, they do not determine civil or criminal liability — keeping the scope strictly within media regulation.

The order noted that “NBDSA further also directed the broadcaster to remove the videos of the impugned broadcasts, if still available from the website of the channel, or YouTube, and remove all hyperlinks, including access, which should be confirmed to NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the Order.

NBDSA decided to close the complaint with the above observations and inform the complainant and the broadcaster accordingly.

NBDSA directs NBDA to send:

• A copy of this Order to the complainant and the broadcaster;

• Circulate this Order to all Members, Editors & Legal Heads of NBDA;

• Host this Order on its website and include it in its next Annual Report and

• Release the Order to media.”

Why this is a victory

The importance of this order lies in:

• Explicit recognition of one-sided narratives: The order highlights how “debates” can be structured to push communal agendas by excluding balancing voices.
• Anchor accountability: By holding the host responsible for failing to intervene, the NBDSA sets a precedent that anchors cannot hide behind guest opinions.
• Content removal, not just warning: The directive to remove all online traces of the show is stronger than usual, signalling zero tolerance for such broadcasts.
• Validation of civil society monitoring: CJP’s meticulous monitoring, complaint drafting, and legal follow-through stand vindicated, showcasing the role of civil society in holding powerful broadcasters to account.

Conclusion

The NBDSA’s decision reaffirms that freedom of the press cannot be a licence to vilify minorities or erode communal harmony.

For CJP, this win represents the power of consistent vigilance, evidence-based complaints, and commitment to secular values. At a time when hate speech in mainstream media is often normalised, this order proves that institutions can still deliver accountability when pushed with precision and persistence.

This is, without doubt, a small but vital step towards reclaiming media as a forum for truth, balance, and harmony — not hate.

The complete order may be read here.

Image Courtesy: jiotv.com

Related:

Assam BJP’s AI video a manufactured dystopia, Congress files complaint, myths exposed

NBDSA issued advisory to news channels that tickers and thumbnails should conform to the actual version of the discussion

NBDSA cautions Times Now Navbharat to avoid presumptions in sensitive religious reporting for broadcast on “Madrasas Teachings”

NBDSA cracks down on biased anchors: Orders content removal from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News based on CJP’s complaints

The Cost of Clicks: how thumbnails encourage misleading and hate news consumption

Broadcasting Bias: CJP’s fight against hatred in Indian news

The post NBDSA pulls up India TV for communal, one-sided broadcast; upholds CJP complaint against broadcast appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In both cases, the NBDSA highlighted the anchors’ partisan conduct, accusing them of steering debates towards religious bias, amplifying communal tensions, and failing to moderate inflammatory statements by panellists. The authority found that these broadcasts violated the Code of Ethics and Specific Guidelines for Anchors, deeming their removal essential to mitigate the harmful impact of their content. These orders not only hold anchors accountable for their role in perpetuating polarising narratives but also emphasise the critical need for ethical and responsible journalism.

Order on complaint to Times Now Navbharat for giving Israel-Hamas conflict a communal colour during debates

Background of the complaint

On October 23, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat regarding two debate segments aired on October 16, 2023. The debates, titled “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ?” and “Rashtravad: हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है?”, addressed the Israel-Hamas conflict but framed the issue in a communal and polarising manner. The debates portrayed Indian Muslims, opposition leaders, and leftist student organisations supporting Palestine as sympathisers of Hamas due to their “religious connection”. CJP highlighted how such broadcasts stigmatised Muslims and painted the Palestinian cause as a communal issue rather than one about life, liberty, and freedom from occupation.

The complaint noted that the anchors, Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, adopted a partisan approach, posing biased and leading questions that portrayed the Muslim community and its leaders in a negative light. Pandey’s show suggested that Indian Muslims might support terrorism due to shared religious ties, while Yadav’s debate questioned whether opposition leaders were inciting support for Hamas in India. CJP argued that this rhetoric violated the NBDSA’s guidelines for neutrality and responsible reporting, contributing to a polarising environment and exacerbating communal tensions in India. Upon no satisfactory response from the broadcaster, the complaint was then escalated to the NBDSA on November 10, 2023.

Submissions by the complainants

1. Communal bias: The debates portrayed Indian Muslims supporting Palestine as being aligned with Hamas, despite no evidence to suggest such alignment.
2. Accusatory tone: Anchors framed polarising questions, such as “Will there be support for terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?” and accused opposition leaders of creating a “Hamas think tank” in India.
3. Unequal treatment: Panellists from opposition parties and Muslim backgrounds were treated with hostility, while ruling party representatives were given a platform to make communal diatribes unchallenged.
4. Misrepresentation: Clips of protests and statements supporting Palestine were selectively used to create suspicion, ignoring India’s official stance supporting a two-state solution.

The complainants cited Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India to emphasise the duties of anchors in conducting fair and impartial debates.

Submissions by the broadcaster

1. Support for India’s stance: The broadcaster argued that the debates aligned with India’s position on the Israel-Palestine issue, which condemns Hamas while supporting a peaceful resolution.
2. No violation of guidelines: The broadcaster claimed that the debates merely questioned statements by political leaders perceived as opposing India’s stance.
3. Aggressive tone justified: It defended the tone as necessary for sensitive topics and asserted that annoyance or irritation caused to some viewers did not violate broadcasting norms.
4. Fair reporting: The debates, according to the broadcaster, provided viewers with accurate information and sought to uncover the motives behind statements made by certain political leaders.

Decision by the NBDSA

After reviewing the footage, arguments, and submissions, the NBDSA noted that while criticism of Hamas falls under freedom of expression, the impugned broadcasts went beyond this remit and violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards.

Key findings in the order:

1. Communal colour: The NBDSA observed that the debates gave a communal tone to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Statements made by politicians in support of Palestine were conflated with support for Hamas. The debates also included biased and provocative questions such as, “Will there be support for terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?” and “Who is building the Hamas think tank in India?” These questions contributed to creating prejudice against a specific community.
2. Violation of anchor guidelines: The anchors failed to ensure impartiality. They permitted panellists, such as Mr. Shubham Tyagi, to make communal diatribes, and statements like comparing the Congress Party’s stance on Palestine to support for terrorist entities were not curtailed.
3. Targeting a community: The order noted that “the broadcaster exceeded the limits by targeting a particular community,” as evident in the framing of questions and the communal rhetoric during the debates.
4. Failure to provide balanced coverage: While the broadcaster claimed it was presenting India’s stance on the conflict, the NBDSA found that the anchors did not highlight India’s support for Palestine alongside its condemnation of Hamas, resulting in one-sided reporting.

Actions taken by the NBDSA:

The NBDSA concluded that the broadcaster’s failure to moderate the debates impartially and its communal portrayal of the Israel-Palestine conflict violated broadcasting standards. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring responsible journalism in sensitive discussions that can shape public opinion.

1. Warning issued: The NBDSA issued a formal warning to the broadcaster to adhere to the principles of neutrality and impartiality.
2. Removal of content: The broadcaster was directed to remove the videos of the said broadcasts from its website, YouTube, and any other digital platforms within seven days, confirming compliance in writing to the NBDSA.
3. Advisory for future broadcasts: The NBDSA advised the broadcaster to strictly follow the ‘Specific Guidelines for Anchors Conducting Programmes, Including Debates’ in future broadcasts, especially on sensitive topics.
4. Order dissemination: The NBDSA instructed the release of the order to the complainants, broadcaster, and media and its inclusion in its annual report.

The complete order may be read here.

Order on complaint to Zee News for communalising Budaun double murder case during debate

Background of the complaint

On March 27, 2024, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) lodged a detailed complaint with Zee Media Corporation Ltd. regarding a live debate segment aired on Zee News on March 20, 2024. The programme, titled “Debate on Budaun encounter LIVE: Encounter पर क्यों उठा रहे सवाल? Javed | Sajid | Breaking news,” focused on the Budaun double murder case, where a Muslim man was alleged to have murdered two Hindu children. The segment was broadcast repeatedly in a loop over 11 hours, amplifying its impact and raising concerns about a deliberate attempt to promote communal narratives. The actual panel discussion lasted over 35 minutes, during which the anchor and panellists were observed taking a problematic stance that injected a communal tone into an otherwise criminal case.

CJP’s complaint highlighted the derogatory and communal language used by the anchor, such as referring to the crime as a “Talibani style of murder,” which unnecessarily linked the incident to the religious identity of the accused. It argued that the show was structured to propagate a one-sided sectarian perspective, targeting the Muslim community as a whole. Muslim panellists were subjected to accusatory questioning and a polarised atmosphere, while Hindu participants were treated favourably. CJP also raised concerns about the psychological impact of repeatedly airing such biased content and demanded its removal from all platforms, along with a public apology from the broadcaster. Upon no satisfactory response from the broadcaster, the complaint was then escalated to the NBDSA on April 17, 2024.

Submissions by the complainant

1. Communalisation of the incident: The complainant stated that the debate focused on the religion of the victims and the accused, despite the police and the family confirming there was no religious motive.
2. Use of “Talibani-style murder”: The murder was repeatedly referred to as “Talibani-style” simply because the accused was Muslim and used a knife.
3. Inflammatory remarks by panellists: Communally inflammatory statements were made by panellists, including accusations about madrassas and claims that Muslims consider non-Muslims as “kaafirs.”
4. Discrimination against Muslim panellists: Muslim panellists were interrupted, accused of sympathising with the accused, and forced to apologise, while inflammatory statements by Hindu panellists went unchecked.
5. Diversion from extra-judicial killings: The anchor diverted attention from discussions on extra-judicial killings and accused Muslim panellists of sympathising with terrorists.
6. Anti-Muslim diatribe: Statements such as “Hindus should avoid Muslim barbers” were made during the debate, with the anchor justifying such remarks.
7. Violation of guidelines: The broadcast violated NBDSA guidelines by giving a communal colour to the incident and fostering religious hostility.

Submissions by the broadcaster

1. Purpose of the debate: The broadcaster argued the debate aimed to highlight the silence of politicians on the double murder.
2. Anchor’s neutrality: The anchor stated at the start of the debate that communal politics should not be part of the discussion.
3. Efforts to control panellists: The broadcaster claimed the anchor attempted to prevent panellists from digressing from the main topic.
4. Balance of representation: Religious leaders were invited to ensure a balanced discussion.
5. Use of “Talibani-style murder”: The term was used to reflect the brutality of the crime, not to reference religion.
6. Disclaimer: A disclaimer aired during the broadcast clarified that the views expressed by panellists were personal and not endorsed by the channel.

Decision of the NBDSA

After reviewing the footage, arguments, and submissions, the NBDSA noted that while the broadcaster had every right to question the silence of the politicians on such incidents which have the tendency to disturb the harmony in the society, the impugned broadcasts went beyond this remit and violated the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards. The order stated that the anchor Merely because the suspect person belonged to a particular community, it was no reason to label the same as ‘Talibani-styled’ murder.

Key findings in the order:

1. Right to broadcast: The broadcaster had the right to discuss the incident and question politicians’ silence but failed to limit the debate to this aspect.
2. Communalisation of the incident: Labelling the murder as “Talibani-style” based solely on the religion of the accused gave the incident an unwarranted communal colour.
3. Violation of guidelines: The broadcast violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, Specific Guidelines for Anchors Conducting Programmes, and Guidelines to Prevent Communal Colour in Reporting Crime.
4. Failure to manage panellists: The anchor encouraged inflammatory rhetoric, allowed certain panellists to make derogatory statements unchecked, and failed to ensure fairness.
5. Disclaimers deemed inadequate: NBDSA held that disclaimers do not absolve broadcasters of responsibility for ensuring neutrality and adherence to guidelines.

Directions by NBDSA:

• Warning issued: The broadcaster was issued a warning for violating broadcasting guidelines.
• Removal of content: The broadcaster was directed to remove the broadcast from all platforms and confirm compliance within seven days.
• Circulation of the order: The order was to be shared with NBDA members, editors, and legal heads, hosted on the NBDSA website, included in the annual report, and released to the media.

The complete order may be read here.

Related:

CJP’s Landmark Victory Against Hate in Media | Times Now Navbharat Pulled Up by NBDSA

Championing Justice: CJP’s Guide to Filing NBDSA Complaints

CJP Victories 2023: NBDSA fines communal news shows

NBDSA orders mainstream news channels to remove shows, fines imposed

The post NBDSA holds biased anchors accountable: Orders removal of communal content from Times Now Navbharat and Zee News following CJP’s complaints appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This ongoing work is crucial in addressing the rise of communal violence and polarisation, safeguarding India’s democratic values, and ensuring that the principles of secularism and social harmony are upheld amidst an increasingly contentious political climate.

The importance of accountability: CJP’s work with the NBDSA in 2024

In 2024, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed six complaints with the News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) to challenge the spread of hate, misinformation, and divisive content in television news. The complaints targeted major media outlets:

• Aaj Tak: 1 complaint
• Zee News: 1 complaint
• Times Now Navbharat: 2 complaints
• India TV: 2 complaints

Key outcomes in the year:

Orders received: 5

• 4 against Times Now Navbharat: All resulted in the removal of contentious shows broadcasted on TNN, which were:

1. Operation Mazaar – Promoting hate and baseless claims against Muslim communities.
2. Hindu Rashtra Broadcast – Legitimising religious bias and communal rhetoric.
3. Madrassas in UP – Stereotyping minority institutions with unfounded accusations.
4. Minority Students and UCC – Misrepresenting and dividing citizens with false narratives.

• 1 against Aaj Tak: The NBDSA refrained from passing an order as an FIR had been filed in the matter of Aaj Tak’s anchor Sudhir Chaudhary making casteist comments against Jharkhand CM

• Orders pending: 6
  • After hearing: 2
  • Hearing yet to take place: 4

The broader media crisis in India: These figures are part of a growing concern regarding the role of the media in spreading hate and propaganda across India. Multiple studies and reports have underscored how sections of the media are complicit in amplifying divisive rhetoric:

• The 2023 Newslaundry-Lokniti CSDS Media Survey Report had revealed that 82% of the surveyed scribes believed that the media favoured the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). A majority of those surveyed (80%) also reported that they found the news coverage to be “too favourable” to the BJP, while 61% felt that it was “too unfavourable” towards the opposition parties.
• The Hate Speech and Media Report (2019) by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) linked media narratives to communal hate incidents in the country.
• Reports from the Press Council of India have repeatedly criticised the growing trend of polarising and unethical journalism.

Such patterns are deeply concerning, as inflammatory broadcasts have been shown to exacerbate real-world violence and deepen communal divides.

Why this work matters: CJP’s interventions with the NBDSA reflect a critical effort to restore accountability and ethical standards in Indian media. By filing complaints and challenging problematic content, CJP plays a vital role in:

• Holding powerful broadcasters accountable for their role in spreading divisive narratives.
• Curbing the spread of hate speech, which can trigger violence and undermine social cohesion.
• Promoting responsible journalism that informs rather than divides.

The NBDSA, as a self-regulatory body, remains an important check on the misuse of media power. However, civil society efforts—like those led by CJP—are essential to ensure this mechanism remains effective and responsive. In a time when propaganda poses an unprecedented threat to democracy, CJP’s work serves as a necessary intervention to protect truth, justice, and plurality in India’s media landscape.

Challenging divisive rhetoric: CJP’s complaints to the ECI and SEC in 2024

In 2024, CJP filed 16 complaints with the Election Commission of India (ECI) and State Election Commissions (SEC) to address the rising misuse of religion during election campaigns. This practice, which violates the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, remains a persistent challenge to free and fair elections.

Breakdown of complaints:

• Election Commission of India (ECI): 1 complaint
• State Election Commission, Maharashtra: 10 complaints
• State Election Commission, Jharkhand: 5 complaints

These complaints primarily targeted speeches and campaigns where political parties or candidates invoked religious identities to influence voters, a violation of Section 123(3) of the RPA, which classifies such appeals as a “corrupt electoral practice”.

Impact so far:

• FIRs filed: Two complaints in Maharashtra State Election Commission had also resulted in First Information Reports (FIRs), one against Suresh Chavhanke and the other against Kajal Hindustani, marking a significant step towards legal accountability.

These FIRs underscore the seriousness of the violations reported and demonstrate the role of civil society in pushing for stricter enforcement of electoral laws.

The role of election bodies and the broader crisis: Despite clear legal and procedural frameworks, political parties continue to deploy religious and communal rhetoric to polarise voters. This is not an isolated issue:

• The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) noted in 2023 that appeals to religion, particularly during high-stakes elections, have increased significantly.
• Reports from multiple elections show that inflammatory speeches—rife with religious overtones—often go unchecked, despite the Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct (MCC) explicitly prohibiting such practices.
• Recent electoral campaigns have repeatedly demonstrated how divisive rhetoric overshadows critical issues like governance, education, employment, and development.

The Election Commission of India and its state-level counterparts are constitutional bodies tasked with upholding electoral integrity. However, inconsistent enforcement and delays in action have allowed political actors to exploit religious identities for electoral gain.

Why this work matters CJP’s complaints and the resulting FIRs reflect a crucial intervention to safeguard India’s electoral integrity. By actively challenging violations, CJP aims to:

• Enforce compliance with the RPA and MCC to ensure elections remain free from communal manipulation.
• Discourage the misuse of religion for votes, which fragments communities and deepens social divisions.
• Reaffirm the secular nature of India’s democracy, as enshrined in the Constitution.

The filing of FIRs based on CJP’s complaints is a concrete reminder that such violations carry legal consequences. It also highlights the urgent need for stronger enforcement mechanisms to curb the misuse of religion in electioneering.

Unchecked divisive rhetoric during elections not only undermines democratic ideals but also fuels hatred and violence. CJP’s interventions aim to restore the focus of election campaigns on real issues that matter to the electorate. In a time when polarisation threatens India’s social fabric, ensuring accountability in the electoral process is more critical than ever. By challenging violations, CJP underscores the urgent need for stronger enforcement mechanisms to protect democracy from communal exploitation.

Confronting hate: CJP’s complaints to law enforcement authorities

In 2024, CJP filed 20 post-event police complaints as well as 10 preventive complaints against hate speeches and hate events to prevent such content from being delivered at public events. These interventions are a critical part of CJP’s ongoing efforts to curb the growing threat of hate speech and its role in inciting violence across the country.

Key statistics over the year:

• Police complaints filed against hate speech: 20
  • Maharashtra: 12 complaints
  • Other states: 8 complaints
• Preventive police complaints (filed before events where hate speech was likely to be delivered): 10
• Delegation with complaint before event: 1
  • Outcome: The event was denied permission, preventing potential hate speech and communal tension.

These efforts are a response to the increasingly divisive and inflammatory rhetoric being used in public spaces, especially at political rallies and religious events. The rising frequency of such incidents is well-documented. For instance, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2022 data, there’s been an increase of 45% in cases pertaining to hate speech and other acts to promote enmity between groups on the ground of religion, race, language and place of birth registered under IPC section 153A in India in the past two years.

NCM complaint by CJP: Addressing hate speech

In addition to law enforcement efforts, CJP filed one complaint with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM). This complaint addressed specific instances of hate speech targeting minority communities delivered by Suresh Chavhanke, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Sudarshan News. Such complaint forms a crucial step towards holding public figures and entities accountable for spreading divisive rhetoric. The NCM’s involvement plays a key role in ensuring that hate speech targeting minorities is addressed at a national level and in ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable for their actions.

The growing threat of hate speech: Despite existing legal frameworks—such as criminal provisions which penalises promoting enmity between groups and penalises deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings—hate speech remains rampant, especially during election periods and public events. In 2023, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reported that communal and hate-driven content during election campaigns increased by 25% in major states.

Why this work matters: CJP’s proactive and responsive approach is essential in addressing the persistent issue of hate speech, which continues to erode communal harmony and promote violence. These efforts are directly aligned with the constitutional mandates of secularism and unity, as they aim to prevent the misuse of religion for divisive political gains.

By filing complaints and pursuing preventive actions, CJP is:

• Holding perpetrators accountable under the law, ensuring that hate speech does not go unchecked.
• Intervening early to prevent potential communal clashes by blocking platforms that could amplify divisive narratives.
• Encouraging more consistent enforcement from law enforcement agencies, setting a strong example for other states and authorities.

CJP has, throughout the year, meticulously documented these instances of hate speech, highlighting the potential for social division and violence. The filing of FIRs and the denial of permission for events indicate a growing recognition of the need for law enforcement to act decisively. These actions show that it is possible to curtail hate speech and prevent violence before it spreads. CJP’s ongoing efforts continue to prove that effective legal interventions, combined with timely police action, are crucial to preventing the escalation of communal tensions in a diverse democracy like India.

Conclusion: Upholding accountability and secularism in the face of rising divisiveness

CJP’s work in 2024 underscores the importance of proactive civil society interventions in combating hate speech and divisive rhetoric across various platforms. By filing complaints, seeking accountability from media outlets, election authorities, and law enforcement, and ensuring that legal provisions are enforced, CJP plays a vital role in preserving India’s democratic ideals and secular fabric. As hate speech continues to fuel violence and deepen communal divides, CJP’s efforts highlight the urgent need for sustained action to curb such rhetoric, protect vulnerable communities, and foster a society rooted in equality and harmony. These interventions serve as a crucial reminder that a united and just India depends on all sectors working together to uphold the rule of law and the values of tolerance and coexistence.

Related:

The judiciary’s commitment to protecting rights: notable Supreme Court judgments of 2024

CJP files 5 hate speech complaints before CEO Maharashtra as violated MCC

CJP’s Landmark Victory Against Hate in Media | Times Now Navbharat Pulled Up by NBDSA

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

The post Fighting divisiveness: CJP’s comprehensive approach to tackling hate speech appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The complainant, Ghorpade, had alleged in the complaint that this broadcast violated NBDSA’s regulatory standards, which are designed to prevent content that promotes superstition, glorifies the supernatural, or contributes to religious intolerance. At the heart of the complaint is Shastri’s self-professed supernatural abilities and his inflammatory statements regarding Hindu nationalism and other religions. The program, titled “Baba Bageshwar Exclusive Interview,” is claimed to have allowed Shastri to make statements without adequate disclaimers or counterpoints, which Ghorpade argues could mislead viewers and incite religious disharmony.

The following sections provide a detailed breakdown of the complaint, the broadcaster’s response, the complainant’s counterarguments, and the final ruling by NBDSA.

Issues raised by the complainant

Ghorpade filed the complaint on July 11, 2023, two days after the program aired, citing concerns over how the program presented Shastri’s controversial views without sufficient context or disclaimers. Specifically, Shastri claimed supernatural abilities, stating he could locate missing animals, predict elections, and discover hidden resources, such as diamonds, through mystical means. Additionally, he made bold assertions about converting India into a “Hindu nation” and used language that could be interpreted as inflammatory towards other religious groups.  Ghorpade’s grievance was that News18 India had violated NBDSA’s Code of Ethics by allowing this content, which, he argued, glorified superstition, risked misleading viewers, and potentially incited communal tension.

The complainant raised multiple concerns regarding the nature and content of the broadcast, which, he argued, contained misleading information and reflected bias. He pointed out that the broadcast painted individuals involved in a negative light without sufficient factual basis, potentially damaging their reputations. According to the complaint, the program failed to offer a balanced perspective, choosing instead to highlight certain narratives over others, which resulted in “sensationalism over factual reporting.”

The complaint cited specific examples from the broadcast that allegedly violated NBDSA’s guidelines on impartiality and objectivity. Ghorpade’s submission underscored that the broadcaster’s portrayal was not only inaccurate but was presented in a way that amplified a single viewpoint, neglecting alternative perspectives that were crucial to an unbiased understanding of the issue.

Broadcaster’s submissions

News18 India defended itself by emphasising that the interview with Shastri was live, making it challenging for the anchor to fact-check or control Shastri’s spontaneous statements. The broadcaster argued that the views expressed during the interview were solely those of Shastri and were neither endorsed nor supported by the channel. News18 India also highlighted that Shastri was a prominent figure whose activities had captured public interest, and, as such, there was legitimate news value in covering his perspectives. The channel claimed its anchor made efforts to clarify that Shastri’s claims were personal beliefs and not objective truths.

In addition to this, the broadcaster defended its editorial choices, asserting that the program had been created within the bounds of journalistic freedom and served a legitimate public interest. The broadcaster argued that its intent was to inform viewers about pertinent issues, and it claimed that the broadcast was factually accurate. Furthermore, they maintained that editorial decisions were made in accordance with standard practices, emphasising that the program was not designed to mislead or harm any party involved.

The broadcaster further cited its right to freedom of expression, insisting that its reporting provided a necessary platform for public discourse on critical issues. They claimed that their team had followed due diligence, presenting the story in a responsible manner. According to the broadcaster’s submission, the program’s approach was “consistent with the norms of ethical journalism” and in line with industry standards. 

The complainant’s rebuttal

In response, Ghorpade countered that broadcasters have a responsibility to ensure that the content aired on their platforms does not contravene ethical standards, even if made by guests. He argued that News18 India’s decision to feature Shastri—whose controversial views were widely known—without more stringent oversight, violated NBDSA guidelines. Furthermore, he contended that the program’s lack of sufficient rebuttal or critical questioning could lead viewers to accept Shastri’s supernatural claims as credible. Ghorpade requested strict action against News18 India to reinforce that broadcasters are accountable for the statements of their guests, especially when these statements are divisive or irrational.

Decision of the NBDSA

After carefully considering both the complaint and the broadcaster’s defence, the NBDSA ruled in favour of Ghorpade, finding that the broadcaster had indeed violated its standards. The authority concluded that the program “lacked a balanced approach,” a requirement that is integral to fair and responsible journalism. In the order, the NBDSA remarked that while freedom of the press is vital, it must be exercised with responsibility to avoid harm or misinformation.

The NBDSA instructed the broadcaster to issue a public apology to address the misleading aspects of the broadcast. Additionally, it directed the broadcaster to take corrective actions to prevent similar incidents in the future. “This decision,” the NBDSA stated in its order, “should serve as a reminder to all media organisations about the necessity of upholding ethical journalism standards.” The ruling made it clear that sensationalism should never replace factual reporting, and it emphasised the importance of presenting a balanced narrative.

The Authority noted that broadcasters have the editorial freedom to invite guests; however, this freedom is not without limits. NBDSA found that Shastri’s statements promoting superstition and making divisive religious claims were irresponsible and risked promoting communal disharmony. The Authority criticised the broadcaster for not issuing clear disclaimers and not challenging Mr. Shastri’s claims more rigorously.

As a result, NBDSA issued a warning to News18 India, advising against inviting guests likely to promote superstitious beliefs or socially divisive opinions. It also directed the broadcaster to remove the interview from all digital platforms and confirm this action in writing within seven days. The NBDSA stressed the importance of responsible journalism and reminded News18 India of its obligation to adhere to standards that ensure content does not mislead or promote irrational beliefs.

The NBDSA’s decision in this case underscores the vital role of media accountability and ethical reporting standards in protecting public trust. By ruling in favour of Ghorpade, the NBDSA has reaffirmed that journalistic freedom must be balanced with a commitment to integrity and impartiality. This ruling serves as a precedent, reinforcing that media organisations are responsible for avoiding sensationalism and presenting a fair, balanced view to their audiences. The NBDSA’s order not only addresses Ghorpade’s concerns but also sends a clear message to the media industry regarding the importance of upholding credibility and trust in journalism.

The complete order can be viewed here:

Related:

CJP seeks action against BJP leaders for alleged hate speech amid Jharkhand polls

BJP spreading sea of hatred on social media before Jharkhand elections, ECI mum – shocking facts revealed in research report

Indore Muharram Poster Misunderstood: right-wing claims ‘Ghazwa-e-Hind’ message, despite common tribute

The post NBDSA orders News18 India to remove broadcast promoting superstition and religious intolerance based on complaint by activist Indrajeet Ghorpade appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Each of the four instances reflects a serious violation of ethical journalism, highlighting the critical role of the media in shaping informed, unbiased discourse. The NBDSA’s decision to remove the broadcasts and issue stern warnings against the broadcaster is a reminder that media must operate within the framework of fairness, accuracy, and respect for all communities. This victory marks a step forward in holding broadcasters accountable for their content and ensuring that the principles of religious harmony, objectivity, and truth are upheld in every broadcast.

The NBDSA’s firm stance reinforces the importance of responsible journalism and serves as a clear message to all media outlets: ethical standards cannot be compromised in the pursuit of sensationalism or polarising narratives. The action taken in these four cases sets a significant precedent for maintaining the integrity of broadcasting and protecting the public from misleading and harmful content.

1. Order on complaint against ‘Operation Mazaar’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 27, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint to with the NBDSA regarding a debate show that aired on Times Now Navbharat on May 22, 2023, titled ‘धामी सरकार का ‘ऑपरेशन मजार’, ‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ की साजिश के किससे जुड़े तार?’. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, which claimed to provide an analysis of alleged illegal mazaars (Islamic shrines) in Uttarakhand, repeatedly used inflammatory terms like ‘Mazaar jihad’ and ‘land jihad’. The host suggested that these Mazaars were part of a larger conspiracy to change the demographic landscape of Uttarakhand, particularly in Haridwar, by linking them to a Muslim agenda. It was claimed that these Mazaars were built on government land, with the goal of attracting Muslims to encroach upon and settle in those areas.

The show had claimed that Haridwar’s demographic had changed by 39-43% without citing any credible sources. It focused on demolitions of Mazaars on government land by the Uttarakhand government, framing it as part of a broader effort to counter an alleged “Islamic takeover” of the region. However, the hosts and panellists presented these claims without any evidence or reliable sources to back them up, especially when talking about Mazaars in areas like Jim Corbett National Park, which were depicted as having been built in remote places with the intention of attracting large crowds.

The program repeatedly aired provocative phrases such as ‘illegal mazaars’, ‘mazaar jihad’, and ‘land jihad’, despite the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) having previously warned media outlets against using such terms for their communal connotations. The complaint highlighted the potential danger of fuelling religious intolerance and persecution by framing Muslim places of worship as part of a sinister plot to alter India’s religious and demographic fabric. (Details may be read here.)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Factual reporting: NBDSA noted that the broadcaster had the legitimate right to report on the encroachment of government land, which is an issue of public concern. However, the broadcast strayed from factual reporting by using terms like “Mazar jihad” and accusing the Muslim community of changing the demographic makeup.
2. Communal narrative: The terms used in the broadcast, such as “Mazar jihad,” and tickers like “Mazar jihad ka mastermind kaun?“, reinforced a communal narrative, giving an otherwise factual issue a religious and divisive tone. This was seen as an attempt to stir communal sentiments unnecessarily.
3. Violation of Reporting Standards: The broadcast failed to include the version of the other side of the parties, in order to ensure that the reporting remains unbiased, which was a clear violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, specifically regarding impartial and balanced reportage.
4. Previous Offense: NBDSA also noted that this was the second instance of similar communal colouring of a story by the broadcaster, particularly in the context of a conspiracy of government land encroachment.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning issued: NBDSA issued a warning to the broadcaster, stating that such practices would not be tolerated in the future, especially in case of sensitive issues. They emphasised that any similar violations would be dealt with more seriously.
2. Video Removal: NBDSA directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and to delete all associated links. The broadcaster must confirm to NBDSA within seven days that the video has been removed.

The complete order may be read below:

2. Order on complaint against debate show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a complaint against Times Now Navbharat over a problematic news segment titled “बाबा की सनातन शपथ…भड़काऊ पथ पर जमीयत! | Hindu Rashtra | Bageshwar Sarkar Vs Hasan Madni” which aired on May 22, 2023. The complaint was escalated to the NBDSA after having complained to the broadcaster on May 29, 2023. The show, hosted by Himanshu Dixit, centred around a speech by Hasan Madni and turned into a communal debate, where the host and participants propagated a divisive, Hindu-nationalist narrative. The show, as per the complaint, focused on a one-sided promotion of Hindu nationalism instead of presenting a balanced discussion, justifying the idea of a Hindu Rashtra and labelling India as always having been a Hindu nation.

The debate featured four participants: Vijay Shankar Tiwari (VHP representative), Mahant Raju Das (self-identified Hindu saint), Atiq-ur-Rehman (Muslim scholar), and Maajid Haidari (Muslim writer). The two Hindu representatives, especially Mahant Raju Das, engaged in extreme Hindutva rhetoric. They used the platform to attack the Muslim participants and stigmatise the Islamic faith. Notably, Mahant Das pressured Maajid Haidari to say “Jai Shree Ram” and “Vande Mataram” to prove his secularism, suggesting that Haidari’s refusal would mean he did not respect all religions.

The complaint provided that the host, instead of intervening, allowed the communal diatribe to continue without challenging the inflammatory statements. He even prompted a controversial discussion about whether anyone who does not accept Islam is considered an infidel. The segment was further marred by anti-Muslim text being displayed repeatedly, accusing Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind of supporting terrorism, protesting against CAA-NRC, and promoting Islamic education.

CJP highlighted that the show sought to pit the two communities against each other, promoting an anti-Muslim narrative that stigmatised Muslims as engaging in sinister activities. This, they argued, was harmful to India’s social fabric and violated journalistic standards. (Details may be read here)

Observations made by the NBDSA:

1. Freedom of speech to be exercised responsibly: NBDSA recognised that although the broadcaster has the right to debate controversial subjects like the one under discussion, this should not violate ethical broadcasting standards. It was underscored by the NBDSA that the debate on such issues must be conducted responsibly, ensuring that it does not disrupt societal harmony or public peace.
2. Failure to adhere to guidelines: As per the order, the broadcaster violated the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes, which require anchors to maintain objectivity and prevent panellists from propagating extreme, divisive views. NBDSA observed that the anchor failed to curb the communal diatribe, allowing Mahant Raju Das to ask a panellist to prove their secularism by chanting “Jai Shri Ram”, further intensifying the communal undertone.
3. Threat to social harmony: NBDSA highlighted that the broadcast risked disturbing peace and social harmony by providing a platform for communal rhetoric, which could polarise communities.

Decision of the NBDSA:

1. Warning and advisory: NBDSA issued a stern warning to the broadcaster, advising them to be cautious when selecting panellists for debates to ensure that discussions do not threaten social peace and harmony. The broadcaster was reminded to strictly adhere to the guidelines for conducting debates and prevent panellists from promoting divisive views.
2. Video Removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the broadcast from its website and YouTube, ensuring that all hyperlinks and access to the video were also removed. The broadcaster was required to confirm this action to NBDSA within seven days.

The complete order may be read below:

3. Order on complaint against ‘illegal madrassas’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On June 28, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace had filed a complaint against the debate show “Rashtravad: मदरसों पर नकेल, नहीं चलेगा विदेशी फंडिंग का खेल?” aired on May 22, 2024, on Times Now Navbharat. The show was based on a survey by the Uttar Pradesh Government, claiming that 8,841 madrassas in the state were illegal and that action would be taken against 4,000 of them.

The complaint highlights the polarised and communal nature of the debate, where speakers not directly related to the issue were invited to discuss it. The host, Pandey, focused on twisting the findings of the government report, making unsubstantiated claims such as madrassas are receiving foreign funding. Furthermore, the host’s questions, such as “Will madrassas with foreign funding be locked down?” and “Why are Maulanas worried about action against madrassas?” were framed in a provocative manner.

As per the complaint, the debate was also marked by the host frequently interrupting speakers supporting the Muslim community, while allowing ideologically aligned participants, like Vinod Bansal (VHP), to make unsubstantiated claims linking madrassas to jihad and terrorism without scrutiny. Clearly, the channel was trying to push this narrative of the madrassa or all madrassas being a/the centre of illegalities. The presentation of the debate, by repeatedly showing the students reading Namaaz at a madrassa. The complaint pointed to one point wherein the host shows data of some people from Muslim community linked with terror outfits, who once studied in these madrassas (presumably).

The show’s tickers, such as “If Yogi is acting on madrassas, why are Maulanas worried?” and “If terrorism is being taught, will madrassas be shut down?” reinforced the inflammatory narrative. The complaint emphasised that the host showed clear bias, failed to remain neutral, and allowed baseless claims to go unchecked, leading to a divisive, polarising debate.

In conclusion, the complaint had argued that the debate lacked focus, with irrelevant participants, and was designed to stir communal tensions rather than provide constructive discussion. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Right to legitimate raise concerns sans misinformation: The broadcaster was within its rights to raise concerns about madrassas based on the Uttar Pradesh Government’s survey of illegal madrassas, however the same should have been done without slanting the findings of the government survey.
2. Distortion of facts: The NBDSA found that the broadcaster distorted the survey’s findings, suggesting madrassas were linked to terrorism without credible evidence.
3. Problematic statements: Statements from the anchor and panellists insinuating madrassas were breeding grounds for terrorism violated principles of impartiality and neutrality.
4. Violation of standards and guidelines: The broadcaster breached broadcasting standards on impartiality, objectivity, and racial/religious harmony.

Decision by the NBDSA

1. Censure: The broadcaster was censured for distorting facts and making unsupported allegations.
2. Advisory: The broadcaster was advised to adhere to principles of impartiality and neutrality in future broadcasts.
3. Content removal: The broadcaster was ordered to remove the video from all platforms within 7 days and confirm this to NBDSA.

The complete order may be read below:

4. Order on complaint against ‘stay on ASI survey of Gyanvapi Mosque’ show broadcasted by TNN

Brief about the complaint filed against the show:

On August 16, 2023, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) lodged a complaint against the Times Now Navbharat show “Rashtravad | Gyanvapi Survey के बाद ‘ज्ञानवापी आंदोलन”, which aired on July 24, 2023, the same day the Supreme Court of India granted interim protection against the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey at the Gyanvapi Mosque. The complaint raised concerns about the divisive and communal nature of the debate presented during the show.

The complaint emphasised that the host, Rakesh Pandey, presented a one-sided narrative that painted the Muslim community in a suspicious light. Before the debate even began, the host propagated his biased views, suggesting that Muslims were trying to delay the survey because they were “scared of the truth coming out.” The host framed the issue as a battle between the Muslim community and the truth, without any effort to present multiple perspectives. The questions posed by the host to the debate participants were instigating and communal, such as questioning why Muslim parties were afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque, and whether the ASI survey had found evidence of a temple. These questions were criticised for their provocative nature and for creating a polarised environment.

The complaint also pointed out that during the debate, the host allowed Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, a representative of the Hindu parties in the Gyanvapi case, to dominate the conversation. The show gave the impression of promoting a religious or sectarian agenda rather than presenting a balanced news discussion. CJP highlighted how the host repeatedly implied that the Muslim community was obstructing the truth and suggested that the issue was part of a religious confrontation. The host also compared the Gyanvapi case to the Ayodhya case, accusing Muslims of provoking the community by drawing parallels with the Babri Masjid.

Furthermore, the complaint criticised the lack of neutral questioning, pointing out that the host never questioned whether the Muslim parties had the right to approach the Supreme Court or expressed any doubt about the existence of a temple beneath the mosque. Instead, the host consistently implied that the truth would eventually be revealed in favour of the Hindu community.

CJP concluded that the show violated journalistic ethics by promoting a communal agenda and failing to uphold impartiality on a sub-judice matter, as required by the NBDSA. They demanded that the impugned content be removed from all social media platforms of the channel and that a public apology be issued for the communal nature of the reporting. (Details may be read here)

Observations by the NBDSA:

1. Editorial freedom and sensitivity: NBDSA acknowledged that while the broadcaster has editorial freedom to conduct debates on any topic, such discussions must be handled with care, especially when they relate to sensitive issues currently under judicial consideration.
2. Failure to adhere to reporting guidelines: The NBDSA observed that the anchor violated specific guidelines related to reporting on court proceedings. The anchor raised conjectural and speculative questions about the motives of Muslims regarding the Gyanvapi Mosque survey, which is sub judice. This violated Guideline 3, which prohibits conjecture and speculation in reports related to ongoing court proceedings.
3. Communal bias: Instead of maintaining an objective and neutral tone, the anchor repeatedly referred to the parties involved as “Hindu Paksh” and “Muslim Paksh,” which contributed to giving the debate a communal slant. This was seen as a misrepresentation of the facts and a violation of broadcasting standards related to racial and religious harmony.
4. Violation of broadcasting ethics: By framing the debate in a communal context, the broadcaster violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards, especially the guidelines on impartiality and neutrality when reporting on sensitive matters such as court proceedings.

Decision by the NBDSA:

1. Admonition and censure: The NBDSA decided to admonish and censure the broadcaster for violating broadcasting standards. The broadcaster was advised by the NBDSA to avoid giving a communal slant to sensitive issues, especially when the matter is pending in court.
2. Content removal: The broadcaster was directed to remove the video of the broadcast from its website and YouTube, and delete all hyperlinks to the content. The broadcaster must confirm this action in writing to NBDSA within 7 days of the order.

The complete order may be read below:

In summary, through all these four orders, the NBDSA emphasised the importance of adhering to court reporting guidelines and maintaining neutrality and impartiality in broadcasts, especially on sensitive and ongoing legal matters. The broadcaster was censured for not doing so, along with being asked to remove the impugned video, and corrective actions were mandated.

By ordering the removal of the contentious shows and issuing warnings to the broadcaster, the NBDSA has set a firm precedent for maintaining integrity, impartiality, and responsibility in public discourse. This series of orders highlights a clear message: responsible journalism is essential for fostering an informed society, and breaches that compromise fairness, objectivity, and communal harmony will not go unchecked. The decisive steps taken here reinforce the role of media as a pillar of democracy, entrusted with delivering accurate and unbiased information. As the media landscape continues to evolve, these actions serve as a reminder that accountability and ethical standards are the foundation upon which trustworthy journalism is built.

It is essential to note that the NBDSA also clarified that any statements made by the parties involved in the NBDSA proceedings, whether in response to the complaint or while presenting their viewpoints, as well as any findings or observations made by the NBDSA in these proceedings or in this Order, are solely for the purpose of assessing potential violations of broadcasting standards and guidelines. Hence, these statements are not to be interpreted as admissions by the broadcaster, nor are the findings to be considered as determinations of any civil or criminal liability.

Related:

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for communal bias in their news segment on the arrest of singer Altaf Hussain in Assam

CJP files complaint against Times Now Navbharat for broadcasting misleading news on Madrassas

CJP Impact! Two contentious Times Now Navbharat shows directed to be removed by NBDSA

NBDSA: CJP escalates complaint to authorities against Times Now Navbharat debate show

CJP Victory! NBDSA orders removal of contested debate show aired by Times Now Navbharat

CJP complains against 3 shows of Times Now Navbharat

The post Media accountability in action: Four contentious shows taken down by NBDSA based on CJP’s complaints appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per the complaint, on August 18, Priyank Kanoongo, Chairman of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), made a series of allegations on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter). He claimed that government-funded madrassas in Bihar are teaching from books like “Talimul Islam” that describe non-Muslims as “Kafir,” or those who do not believe in Allah. Kanoongo further alleged that Hindu children are enrolled in these madrassas, but the Bihar government has not containing books printed in Pakistan, criticizing UNICEF for its involvement and labelling it as “appeasement.” Kanoongo argued that madrassas are unsuitable for basic education and called for their dissolution, suggesting that children should instead attend regular schools.

At the outset, CJP highlighted that in both these shows, the anchors have the framed the narrative in such a skewed manner that the Madrassas across the country have been painted as suspicious places that are attempting to brainwash children and create the image of the Madrassas and respective teacher as enemies of this country.  

CJP mentioned in its complaint that “the language used in these questions is extremely Islamophobic as it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and fosters suspicion towards the Muslim community. The unsubstantial implication that madrassas are involved in conspiracies while questioning the content of their educational materials through unfair portrayal of Islamic schools as breeding grounds for extremism is not just and neutral coverage of an important issue. This generalisation ignores the diversity within Islamic education and promotes a narrative of fear and mistrust. Additionally, the use of terms like “Kafir” in a negative context vilifies Islamic beliefs and suggests an inherent hostility towards other religions, further alienating Muslims. Moreover, this kind of language promotes an “us vs. them” mentality, deepening divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims. By casting suspicion on the Muslim community and misrepresenting their beliefs, the questions contribute to the marginalization and discrimination of Muslims. This Islamophobic rhetoric not only misrepresents the religion but also encourages hostility, making it harmful and divisive in both social and political contexts.”

The report presented by host Rakesh Pandey contained the same statement of NCPCR chairperson Priyank Konoongo wherein he is saying that the syllabus of the Madrasas is such that it is not suitable for Hindu students, and creates an extreme opinion in the mind of the Muslim students regarding non-Muslims. The report also includes statements made by a Madrasa Principal, namely Mashroof Ahmad Qadri Nadvi, wherein he can be seen responding to the Times Now Navbharat reporter by stating that the present controversy is being created without any reason and is a distortion of understanding of the Islamic scriptures. Regarding the meaning of the word ‘Kafir,’ Principal Nadvi explained that it is an Arabic word meaning “denial.” He further clarified that in the Arabic context, a “Kafir” is someone who denies God or other truths.

CJP stated that “the host’s failure to moderate the discussion fairly, allowing derogatory language and accusations to go unchecked, further exacerbates the problem. By not challenging or correcting the inflammatory statements made by participants, the host implicitly endorses a narrative of extremism and radicalism being insubstantially associated with madrasas. This approach undermines the credibility of the debate and encourages a hostile environment where productive dialogue is replaced by sensationalism and divisiveness. Such coverage does a disservice to the audience, as it obscures the real issues at hand and prevents a meaningful exploration of the concerns surrounding religious education, ultimately contributing to a climate of intolerance and misunderstanding”.

In complaint CJP also cited the linguistically meaning of the word “kafir” for the sake of convenience. In which it has been stated that ‘linguistically, the Arabic word “Kafir”1derives from the root “kafara,” which means to cover or conceal. According to classical Islamic sources, “Kafir” literally means someone who covers or hides something. For instance, the night is referred to as “Kafir” because it conceals everything with darkness. Similarly, a farmer is called “Kafir” because he buries seeds in the ground. In Islamic terminology, “Kafir” denotes someone who rejects Islamic teachings and is considered unable to perceive the divine signs and guidance. The term is not intended as an insult to other religions but rather signifies a refusal to accept Islamic faith.”

Based on the extracts of the statements made by the speakers, the complaint states that both shows failed to provide a fair and nuanced exploration of the issue, focusing instead on sensationalism and divisive rhetoric. By presenting madrassas as breeding grounds for radicalism and using biased framing, these broadcasts contributed to the spread of Islamophobic sentiments and distorted the public’s understanding of Islamic education. The portrayal of madrasa education as inherently problematic, without acknowledging the diversity and context of these institutions, underscores the biased and harmful nature of the coverage provided by both shows.

However, the Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board denied the allegations raised by the NCPCR Chairperson Kanoongo. When TNN reported questioned Deputy Director, Bihar State Madrasa Board, Mr. Abdul Salam Ansari over the allegations of Muslims being imparted radical and divisive education against non-Muslims in the Madrassas of Bihar. Responding to the same, Ansari clarified that “this kind of syllabus is not in my Madrasa board. Whatever syllabus of 1st to 8th class of Bihar Government is approved by SCERT, all the syllabus are valid in my madrassas”. The reporter then referred to the allegations raised by the NCPCR Chairperson Kanoongo, to which Deputy Director Ansari replied by stating that “See, we do not have any information about this, it is not appropriate to comment on it until the official information comes”

The Complaint may be read here:

Related:

Complaint filed against IndiaTV by CJP for stoking fear and spreading anti-Muslim propaganda under the guise of Bangladesh crisis

Human Rights Watch reports that Modi made at least 110 Islamophobic remarks during 2024 election campaign

Bangladesh Situation Tumultuous, But Does Not Signify Islamic Extremist Dominance

The post CJP files complaint against TNN anchors for broadcasting misleading debate show appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On February 29, activist Indrajeet Ghorpade received four favourable orders from NBDSA. There orders were issued by the statutory commission, presided over by retired Supreme Court judge Justice AK Sikri, upon three complaints filed by the complainant against three separate news channels for airing news programmes that were violative of the guidelines set by the NBDSA. Through the three orders, a monetary penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed upon Times Now Navbharat Rs 1,00,000, while News 18 India has to pay a fine of Rs 50,000. Furthermore, the commission has issued a warning to Aaj Tak. Additionally, all three channels have been directed to remove the online uploads of the offending programs within seven days. Notably, all the three have been found guilty of airing content that spreads hatred and communal disharmony.

1. Order of Times Now Navbharat:

Complaint: On June 3, 2023, activist Indrajeet had filed a complaint with Times Now Navbharat. He had flagged the tickers and headlines showcased during the show that had been aimed at demonising and spreading hatred against the Muslim Community. The complainant had also highlighted the many generalised statements against the Muslim community that were made during the show with no basis. Notably, the murder of Sharaddha Walker was repeatedly given a communal angle and used to colour Muslim men as suspicious.

Order: NBDSA imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh on Times Now Navbharat after finding anchor Himanshu Dixit to have targeted the Muslim community and generalised inter-faith relationships as “love jihad”. In its order, the commission took objection to the Times Now Navbharat program on “love jihad” and observed, “on a perusal of the impugned broadcast, it appears that at the very beginning of the broadcast, the anchor has concluded that men from a certain community lured women from another community by hiding their religious identity and then committed violence or murders against such women and every such violence or murder committed on women of a certain community related to ‘love jihad’. This is evident from the questions raised and statements made by the anchor during the impugned broadcast. When some of the panellists expressed their concerns regarding the communal angle being given to such alleged incidents and regarding selective cases of violence against women where the perpetrator belonged to a particular community, the anchor shouted them down and did not allow them to express their views.”

In furtherance to this, NBDSA also observed that there may be some instances where boys from a particular community married Hindu girls, however the same does not give a warrant for news anchors to make generalised statement. The order stated, “Some such instances should not lead to making generalized statements regarding inter-faith marriages by giving it a communal colour. Every citizen, from whichever religion, has a right to marry a person of his/her choice, irrespective of the religion to which he/she belongs. Merely because a Hindu girl married a boy of another faith would not tantamount to love jihad unless it is established that such a Hindu girl was duped or coerced into the marriage. Further, because of few incidents of such forced marriages, an entire community cannot be branded. Thus, it was not proper to generalize the incidents with the tickers such as “Love तो बहाना है … Hindu बेटियाँ निशाना हैं” Jihadiyon se Beti Bachao”.

NBDSA further pointed out that the term “love jihad” should be used sensibly in future broadcasts since religious stereotypes can damage the country’s secular fabric. NBDSA considered that if incidents had been discussed or debated independently, they would have fallen under the bounds of journalistic freedom and stated “It is the generalization of these incidents by targeting the entire community, which is found to be violative of the principles of Impartiality, Objectivity and Neutrality under the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards (“Code of Ethics”) and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage relating to Racial and Religious Harmony. In the impugned broadcast, the anchor had also violated Clauses (f) and (h) of the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates”.

The complete order can be viewed here:

2. Order of News 18:

Complaint: A total of four shows that had been aired by News18 were complained against by activist Indrajeet. It had been contended by the complainant that these four shows. All of which were based around the themes of ‘Love Jihad’, had violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines relating to neutrality, accuracy, fairness, religious harmony, sensationalisation of crime, negative stereotyping and good taste.

Order: Through its order, the NBDSA slapped a fine of Rs. 50,000 on News 18 India for three shows, two of which were anchored by Aman Chopra, and one by Amish Devgan. These shows were found to have communalized the Shradda Walker case as “love jihad.” Notably, the remaining one broadcast was a subject-matter of an FIR registered in Bharatpur, Rajasthan and thus, the commission could not take cognizance of the same.

In the order, the commission stated that “while the media has the right to conduct debates on any topic of its choice, however, it may have been inappropriate for the broadcaster to haveconducted several debated on the subject of “love jihad” while linking it to the Sharaddha Walker murder case”.

It further added that “NBDSA stated that the term ‘love jihad’ should not be used loosely and should be used with great introspection in future broadcasts as religious stereotyping can corrode the secular fabric of the country, cause irreparable harm to a community and create religious intolerance or disharmony.”

The complete order can be viewed here:

3. Order of Aaj Tak:

Complaint: The third complaint had been filed by activist Indrajeet against the ‘Black and White’ show anchored by Sudhir Chaudhary and aired on Aaj Tak. Through the complaint, the complainant has specifically pointed to the false statements made by the host to target and create hatred and fear against the Muslim community. In the complaint, the complainant wrote that “the broadcasters chose to look away from the rampant discrimination that Dalits and Muslims face. Instead, it ran a show portraying Muslim people as rioters and Muslim areas as mini-Pakistan.”

 Order: In its order, NBDSA observed that there would not have been a problem with the broadcast if the broadcaster had confined its analysis to the incidents of communal violence, but the tickers that were shown during the programme portrayed a completely different picture. Additionally, NBDSA noted that the violence committed by a few miscreants was generalised by the anchor to target a particular community.

The order stated “NBDSA observed that there would have been no problem with the broadcast if the broadcaster had confined its analysis to the incidents of communal violence. However, by broadcasting the following tickers ‘today Muslim areas, tomorrow Muslim country’, a completely different colour had been given to the programme.”

With this, the authority directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the said broadcast from its channels and websites within 7 days of the order.

The complete order can be viewed here:

4. Order of India Today

Complaint: On June 30, 2023, a complaint against a programme titled “Nudity sparks outrage at USA pride parades- How India’s LGBTQ+ lead Responsibility” aired by India Today had been filed by activist Indrajeet. Through the complaint, the complainant has emphasised upon the false images that were show during the show to spread hatred and homophobia. In the complaint, the complainant had stated that “a simple reverse image search can help separate facts from fake news. However, it is clear that the broadcaster was either incapable of fact-finding or had malafide intent to sensationalise and spread fear against minority communities.”

Order: Noting that the broadcaster had utilised images sourced from USA and made false assertions regarding them to instil fear amongst the audience regarding the LGBTQIA+, NBDSA observed that the visuals and images used were “totally out of context” and were not part of the incident covered was a violation of the principle of accuracy. With this, the commission ordered the broadcaster to edit the video of the said broadcast by expunging the objectionable parts or if that is not possible, to remove the video, from all websites and channels within 7 days.

Apart from following the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards and Guidelines, members were also circulated a set of guidelines for broadcasting on issues concerning the LGBTQIA+ community, for “strict compliance” after the commission noted that several complaints had been received by concerning reporting on LGBTQIA+ issues.

The complete order can be viewed here:

Other orders issued:

In addition to the aforementioned four orders, NBDSA had issued more such orders. Another ‘Black and White show’ hosted by Sudhir Chaudhary on former US President Barack Obama’s comments on the protection of minorities in India while PM Narendra Modi was on a state visit to America came under the scanner of the authority. On the complaint filed against the same, the NBDSA found that apart from finding “a violation of the principles of Objectivity and Neutrality”, the broadcast had violated the Specific Guidelines for Anchors, which stated that “all programmes must be presented in an impartial, objective and neutral manner”.

As per a report of the Indian Express, the order stated that by using words “Tukde Tukde Gang”, “Khalistani in Punjab” and “Pakistani supporters” instead of confining its discussion to Obama’s statement, the broadcaster had failed to present a controversial issue with sensitivity and objectivity. With this, NBDSA slapped the broadcaster with a fine of Rs. 75,000 and directed them to remove the video of the show. In addition to this, the broadcaster was also advised by the commission to ensure that “in future broadcasts, controversial subjects are fairly presented with strict adherence to the principles of Neutrality, Impartiality and Objectivity in the broadcast”.

Another complaint had been filed against an episode the ‘Black and White show that aired on Aaj Tak in March 24 last year. . Notably, the show had aired a day after a Surat court convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi of defamation for a 2019 speech about thieves with the surname Modi. The said complaint had been filed by Youth Congress president Srinivas B V on a fictional video of Rahul Gandhi that was shown in the programme. In its decision, NBDSA observed that the “story of the robber and the imputation it carried” with Gandhi’s conviction was “not in good taste” and “should have been avoided”. The NBDSA also advised the channel to be “careful while airing such fictional videos” in future.

CJP complaints to NBDSA over the years:

Since 2018, Citizens for Justice and Peace has been consistently monitoring news programmes being broadcasted contentiously and with the aim of spreading its partisan agenda. Over the years, a total of 23 complaints have been filed by the human rights organisation with the NBDSA. Out of these 23 complaints, 8 have been filed against Times Now Navbharat, 3 against Zee News, 4 against Aaj tak and 2 against Times Now.

In addition to this, out of the complaints filed, 4 had Sudhir Chaudhary as its host/anchor, 2 had been hosted by Aman Chopra and 7 were against shows hosted by Rakesh Pandey. Notably, a total of 7 complaints remain pending with NBDSA and the arguments are yet to take place. Out of the remaining 15 complaints that have been decided by the commission, 13 have resulted in removal of the contentious shows. Additionally, in two cases, monetary penalty of Rs.50,000 and Rs. 25,000 were also imposed.

Details of the complaints filed can be viewed here:

Related:

CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: How persistent monitoring put a check on unbridled hate, one channel at a time

CJP Impact! NBDSA orders removal of two Times Now Navbharat shows (videos)

CJP Impact! NBDSA orders AAJ TAK’s Sudhir Chaudhary show to be pulled down, censors second

CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA

The post 7 shows broadcasted by mainstream news channels to be removed orders NBDSA, fines imposed in some cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over the past decade especially, a disturbing trend has emerged with journalists and certain media channels portraying clear partisan coverage of issues, often resulting in persistent targeting of sections of Indians with slur and stigma. India’s religious minorities find themselves central to this emerging pattern. That this also enjoys powerful political sanction –given the predilections of the ruling dispensation – is not an insignificant aspect of this development. Not only are new organisations, founded to provide the public with an impartial and truthful picture of the world, faltering in their endeavours, but individual journalists and anchors have become offenders.

CJP is dedicated to finding and bringing to light instances of Hate Speech, so that the bigots propagating these venomous ideas can be unmasked and brought to justice. To learn more about our campaign against hate speech, please become a member. To support our initiatives, please donate now!

The News Broadcasters Association (NBA), set up in the year 2008, is a private association of various news broadcasters in India. The association was set up to deal with ethical, operational, regulatory, technical and legal issues affecting news and current-affairs channels. The News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) is an independent body set up by the News Broadcasters Association. Its task is to consider and adjudicate upon complaints about broadcasts. Any complaint against the broadcasting of any news channel can be addressed to NBDSA.  To tackle the increasing instances of media personnel indulging in biased reporting and demonstrate a commitment towards responsible broadcasting, certain guidelines have been drawn up by the NBDSA.

A News Channel is required to maintain the following standards while reporting as per the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards:

• Ensure impartiality and objectivity in reporting
• Ensure neutrality
• Ensure that when reporting on crime, that crime and violence are not glorified
• Ensure utmost discretion while reporting on violence and crime against women and children
• Abhor sex and nudity
• Ensure privacy
• Ensure that national security is not endangered
• Refraining from advocating or encouraging superstition and occultism
• Ensure responsible sting operations

Upon the violation of any of the standards mentioned above, complaints can be filed by an aggrieved person/organisation to the NBDSA against a member or associate member of NBA. In the year 2023 alone, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) filed a total of eight complaints to the NBDSA. Out of these eight complaints, seven were against the shows telecast by Times Now Navbharat while one was against Aaj Tak. CJP also received multiple positive orders from the NBDSA in the current year, many of which were on previously filed complaints.

Here’s a look back at the success stories and the actual complaints that led to these breakthroughs. For several others, hearings are still pending.

CJP Victories- favourable orders from the NBDSA

• News18 fined 50,000 by NBDSA for airing communally divisive debate show

Order: On February 27, 2023, NBDSA imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on News18 India for airing a communally divisive show in January 2022, over a year before. In its order, the statutory authority observed that the thrust of the programme had religious undertones. The authority had found the premise of the debate that 20% people were ganging up against Hindus constituting 80% of the state’s population to be inappropriate. The order stated that the anchor, Aman Chopra, had crossed threshold of impartiality by making divisive statements. NBDSA had further directed the broadcaster to publicise the order on the ticker once every hour for 24 hours between 8 am on March 6 to 8 am on March 7. The Authority had also sought a recording of the ticker aired on the channel.

Complaint: On January 22, 2022, CJP had approached the NBDSA against the said debate show. In its complaint, it had been highlighted that the host had pitched Hindu voters against Muslim voters by using the term “80 vs. 20” and flagging off the show with a communally polarising question: Hinduon ke khilaf Uttar Pradesh me Mahagathbandhan tayyar ho raha hai, aur jab 80 vs. 20 ki baat ki thi Yogi Adityanath ne toh wo sahi thi? (A grand alliance is being formed in Uttar Pradesh against Hindus, and was Yogi Adityanath right when he said it is now 80 vs. 20?).  The complaint had also highlighted the anti-Muslim statements brazenly made by the anchor. CJP had further pointed that the anchor of a show on a news channel that is supposed to have a neutral and unbiased theme, and yet Chopra did not even attempt to have any non-communal theme on the show.

• Fine of Rs. 25,000 slammed on News18 for their communal debate show

Order: On February 27, 2023, the NBDSA fined News18 with Rs. 25,000 for violating the authority’s guidelines for fair and temperate reporting during the show “Desh Nahin Jhukne Denge Aman Chopra,” four months before in October 2022. In the show, the debate panel had contentiously discussed the issue of Gujarat police’s action against Muslims who were celebrating Garba. The statutory authority had also taken serious objection to the language used by the anchor in the programme and the repetitive nature of the violations of the NBDSA.  Importantly, the NBDSA had also held that manner in which the debate was conducted was condemnable and the statements made by the anchor had the tendency to disturb the communal harmony in the country.

Complaint: On October 22, 2022, CJP had filed its complaint with the NBDSA. The members of the panel brought into question not just the various principles of Islam as a religion but also mocked speakers belonging to the Muslim community by asking them to hail Hindus gods on national television.

• Distasteful tickers targeting Teesta Setalvad ordered to be removed 

Order: On March 17, 2023, the NBDSA directed the Times Now to edit the video of the three debate shows held on the arrest of Teesta Setalvad and remove the tickers: “Modi Baiter Arrested” “Lutyens ‘Fix Modi’ Plot Nailed?” within 7 days. The NBDSA, in its order, stated that while parts of the shows discussed the Supreme Court judgement in Zakia Ahsan Jafri vs State of Gujarat and Anr 2022 SCC Online SC773, the tickers used during the show, as mentioned above were “neither necessary nor contextual and not in good taste as well”. The NBDSA emphasised that it “does not appreciate the manner in which some of the tickers were aired during the impugned programmes. The Authority also advised the channel to not telecast such tickers in future.

Complaint: On June 25, 27 and 28 of the year 2022, pursuant to the arrest of Teesta Setalvad, Times Now aired three shows with the intention to portray Setalvad as unworthy of trust and compassion. The channel had a field day around her arrest and the charges levied on her by casting aspersions on her humanitarian work and vilifying her by casting aspersions on her credibility as a Human Rights Defender.

The tickers that ran through the show included:

“Modi Baiter Arrested”

“Lutyens ‘Fix Modi’ Plot Nailed?”

“SC nail ‘Fix Modi’ Plot”

“Teesta-UPA 1.4 Crore irregular Handshake”

“Padma, Post and Paisa”

“Modi Fixer was Favoured”

“Reward for ‘Ruin Modi’ Plot?”

On July 1, 2022, a complaint against the vilifying tenor of the three debate shows was raised with the statutory authority, the complaint had stated that the hosts of the various shows, namely – Navika Kumar, Rahul Shivshankar, and Poonam Budre- had appeared biased in favour of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokespersons throughout the show. It was also alleged that the panellists speaking in favour of Setalvad were constantly interrupted by the hosts while those speaking against her were granted more time.

• NBDSA directs removal on Times Now Navbharat’s show on ‘Madrassa Jihad’

Order: On June 27, the NBDSA issued an order asking the Times Now Navbharat to remove the video of its inflammatory and violence inducing content broadcasted in November, 2022 that CJP had complained against. The authority also issued a warning to the broadcaster to remain careful in the future. In the order it was held that the broadcaster violated the “Specific guidelines covering Reportage related to Racial and Religious Harmony” which states that 9.1 Racial and religious stereotyping should be avoided while reporting. It further observed that the findings of the Uttar Pradesh survey on illegalities in the running of some madrassas was given a misleading tilt, which violated the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards.

Complaint: On December 5, 2022 a complaint was sent by CJP to the NBDSA against a debate segment of the Times Now Navbharat which had falsely declared that something called “madrassa Jihad” was taking place in Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant had stated that by using terms like “Madrassa Jihad” and “the ‘M’ Factor” the channel has resorted to cheap tactics to spread communal tension and hatred which is unbecoming of a news channel. The complaint had also pointed out that the channel used the “jihad” trope to further its communal narrative.

• Aaj Tak show spreading propaganda on Muslim youth’s participation in Garba   ordered to be removed

Order: On November 3, an order of the NBDSA raised strong objections to the generalisation made in the course of the show wherein the intentions of all the Muslims entering Garba pandals were “suspect” and “deemed to be malafide”. The show had been telecast during the Navratri festival in October 2022. The anchor had, through aggressive communal participants, observed that “all (such Muslims) who tried to participate in the events were anti-nationals and did not believe in the festivals.” The NBDSA observed that such baseless statements were made by the broadcasters without any study or analysis. It was further held that by generalising the incidents, the broadcaster had given a communal tilt which was violative of the guidelines laid down by the Commission. The NBDSA also noted that by airing the impugned broadcast, there was a gross violation of the guidelines that prevented communal colour to be given to news reporting related to crimes, riots, rumours, etc. For the violations committed, the NBDSA directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the impugned show from their channel and/or YouTube along with all the hyperlinks, and confirm the same to the NBDSA in writing within seven days of the order.

Complaint: On October 20, 2022, CJP had moved the NBDSA against Aaj Tak’s ‘Black and White Show’ for containing themes of communal divide throughout its narrative. Through the complaint, CJP had objected to the tone, tenor and choice of words spoken as well as displayed on the screen during the show. As per the complaint, certain statements made by Sudhir Chaudhary were so denigrating that it made his communal narrative clearly visible and obvious, threatening to mar, even destroy the secular fabric of the country.  It was highlighted that the brazen remarks that have been made by Sudhir Chaudhary directly fell with offensive and communal lines, which goes against the ethics of journalism and principles of self- regulation, including the code laid down by the NBDSA.

• NBDSA orders Aaj Tak to note use terms like ‘Mazhaar Jihaad’ while reporting on illegal encroachment

Order: On November 3, in a favourable order, the NBDSA observed that the anchor should have avoided using the term ‘Mazhaar Jihad’ while reporting on the issue of illegal encroachment as it gave a totally different dimension to an otherwise valid issue raised by the broadcaster. In view of this, the NBDSA advised the broadcaster to not use the impugned term and be careful about the same in the future. The show had been aired earlier in the year in April.

Complaint: On April 20, 2023, a complaint was filed by CJP with the NBDSA over a show aired on Aaj Tak on April 6 hosted by Sudhir Chaudhary. On his show ‘Black and white’ Chaudhary spoke on the issue of illegal mazaars being found on government land in Uttarakhand, especially forest land for which the producers of the show also carried out a ‘ground report’. Based on the said ‘report’, Sudhir had claimed that when these mazaars were demolished with bulldozers and inspected, it was found that the graves did not have any human remains in them. However, no official source has been cited in the same. Through its complaint, CJP pointed out that the host and the channel missed the bus on getting their facts right while stigmatizing the Muslim community by labelling them and referring to them in a denigrating manner.it was also highlighted tin the complaint that the claims made by Sudhir have been debunked by an official report by the forest department which stated that there are more illegal temples in forest areas than illegal mazaars which takes away completely the basis on which the show was aired.

• NBDSA orders removal of two Times Now Navbharat shows 

Order: On November 3, CJP received a favourable order from the NBDSA, wherein the statutory authority had held the Times Now Navbharat channel to be in violation of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage on Racial and Religious Harmony. The NBDSA had noted that during its show, the broadcaster had given a communal colour to the whole issue of eviction on the orders of the Uttarakhand High Court. The NBDSA held that by portraying the protestors to be a part of a ‘Jihadi Gang’ and terming illegal encroachments as ‘Zameen Jihad’, the broadcaster had “re-iterated the prejudices or stereotypes that are historically used to target, attack and ridicule communities based on their religion.” Furthermore, the NBDSA observed that the word “Jihadi” was used out of context and the tickers in the background also reinforced the narrative of the broadcaster. For the violations committed, the NBDSA admonished the broadcaster to not repeat the same in the future and directed them to remove the video of the impugned show from their channel.

Complaint: On January 30, 2023, a complaint had been filed by CJP with the NBDSA against the Times Now Navbharat’s communally divisive show titled “देवभूमि Uttarakhand में ‘जमीन जिहाद’ पर बुलडोजर एक्शन की बारी!” that aired on January 2, 2023. The show was based on the decision given by the Uttarakhand High Court, wherein the court had allowed the use of force to evict 4,000 families living on what the Railways had claimed to be their land. Through the complaint, CJP had highlighted the polarising remarks that anchor had made with the aim of pushing the far-right propaganda of villainising the Muslim community. The complaint had raised objected to the derogatory and instigating terms used by the anchor, such as “Zameen Jihad”, “Mazhar Jihad”, “Jihaadi Gang” and “bulldozer action of the Dhami government”, to spread stigma and hatred against the Muslim community.

• NBDSA directs removal of Times Now Navbharat’s contentious debate show on Ram Mandir

The order: Through its order, the NBDSA held that the debate conducted by the channel on its show was not in good taste and did not follow the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates. While noting that the commission cannot impinge upon the right of the broadcaster to exercise their freedom of speech, it also held that the broadcaster was required to their freedom in accordance with the guidelines, standards, code and advisories of the NBDSA. In view of this, the NBDSA issued a warning to the broadcaster against telecasting such debates as well as be careful in selecting panellists for debates. The NBDSA also advised the broadcaster to strictly adhere to the guidelines set by the Commission. In furtherance to this, the statutory authority also directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the impugned show from their channel and/or YouTube.

Complaint: On January 24, 2023, CJP had escalated a complaint to the NBDSA against Times Now Navbharat over their debate show aired on December 30, 2022. The complaint filed by CJP stated that the channel brazenly picked up a communal statement and made it a point of debate, and further exacerbated the impact of a divisive statement by calling in speakers with radicalized views and allowing them to hurl abuses at each other and also physically assault each other. The complaint further alleged that the intention of the show from the word go was to play with heightened communal sentiments, spread anti-Muslim sentiments and bash the entire Muslim community based on statements made by one Muslim individuals. Furthermore, the complaint pointed to the problematic tickers that were used by the host, such as “Hindustan me ‘gazwa-e-hind’ ka plan? (Gazwa-i-hind being planned in India?)” And “Ram mandir todne ko uksayenge? (Will he incite them to destroy ram mandir?)”.

Complaints pending with the NBDSA:

The procedure to be followed while filing a complaint with the NBDSA is strict and time bound. Prior to filing a complaint with the NBDSA, the complainant is required to make a formal complaint to the concerned broadcaster within seven days from the broadcast of the impugned show.

If, within seven days there is no response from the concerned broadcaster, the complainant, may then escalate the complaint to the NBDSA within a further 14 days. If, on the other hand, the broadcaster responds to the complaint in the stipulated time and the complainant is not satisfied with the reply, the complaint can then be made to NBDSA within 14 days from the date of receipt of the reply.

After the complaint is sent, NBDSA considers the complaint and takes a decision on whether both the parties need to be called for a hearing. If the NBDSA decides to actually have a hearing, before the date, both the complainant and the respondent are supposed to submit written submissions by the date stipulated by the Authority.

Out of the eight complaints sent by CJP to the NBDSA, three were decided by the Authority within 2023 itself. Five complaints still remain pending with the Commission. Out of the five complaint, written submission for four will be filed by end of December, post which hearing will be held.

• Complaint against debate show on alleged illegal Madrassas in Uttar Pradesh 

On June 29, a complaint was sent by CJP to the NBDSA against Times Now Navbharat’s debate show titled “Rashtravad : मदरसों पर नकेल, नहीं चलेगा विदेशी फंडिंग का खेल ?” for making unfounded claims. The show was based on a survey carried out by the UP government on Madrassas in the state and last year’s data which allegedly found that 8,841 madrassas were illegal and that the Government shall proceed against 4,000 madrassas in the state. During the show, the host questioned why Muslims need to study in Madrassas in the first place. He questioned the mushrooming of madrassas in the Indo-Nepal border area and doubted their legality. Throughout the debate, the channel was trying to push this narrative of the madrassa or all madrassas being a/the centre of illegalities. The presentation of the debate, by repeatedly showing the students reading Namaaz at a madrassa. The complaint pointed out that the intention of the show was clearly to show that madrassas receive dubious foreign funding and they are set up along the border and the children are brainwashed and are trained to becoming terrorists. The NBDSA has taken cognizance of the complaint sent and asked for written submissions to be submitted. The date of hearing has not yet been provided.

• Complaint against ‘operation Mazhar’ show for its problematic content

On June 29, CJP complained against a Times Now Navbharat’s show titled “धामी सरकार का ‘ऑपरेशन मजार’, ‘गजवा–ए– ह िंद’ की सा जश के कससे जुडे तार?”. Through the show, the reporter tries to formulate a link between the dargahs/mazaars and the increase in Muslim population across Uttarakhand and specifically, “Dev Bhoomi Haridwar”, by using objectionable terms like “mazaar jihad” and “land jihad”. The show also purported to be based upon a government report, and yet the same was not fact based, resorting to contentious name calling targeting a specific and marginalized section of the population. The NBDSA has taken cognizance of the complaint sent and asked for written submissions to be submitted. The date of hearing has not yet been provided.

• Complaint against debate show having themes of a divisive discourse

The show of the Times Now Navbharat was based on a statement made by Hasan Madni whereby he said that whoever talks about a Hindu nation is a traitor. On June 29, a complaint against the show was sent by CJP to NBDSA emphasising that the said show had themes of a divisive discourse that furthers a communal (intra-community) divide throughout its narrative and did not try to mask this motive that mitigates against the basic principles of fair and neutral journalism. The complaint contended that the communal and partisan nature of the show was evident in the choice and content spouted by not just the participants in the “debate” but also unfortunately displayed by the host of the show, actively participating in the communal diatribe, justifying the establishment of a religious (Hindu) nation and even going to the extent of saying that India has always been a Hindu nation. The NBDSA has taken cognizance of the complaint sent and asked for written submissions to be submitted. The date of hearing has not yet been provided.

• Complaint against debate show on survey of Gyanvapi Mosque:

On August 16, CJP filed a complaint with the NBDSA against the Times Now Navbharat’s contentious and communally divisive debate show titled “Rashtravad | Gyanvapi Survey के बाद ‘ज्ञानवापी आंदोलन’ होगा?” that aired on July 24, 2023. The show was based on the Supreme Court order providing interim protection against the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Survey being conducted at Gyanvapi Mosque. Even as the host Rakesh Pandey had picked up a matter that was sub-judice, he had intentionally presented only one-sided facts of the case. In the complaint, it was purported that the debate show appeared more like a show promoting the host’s version of the Hindu cause or a religious/sectarian debate rather than a news room debate. Furthermore, the complaint provided that the debate show had themes that furthered a divisive discourse that heightened a communal divide throughout its narrative and did not try to mask this motive. Such journalism or electronic media coverage mitigates against the basic principles of fair and neutral journalism. The NBDSA has taken cognizance of the complaint sent and asked for written submissions to be submitted. The date of hearing has not yet been provided.

• Complaint against two debate shows covering Israel-Hamas conflict:

On November 10, a complaint was sent to the NBDSA against two debate segments that aired on Times Now Navbharat on October 16. The title of these shows is “Modi के खिलाफ… क्यों खडे ‘हमास’ के साथ? | Israel-Hamas Conflict | Owaisi | ST Hasan” and “Rashtravad:  हिंदुस्तान में ‘Hamas Think tank’ कौन बना रहा है? | Israel-Palestine Crisis | Owaisi”. CJP had sent the complaint to the channel first on October 23, to which they had not replied within the stipulated times. In this combined complaint, it was mentioned the two shows covered a similar theme of conflict between a militant group Hamas and Israel and a communal colour was being given to it. As per the complaint, the two debate shows attempted to influence its audience with a skewed twist to the said conflict and painted the ones supporting the Palestinian cause of life, liberty and freedom from occupation as a “Muslim issue”. The two shows built a one-sided narrative that Muslims, leaders of the opposition and students of the left organisation protesting in support of Palestine were supporting the illegal activities of Hamas as well. IT was further highlighted by the complainant that both the anchors of the debates, namely Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav, framed the narrative in such a partisan manner that Indian Muslims were shown as sympathisers of the militant group of Hamas due to their “religious connection”.

A battle for unbiased reporting- fighting for fairness and objectivity

Social harmony and democracy is threatened when individual prejudices, misinformation, and unfairness permeates how “information” is portrayed in electronic media. Manipulating the recounting of incidents or views that are not reflective of all facts, as well as spreading false information and stereotypes vis a vis disparate populations, undermines the confidence that the public places in the media. The media is tasked with an onerous responsibility, in furthering the voice and representations (through issues and news) of all sections of the population. A disturbing and detrimental development over close to a decade reveals a media that become more communalized, with the exception of a small number of papers and journals and a few television channels.

As can be deduced from the details of the complaints provided above as well as the favourable orders received by CJP, a common pattern of media agencies indulging in partisan and communally biased reporting can be observed. In most of the orders received on the complaints, the Authority has found the broadcasters to be violating the standard set by them and spreading stigma and hatred against the Muslim community. A common theme of having religious undertones, usage of derogatory and anti-Muslim slur, making unsubstantiated and unfounded statements and pitting of Hindus against Muslims could be found in each of the programme complained against.

Committed to a HateWatch and HateHatao programme nationwide, CJP through meticulous monitoring ensures that the public gaze understands these developments. Our Nafrat ka Naqsha, Hate Busters are key to this singular effort. Not content with mere documentation however, CJP’s team meticulously reports and complains to all relevant authorities be it the NBDSA or even district and state police authorities when any attempts at targeted speech and slur and stigma seek to stigmatise and marginalise populations. One of four pillars of CJP’s mission is ensuring the freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of press and fair reporting, and upholding of principles of accuracy, fairness, neutrality, privacy and so on. The basic desire for democratic liberties, including access to honest and fact-based journalism, is key to ensure equality for all and discrimination against none.

Related:

Hate slurs ensure a discriminated citizen: India’s Muslim voices speak up, 2023

Bail not Jail, India’s constitutional courts’ bumpy ride towards personal liberty

The post CJP’s NBDSA Complaints 2023: How persistent monitoring put a check on unbridled hate, one channel at a time appeared first on SabrangIndia.