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.

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.

In both the complaints, CJP had highlighted the partisan tenor used by the hosts to spread hatred for a particular religious minority. In one show, the protesting Muslims were deemed to be part of a “Jihadi Gang” conspiring to commit “Zameen Jihad”, while in the other show that host had unfoundedly accused the Muslims of instigating the community to destroy Ram Mandir.

First complaint- Eviction in Uttarakhand

The complaint: On January 30, 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 villianising 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. The complaint had further argued that the one sided report presented in the show created suspicion in the minds of its viewers and persistently stigmatized the minority community to drive home the point that Muslims are always up to sinister activities by terming everything they into “Jihad” is harmful to the social fabric of this country.

The decision: Based on the submissions of both the parties and the complaint, the NBDSA noted that 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.

Based on the abovementioned, the NBDSA held the channel to be in violation of the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards and the Specific Guidelines covering Reportage on Racial and Religious Harmony. For the violations committed, the NBDSA admonished the broadcaster to not repeat the same in the future.

It was further directed by the statutory authority that the broadcaster was 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 7 days of the order.

The complete order can be read here: (Order 174)

Second complaint- Ram Mandir debate show

The complaint: On January 24, CJP had escalated a complaint to the NBDSA against Times Now Navbharat over their debate show aired on December 30, 2022 titled ‘Rashtravad | 2024 में Ram Mandir का उद्घाटन… अभी हथौड़े’ की बात क्यों?’ The debate topic in the show was an inflammatory comment made by a so-called maulvi Sajid Rashidi who is known to have extremist and unpopular views. By picking his statements as a news point and a point to conduct an hour long debate upon, the complaint urges that the channel gave fire to the discourse that was put to rest with the Supreme Court judgement in the Ayodhya land dispute verdict.

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. The complaint also highlighted 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?)”.

The order: The NBDSA took note of the objection raised by the complainant regarding conducting a debate show based on a statement made by Maulana Sajid Rashidi. On this, the NBDSA observed that “while it may have been inappropriate and uncharitable for the broadcaster to conduct a debate on the said topic”, the commission cannot impinge upon the right of the broadcaster to exercise their freedom of speech. Nonetheless, the commission also held that the broadcaster were required to their freedom in accordance with the guidelines, standards, code and advisories of the NBDSA.

Pertaining to this, the NBDSA held that the debate was not in good taste and did not follow the Specific Guidelines for Anchors conducting Programmes including Debates. 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 along with all the hyperlinks, and confirm the same to the NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the order.

The complete order can be read here: (Order 173)

In both the cases, CJP was represented by Advocate Aparna Bhatt and Advocate Karishma Maria.

Related:

CJP writes to Times Now Navbharat for giving Israel-Hamas conflict a communal colour

CJP Impact! NBDSA warns News18 India against running communal narrative, fines Rs. 50,000

CJP Impact! NBDSA imposes cost on News18 India for two shows for airing hateful, inflammatory content

CJP Impact: NCM’s prompt action against ‘Miya Muslim’ remark; seeks report from Assam DGP

The post CJP Impact! NBDSA orders removal of two Times Now Navbharat shows (videos) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Both mentioned shows were based on the current ongoing conflict between a militant group Hamas and Israel. On October 7, an unprecedented attack was launched by Hamas on Israel which had reportedly resulted in the death of 1,400 people. In the retaliatory attacks and air strikes that have been launched by Israel in Gaza, at least 3,700 people have been killed, most of which were innocent civilians. While both innocent Israeli citizens and Palestinians have suffered casualties in this ongoing conflict, in India, this issue is being given a communal colour.

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.

Through the complaint, we have highlighted 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”. In Pandey’s Rashtravad show, he had formulated the following question as the premise of the debate:

1. “Will there be support of terrorism owing to the religious connection shared?
2. Has the ‘Muslim leadership’ been exposed in this Israel-Hamas conflict?
3. Who is building the ‘Hamas think tank’ in India?”

As is evident, the said questions were formed in a way that portrayed the Muslim community and Muslim leaders supporting Israel in a suspicious and negative light. While the debate itself was biased, the host had concluded it by stating that “let me tell you why the leaders of the opposition says all this, it is because you find people in the country who are willing to go to a funeral of our Prime Ministers and who protest on the day that Yakub Menon underwent his death sentence. It is because these people think that they will appease the sentiments of a particular group that they make such statements.”

In Naina Yadav’s debate show, the question “whether the people of India will also support Hamas and are the leaders of the opposition instigating people?” was posed to the participants. The question in itself was biased and leading. Both of these shows contributed to the stigmatising and polarising environment that has been created for the Indian Muslims in the wake of escalating conflict in Palestinian and Israeli territories.

The complaint highlighted the duties of a host that are prescribed by the NBDSA (News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority) guidelines. The said guidelines state that hosts of a news segment are supposed to and expected to take a neutral stand, introduce a neutral theme and not side with a particular community to put any other community on the spot. And yet, in contravention of the guidelines, both the hosts Rakesh Pandey and Naina Yadav were keen on leading the debate with the question of whether the Muslim leaders of the opposition, protestors and the Muslim community are supporting Hamas and creating a ‘Hamas think tank’ within India. The complaint then highlighted the codes of ethics and principles of self-regulation as laid out by the NBDSA which were violated by Times Now Navbharat through these shows.

The complete complaint can be read here:

Related:

NBDSA: CJP ESCALATES COMPLAINT TO AUTHORITIES AGAINST TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT DEBATE SHOW

CJP SENDS COMPLAINT AGAINST MEDIA TRIAL ON ASI SURVEY OF GYANVAPI MOSQUE BY TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT

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 CJP sends complaint to Times Now Navbharat over debate shows giving communal colour to the Israel-Hamas Conflict appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note that the host Rakesh Pandey had picked up a matter that was sub-judice, and presented only one-sided facts of the case. Even before the debate had started, the host had started spreading his diatribe and distinctly partisan views. The said 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 complaint stated: “it became 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 that the statements being made were not unbiased or neutral. The host was even observed posing questions to the participants from the Muslim community on the debating panel in the accusatory manner, while an urbane and inclusive attitude was displayed towards participants from the majority Hindu community.”

The complaint also provided the questions that the debate was going to be based upon, which were inciting and leading to say the least. The questions were as follows:

• “What was found in those four hours of survey that led to the chaos amongst the Muslim parties?

• Why are the Muslim parties so afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque? 

• Did the Survey team actually find the evidence of a Temple?

• The ASI Survey has been stopped on an interim basis, what will happen afterwards? 

• Will there be a ‘Gyanvapi movement’ after the survey?”

In the complaint, it was purported that the debate show appeared more like a one-sided show promoting the host’s version of the Hindu cause or a religious/sectarian debate rather than a news room debate. Referring to the same, CJP highlighted the violations of the guidelines of issued by the NBDSA and stated: “As per the guidelines of the NBDSA, the host is supposed to and expected to take a neutral stand, introduce a neutral theme and not side with a particular community to put any other community on the spot, but that clearly did not happen. As is apparent from the videos and the statements highlighted by us, the host Rakesh Pandey was keen on leading the debate with the question of whether the Muslim community is delaying the proceeding and hiding the truth. As the anchor of show on a news channel, that is supposed to have a neutral and unbiased theme, the host did not even attempt to have any non-communal theme on the show.”

Through the complaint, CJP has urged the esteemed Authority to take cognizance of this show aired by Times Now Navbharat and take necessary action against them for spreading misinformation and partisan ideology, and also in the process, hurting the religious sentiments of the minority community.

The complaint may be read here:

Related:

NBDSA: Complaint filed against Times Now’s inciteful ‘Ram mandir’ show

Times Now Navbharat conducts media trial over Gyanvapi Mosque survey, CJP sends complaint

Times Now Navbharat: Where hate sells like hot cakes daily

Complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over madrassa survey in UP

UP: After Gyanvapi, Mathura Court Orders Shahi Idgah Survey; ‘Violation’ of Places of Worship Act, Say Activists

The post CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat show on Gyanvapi Mosque to NBDSA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Essentially, the host, Rakesh Pandey, had picked up a matter that was sub-judice, and presented only one sided facts of the case. Even before the debate had started, the Host had started spreading his diatribe and polarized views. The host tried to build the premise of the show by depicting the Muslim community in a suspicious light, questioning their intentions behind urging an estoppel on the survey. The host had intentionally put polarizing and accusatory questions to the participants of the debate to put seeds of doubt in the minds of his audience by terming the stay on the survey as an attempt to delay the result as “Muslims were scared of the truth coming out.”

Prior to the debate segment, the host had announced the questions upon which the discussion were to take place. The questions, provided below, were instigating and communal in itself:

“1. What was found in those four hours of survey that led to the chaos amongst the Muslim parties?

2. Why are the Muslim parties so afraid of uncovering the truth beneath the Gyanvapi mosque?
3. Did the Survey team actually find the evidence of a Temple?
4. The ASI Survey has been stopped on an interim basis, what will happen afterwards?
5. Will there be a ‘Gyanvapi movement’ after the survey?”

During the debate segment, a full on media trial on the Gyanvapi mosque case had ensured. Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, the advocate on record (AOR) representing the Hindu parties in the court in the Gyanvapi Mosque case were also a part of the panel.  The debate show appeared more like a one sided show promoting the host’s version of the Hindu cause or a religious/sectarian debate rather than a news room debate. In its complaint, CJP also highlighted certain extracts from the show that are specifically contentious.

The complaint stated: “Instead of framing an issue in a sober fashion with an intent to explore various aspects of the debate, the host continued the debate representing his own version of the ‘Hindu cause’. This displays partisan coverage and does not fit well with democratic, constitutional principles of independent journalism. The host continued throughout the show while making some extremely problematic statements towards the end too. At one point towards the end of the debate, the host asked advocate Jain whether the fight of Gyanvapi will be as prolonged as the fight over Ayodhya was for. While the host himself made the comparison of the Gyanvapi case with Ayodhya case, he has also accused the Muslims for comparing the said situation to Babri Masjid to provoke the Muslim Community.”

In the complaint, CJP also emphasized that the not once was it put to question as to whether the Muslim parties had the right to approach the Supreme Court or not. Not once did the host show any doubt regarding the existence of a temple beneath the Mosque, rather have repeatedly implied that the truth of the temple will come out. Thus, it was undoubted that the host let his biases and prejudices against the Muslim community cloud the role he is supposed to play in a debate show and made it evident that he was batting for the Hindu cause.

The complaint stated: “He kept reiterating through the show that the Muslim community, by approaching the Supreme Court, was against the truth coming out, making the entire show a communal battleground. This does not only violate the made guidelines issued by the News Broadcasting Digital and Standards Authority (NBDSA) from time to time of which the channel is a member but also stands in violation of our constitutional principles.”

Through the complaint, CJP has sought the removal of the impugned content from all social media accounts of the channel, and issuance of a public apology for the communal reportage.

The full complaint may be read here:

Related:

Another complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over Madrassa survey in UP

Times Now Navbharat uses ‘mazaar jihad’ in a show, CJP sends complaint

CJP Victory! NBDSA fines News18 over hateful shows

CJP Victory: NBDSA slams fine of Rs. 25,000 on News18

NBDSA: CJP escalates complaint against Times Now Navbharat’s ‘Zameen Jihad’ Show

The post Times Now Navbharat conducts media trial over Gyanvapi Mosque survey, CJP sends complaint appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its order issued on June 27, the NBDSA stated, “NBDSA has decided that a warning be issued to the broadcaster (Channel: Times Now Navbharat) directing it to be more careful in the future.” NBDSA also directed the broadcaster to “remove the video of the said broadcast, if still available on the website of the channel, or Youtube, and remove all hyperlinks, including access which should be confirmed to the NBDSA in writing within 7 days of the Order.”

The NBDSA 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; 9.2 Caution should be exercised in reporting content which denigrates or is likely to offend the sensitivities of any racial or religious group or that may create religious intolerance or disharmony.

The NBDSA had also held that “There would have been no issue if the broadcaster had factually reported on the illegalities in the running of some madrassas. However, in the impugned broadcast, the findings of the survey conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Government were used to allege that ‘Madrassa Jihad’ was taking place in the country, which created an impression that every madrassa is a breeding ground for terrorism and activities of similar nature. The tilt given to the findings of the survey was not only misleading but a violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards.”

The entire order may be read here:

Brief Background of the Case:

On November 11, 2022, a debate segment was aired by the Times Now Navbharat, titled “’Madrasa Jihad’ पर बड़ा खुल़ास़ा, मजहबी त़ालीम क़ा ‘491 तंत्र”. The debate, hosted by Naina Yadav and Rakesh Pandey, was based on a “survey” carried out by the UP government on Madrassas in certain districts of the State. Reportedly, it was found that Bahraich city, which is close to the Nepal border, has 792 madrassas out of which 491 were found to be running “without license”.

Over this news, the channel held a debate and declared that something called “madrassa Jihad” was taking place in Bahraich.

In the complaint sent to the NBDSA on December 5, 2022, CJP had raised “concern over the manner in which or the approach chosen to deal with this data. 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. “The trend of using the suffix of ‘jihad’ to propagate their communally divisive narrative has caught traction in the mainstream news media. The moment any news wherein a person from Muslim Community is involved, news channels rush to label it as some kind of Jihad,” the complaint stated.

Related:

CJP writes to NBDSA against Times Now ‘Madrassa Jihad’ show

Cjp Writes To Times Now Against “Madrassa Jihad” Show

CJP complains against 3 shows of Times Now Navbharat

Times Now Navbharat uses ‘mazaar jihad’ in a show, CJP sends complaint

CJP writes to Times Now Navbharat for calling Haldwani land issue as “Zameen Jihad”

CJP sends complains to TimesNow Navbharat against their problematic debate segment, participants indulged in communal diatribe

Another complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over Madrassa survey in UP

CJP moves NBDSA against Times Now’s inciteful ‘Ram mandir’ show

The post CJP Victory! NBDSA delivers order in favour of CJP, directs removal of impugned video aired by broadcaster appeared first on SabrangIndia.

News channels that run on our television screens 24 hours a day have been branded as “mainstream news media” though commercial media that no longer plays a part in actual dissemination of news may be a more apt definition. This media has, of late, often being showcased for a deliberate suppression of news while selectively creating studio discussions on selective subjects that fuel a divisive, one-sided majoritarian agenda that currently suits the ideology of the party in power.

The technique used is hysterical and repetitive, with one-sided WhatsApp forwards based on no truths becoming the focus and subject for discussion! The one channel that has been prominently badgering its viewers with this persistently unethical, anti-constitutional and stigmatising anti-minority, narrative is Times Now Navbharat, affiliated to the all-powerful media house, the Times of India group.

Citizens for Justice and Peace has been consistently monitoring news channels and their tiresome trope and tools used to spread and further demonise the religious minorities. In this process, CJP has filed several complaints with the News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) and received favourable orders as well. In our analysis we have found that while the narrative of news channels is similar to each other, it is the frequency that now plays a part. In this year, 2023, alone, CJP has filed five complaints against the channel and out of these five shows, CJP has complained against, three shows used the “jihad” trope. The channel is often seen using emotionally charged language, misinformation, and biased narratives to sway people’s beliefs and attitudes.

Even with noticeable trend, the past fortnight was a shocker. Not one day passes without this channel pushing its vicious, dehumanizing agenda. With CJP’s sizeable complaint bank behind us, we now bring you an analytical look at just one week of Times Navbharat content and leave our readers to judge what the motivations and ethics underlying generation of such content may be.

Repetition as Propaganda:

Picking the same issue over and over

After the violence in Kolhapur in the past few days, news channels kept running the debate over ‘Aurangzeb’! The main focus was on ‘Aurangzeb’ as villain in 2023! One of the last Mughal emperors that has had a particularly significant impact on the Deccan plateau, the historical narrative of his betrayal of and subsequent encounter (through Afzal Khan) with Shivaji is part of folk and political lore, given that Shivaji is a much loved figure, albit one who’s image has been also distorted for political gain. Anyway back to the channel, Times Navbharat. The channel, day on day, has been itself in the act of pushing the narrative that even harking (or hailing) back to Aurangzeb –who is and was un undeniable part of India’s past – is both sacrilegious and seditious, an outrageous (even unlawful) notion pushed by India’s present rulers, in Delhi and Maharashtra (belonging as they do to the majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The channel appears to be on its own mission to convince (or brainwash?) its viewers into terming Aurangzeb referencing today as not only treason but acts that retaliatory targeted violence.

On this one incident alone, the channel ran provocative taglines in all their shows. These include:

“Aurangzeb par fasaad , kaun Pakistan ki aulaad” (riots over Aurangzeb, who is the son of Pakistan?)

“Shivaji ke Vanshaj vs. Aurangzeb ki aulaadein?” (Descendants of Shivaji vs. Sons of Aurangzeb?)

“Hinduon ka atyachari ki kis ke liye Krantikari?” (The oppressor of Hindus, for whom, is he a revolutionary?)

Such propaganda often relies on oversimplification and selective generalisation to stereotype religious minorities. It portrays them as threats to national integration, social order, national security, or cultural values, emphasizing their “differences” from the majority population. By portraying them as “the other,” propaganda fosters an “us vs. them” mentality, making it easier to sow seeds of hatred and discrimination.

Religious conversions

Forced conversions are another trope the channel consistently harps upon. The false narrative is the claim that religious conversions in India are primarily forced or coerced. Through its shows the channel suggests that religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, engage in unethical practices to convert individuals from Hinduism or other faiths.  This coverage flies in the face of actual circumstance and data from the ground, as questions and answers in Parliament, studies conducted on the issue from government gazettes (New Indian Express) all show that in fact maximum converts were towards Hinduism! Pertinently also the Indian Constitution accords every citizen the right to freely choose and propagate any faith.[1]

By depicting each alleged cases of forceful conversion, the channel exaggerates these incidents as a phenomenon and suggests that large-scale conversions are eroding the majority religion and threatening the nation’s cultural fabric.

The all-time favourite “Love Jihad”

Despite there being no empirical evidence to prove the existence of this conspiracy theory of “love jihad” and many alternate news portals busting this falsehood, the news channel (any many others of its kind) have continued running with it. ‘Love Jihad’ is a conspiracy theory of the right-wing, which claims that Muslim men feign love to non-Muslim, especially Hindu women to induce them to convert to Islam with an intention to increase their population. However, what is pertinent is that no official agency has come forward with a definition or any data to substantiate the claims.

The coinage of the term gained national prominence in 2009 and its origins can be traced back to Kerala and the coastal belt of Karnataka. On June 25, 2014, then Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy informed the state legislature that 2,667 young women had converted to Islam in the state since 2006. However, he stated that there was no evidence for any of them being forced conversions, and that fears of ‘love jihad’ were “baseless.”

Here are some instances of shows the channel ran through last one week using “love jihad” as the main angle.

In this news report, the channel made sure to highlight the religious identity of the victim, a Hindu. It becomes amply clear when the channel does this, that the accused has to be a Muslim.

On the other hand, when an incident of murder came to light from Mumbai where in a live relationship, the man killed his partner in a rather gruesome manner (akin to the Shraddha Walkar case), the religion of neither the victim nor the accused was mentioned, because both were Hindus.

They even invented another term – “Gaming Jihad” alleging that there is game created by a Mulsim whereby Hindu boys are coaxed into converting to Islam. The news report ran an “investigation” on how this games allured Hindu boys into religious conversion to Islam.

Other divisive tools

When the trope of all kinds of “jihad” and religious conversion are used, they also resort to other tools. Like, establishing hegemony of Hindus by claiming Hindus saved Muslims:

Portraying certain prominent individuals/political figures as enemies of Hindus by vitute of them speaking in favour of Muslims:

Creating unsubstantiated trivial controversy over Muslim actors entering temples and seeking blessing of Hindus gods is also another of their favourites.

Questioning the sensitivity of certain topics and defending propaganda: When the teaser of the movie “72 hoorain” came out, the channel aired a debate on why are Muslims offended over it.

This week long overview establishes a clear political agenda and motive.

The intention of the channel is clear: to create a distorted reality that fosters division, fear, and animosity towardsthe Muslim community. False narratives contribute to the marginalization and stigmatization of religious minority communities, fostering discrimination, and hostility. This has already led to social exclusion, violence, and restrictions on the religious freedom. The spread of false narratives further deepens existing communal tensions and perpetuates an “us vs. them” mentality as well.

Where this leaves the quality and standards of fair and equitable practices in broadcasting is a question that has more than serious implications for India and Indian democracy.

[1] What do the figures tell us? CJP Legal Resource: Hinduism saw the largest increase in new converts, according to statistics collected by The New Indian Express collated from government gazettes that contain official figures for the year 2020. Hinduism, says this analysis, was “adopted” by 47% of those who converted to a different religion in Kerala during the referred year. 241 of the 506 people who reported their change of religion with the government were Christians or Muslims who converted to Hinduism. Islam attracted 144 converts overall, compared to 119 converts to Christianity.[2] The majority of Dalit Christians, or Christian Cheramars, Christian Sambavas, and Christian Pulayas, made up 72% of the new Hindu converts. It was clear that the absence of quota and reservation advantages had led to the re-admittance of Hinduism by many Dalit Christians. Christianity lost 242 believers to the other two religions and attracted only 119 persons. Islam gained 144 new believers and lost 40 during the period. Buddhism received two new believers who switched from Hinduism.As many as 77% of the new converts to Islam were Hindus and 63% women. It attracted the highest number of persons from Ezhava, Thiyya and Nair communities. 25 persons, including 13 females, switched from the Hindu Ezhava caste, to Islam. Data reveals that 17 Thiyya community members including 11 females converted to Islam. 17 persons including 12 females were from the Nair community. Of the 33 persons who crossed over to Islam from Christianity, 9 were Syrian Catholics, who included two women.

Related:

CJP SENDS COMPLAINS TO TIMESNOW NAVBHARAT AGAINST THEIR PROBLEMATIC DEBATE SEGMENT, PARTICIPANTS INDULGED IN COMMUNAL DIATRIBE

TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT USES ‘MAZAAR JIHAD’ IN A SHOW, CJP SENDS COMPLAINT

NBDSA: CJP ESCALATES COMPLAINT AGAINST TIMES NOW NAVBHARAT’S ‘ZAMEEN JIHAD’ SHOW

ANOTHER COMPLAINT TO TIMES NOW ON POLARISED DEBATE OVER MADRASSA SURVEY IN UP

The post Times Now Navbharat: Where hate sells like hot cakes daily appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Debate shows on mainstream news channels are, more often than not, polarised and discuss issues that drive the communal narrative. The same was the case for this show where the debate was on a survey by UP government and the speakers, who were not directly connected with the issue were being asked to give their opinion on it. The host, Pandey, asked one of the speakers from the Muslim community why did some madrassas not have proper documents for the international funding they received. However, the speaker, unaware of the ground reality wasn’t able to add much value to the debate and it was evident that the debate was being carried out merely for the same of discussing an issue on communal lines.

The debate started with statements like, “UP me videshi funding wale madarsson par kya taala lagne wala hai?”; Madarsson par Yogi ka action to Maulana ko tension kyu ho rahi hai?”; Videshi funding par action, to kaum ko badnaam karne wali baat kyun aagai? Kya ye na maane ki ye bhadkane wali baat hai?”; “Avaidh madarsson par ghamasan, Bajrang Dal par bhaijaan kyun bhadak gaye, Kyun Maulvi sahab ko dikkat hogai?” [Will the madrassa receiving international funding in UP be locked down?; If yogi is acting on madrassas why are maulanas worried? Action against International funding, where is the question of insulting the religion? Is this inciteful? Attack on illegal madrassas, why are Muslims angry at Bajrang Dal? Why are Maulvis hassled?]

It was also evident how the host was interrupting those speaking favourably towards the Muslim community. At one point, a speaker called Haji Rangrez even said that if madrassas are found to not have the required documents for the international funding or are found to be illegal then the government must take action as per law. However, the host moved on from this statement and did not give it any weightage, merely to keep the pot boiling.

Vinod Bansal (of VHP) and one of the participants in the debate also said that the madrassas have mushroomed in the border areas of the country and the children are being pushed towards ‘jihad’ and terrorism. When asked to substantiate this claim, the host and the participant both ignored it.

The following tickers were being run throughout the show:

• Madarsson par Yogi ka action, Maulana ko tension? [If Yogi is taking action against madrassas why is Maulana worried?]
• Avaidh Madarson par Yogi ka Hunter, kise darr? [Yogi taking action against illegal madrasas, who is scared?]
• Bajrang Dal par kyun bhadke Madni Bhaijaan? [Why are muslims angered at Bajrang Dal?]
• Ab nahi chalega Videshi funding ka khel? [Now international funding will not be allowed?]
• Aatank ko paala, to madarsson par lagega taala? [If terrorism is being taught, the madrassas will be shut down?]

It is important that a host of a debate remains unbiased, neutral but in this show, the moderator clearly favoured the people supporting the ideologically aligned participant and let them make baseless claims on the show.

The complaint states, “the host is seen questioning someone from the Muslim community about the illegality of these madrassas. The question being, does he run any of these madrassas? How is he capable of answering these questions about illegal madrassas? The whole point of the debate thus becomes moot. Yet, the debate continues among people who are not concerned directly with the subject being discussed. Thus, leading to a polarised debate.”

CJP has complained against Times Now Navbharat in November last year which was also based on madrassas survey of UP whereby, the term ‘madrassa jihad” was used by the host Naina Yadav. On Monday, CJP filed two other complaints against the channel. One was against the using the term ‘mazaar jihad’ for a show based on alleged illegal mazaars in Uttarakhand and the other was against a debate show in which a statement made by one Hasan Madni was being discussed where he said that whoever talks about a Hindu nation is a traitor.

The complaint may be read here:

Related:

CJP calls out Aaj Tak for calling alleged illegal mazaars as “Mazaar Jihad”

CJP Victory! NBDSA Fines News18 Over Hateful Shows

CJP Victory: NBDSA Slams Fine Of Rs. 25,000 On News18

CJP writes to Times Now against “Madrassa Jihad” show

The post Complaint to Times Now on polarised debate over madrassa survey in UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.