Uncategorized

BBC Revamps, ‘Collective Newsroom’ Takes Off In Bharat

Former BBC professionals float Indian media firm, run BBC six languages news operations along with Youtube channel Rupa Jha A few colleagues and I working with the BBC in India decided to start our own venture, ��Collective Newsroom’, an independent media company. But, it was not the most obvious and easy choice. It came out of a very real and difficult situation that our employer BBC in India faced. Foreign Direct Investments in India will have to be capped at 26 per cent for digital news outfits. So far, over 99 percent of BBC India shares were owned by UK-based British Broadcasting Corporation. This meant that the BBC could not operate the way it has for so many years in India. It meant hundreds of employees in India could lose jobs and space to do independent and credible journalism. The thought itself was very demoralising. Why should I quit journalism or leave my country to do journalism. At end of the day, we wanted two things – continue to do trustworthy journalism and be in India. It became evident that this needed a very out of box thinking, courage and sense of entrepreneurship. Four of us decided to quit The BBC and launch Collective Newsroom. We got five others as shareholders. As a fully owned independent Indians owned media company, Collective newsroom secured BBC as its first client. It was a historic moment for us all and we embarked on this new venture with a clear vision to be home to India’s most credible, creative and courageous journalism. The journey to our launch that happened on April 10 this year has not been without challenges. While we had to seek answers to previously unasked questions, work imaginatively and innovatively, I am proud that working collaboratively and closely with all those journalists working in different language in India; we have reached this milestone. The level of commitment, dedication and aspiration that the staff members have shown in recent months is evident. Starting April 10, 2024, Collective Newsroom is the sole producer and publisher for BBC content in six Indian languages – Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati, Punjabi and Marathi. We also run BBC Youtube channel in English for Indian audiences. It’s historic for the BBC to give a third-party license to operate its platforms. Therefore, I call this as a project in trust and innovation. On personal front, it’s a huge learning curve for me. Being chief executive officer of Collective Newsroom, I’m certainly in a space which is very new, different and male dominated but what could be more exciting than breaking the glass ceiling!! The fear of unknown stops us from taking an uncharted route. Is this scary? Of course it is!! But with my team, I feel everything is possible. Do I fear? Yes, I do, but I will also overcome it. The Courage is resistance to fear and faith is a fundamental part of life and I lean on the faith that together with my team, we shall overcome. I believe we have the skills and expertise to make Collective Newsroom a standout success in the market. As we say in our mission, we will lead with facts and bring audiences diverse voices through innovative and impactful journalism in public interest. It’s a formidable offer. In a world inundated with breaking news updates, sensational and misleading headlines, Collective Newsroom is committed to authenticity, depth and empathy in storytelling. Collective Newsroom is committed to a digital-first strategy for modern newsrooms, producing superior quality stories spanning a myriad of platforms and formats, ensuring our reach are as diverse as communities that we serve. What sets us apart is our unwavering focus on going beyond the headlines. We delve deep into the heart of stories, bringing in-depth ground reports and human narratives brimming with empathy and clearly marked by fairness and impartiality. Our skilled, experienced and brave reporters go where many dare not—within India and around the world—all in pursuit of facts from the ground. Our fearless approach to storytelling ensures that we amplify voices of those often overlooked, putting humans at the centre of every narrative. Our explainers and analysis make sense of the intricate tapestry of local, national and international events and offer valued reach for a meaningful growth trajectory. We use cutting-edge technology and innovate with media to produce unique stories you are not likely to see elsewhere. The accolades we’ve garnered, national and international serve as a testament to our unwavering dedication to excellence. Yet, more than any shiny trophy, it is trust of the audience that remains our greatest honour. This trust is reflected in the fact that our client, BBC has its largest international audience in India. Such recognition is testament to our shared commitment to truth, integrity, and the power of storytelling. (Author is chief executive officer, Collective Newsroom, BBC News Indian languages)

Hindus Media Security

642

Dreams, Promising Careers to Abrupt Death!

Harsh realities faced by Indian students seeking opportunities in US, Europe, UK & Australia need immediate recognition with comprehensive solutions Rohan Giri Shocking murder of Chirag Antil, 24-year-old student in Vancouver, Canada brings to fore pressing concerns that overseas students in particular from India faced while studying abroad. Chirag’s murder is not a singular instance. It’s culmination of several other such cases. It should be seen in light of the troubling trend of violence that impacts students who travel to several countries across geographies for education, leisure, work and business apart from leisure. A string of murders or deaths that were reported by media houses from different countries prompts immediate concerns about the adequacy of safety and protection measures for these expatriates. Since beginning of 2024, more than eleven Indian students in United States alone have tragically died, either as victims of murder or under suspicious circumstances. Chirag’s case follows an unsettlingly recognizable pattern: like most such occurrences, police investigations continue without capturing any of the perpetrators. US and Canadian authorities and media outlets till now have viewed many of these incidents as part of crime statistics and road rage. But, it’s important to recognize that each of these incidents signifies a profound and tragic loss for the families who have endured loss of their children. Chirag, hailed from Sonipat, Haryana, aspired to continue his studies in Canada. But, abrupt end to his life casts a long shadow over safety and wellbeing of our youngsters in these self-proclaimed advanced societies and nations. The response—or lack thereof—from local authorities, as well as perceived indifference, can exacerbate the family’s trauma. According to Chirag’s brother, Romit, communication from Canadian police has been minimal leaving the family to grapple for answers and support. Chirag’s murder has till date not been directly linked to targeted killing, but it is important to recognize the general threat perception for Indian diaspora in certain regions including threats from extremist groups. Khalistani extremist activity has been of significant concern in parts of Canada apart from US, European cities and UK. These extremist elements have had targeted persons of Indian origin over the years, creating a climate of fear and insecurity among the community. Violence plagues Vancouver as multiple gangs often engage in clashes, frequently involving innocent bystanders in their violent fights. Harsh Khatri, a close friend of Chirag Antil has told Glacier Media, “Antil was in the wrong place at the wrong time and misidentified.” Although Khatri did not explicitly attribute the occurrence to any particular gang or plot, the hint was apparent: these gangs are still actively and dangerously operative in Vancouver. A violent rampage from December 2020 to May 2021 highlights this dark reality resulting in loss of over fifteen lives due to gang-related violence. These violent clashes reflect picture of a city grappling with a persistent battle against gang violence where misidentification could lead to death. The city’s cycle of violence is heavily influenced by drug traffickers operating at medium to high levels. On March 30, 2024 gunfire broke out during daytime hours causing mayhem on streets of downtown Vancouver. The incident occurred on a Saturday afternoon, causing frightened visitors to quickly seek shelter in surrounding establishments and cafés. Eyewitness claimed that the assault was directed towards a specific individual who is believed to be a member of the infamous Brothers Keepers gang. The victim was inside a black SUV when bullets ruthlessly penetrated it. With a sense of urgency, the impaired vehicle rushed uncontrollably from an alley onto Robson Street, resulting in a collision with another SUV. In the midst of this disorder, two dogs sustained bullet injuries, requiring immediate medical attention from a veterinarian. There were no other injuries recorded. Nevertheless, the individuals responsible for the shootings are still unidentified and not apprehended and this resulted in the community not being able to cope with the ongoing recurrence of violence associated with gangs. Situation emphasizes the importance of strong and effective support mechanisms for students, both from the countries hosting them and from their home country’s diplomatic channels. The efforts made by Chirag’s family to bring his body back to their home country Bharat with the help of an internet fundraising platform (GoFundMe) and involvement of Indian authorities highlight larger problem of bureaucratic and logistical obstacles that can intensify the sorrow experienced by grieving families. Indian government and its diplomatic missions overseas have consistently expressed concern about escalation in extremist activities and their potential consequences for security of Indian diaspora. Indian students in Canada have an extra level of vulnerability which necessitates that they be more cautious and take stronger security measures. Extremist factions have a tendency to escalate isolated incidents into larger confrontations or deliberate assaults on individuals with Indian affiliation. The lack of immediate and transparent communication from Canadian authorities, as described by the family, points to a need for improved international cooperation on such sensitive incidents. Diplomatic entities must proactively engage and support nationals in distress, ensuring they do not navigate foreign legal and procedural mazes alone. Chirag’s death brings to light essential measures for safety of international students. Educational institutions and local governments must bolster their efforts to ensure these young individuals are not just seen as temporary residents or tuition payers but as integral, protected members of the community. Enhanced safety measures, clear communication channels and dedicated support for international students are imperative to prevent such tragedies and nurture a truly inclusive and secure environment. Tragic end to Chirag Antil’s promising journey is a call for action by all stakeholders involved in international student mobility. It’s a reminder of the responsibilities that host nations like US, European members, UK and Australia should shoulder towards these young lives, far from home, in pursuit of their avocation. (the author is Head of Content at Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, a New Delhi based non-partisan think-tank)

Geopolitics

605

West’s Supremacist, Colonial Mindset Gets Exposed

Bharat does not require dictates in democratic principles from US, Germany or other European powers. West’s misguided, outdated and conceited assumptions must be abandoned outright. Rahul Pawa April and May 2024 will be etched as ‘decisive months’ in Bharat’s modern history as the country prepares for yet another dance of democracy, a five-yearly feature. It also unfolds the grand electoral exercise when an estimated 970 million voters would exercise their franchise to elect a new government. Bharat’s citizens spanning geographic landscape from the mighty Himalayas in the north to vast Indian Ocean in the south and from Thar Desert in the west to the Mishmi Hills in the east would queue up to vote and elect the new government for next five years. As per Election Commission of India, the electorate this year includes 20 million young first-time voters and 14.1 million newly registered female voters amongst 1.4 billion population, indicating a significant uptick in youth and female participation in Bharat’s democratic process. Hosting the world’s most expansive, inclusive and resilient proven democratic exercise may not have been fully appreciated by Western powers. And, Bharat finds itself as the target of unsolicited interventions by her Western counterparts like United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), German Foreign Office, US State Department and United Nations (UN). These actions portray an arrogant presumption, a misplaced sense of superiority and a lingering colonial mindset that presupposes Western democratic models as the pinnacle of governance, undermining the sovereignty and integrity of Bharat’s electoral, legislative and constitutional workings. West have had often cited Athens as cradle of democracy, a system born from the union of the Greek terms ‘demos’ (people) and ‘kratos’ (power). This narrative positions Athenian model established under Cleisthenes in the fifth century BCE as the archetype of people-powered governance. Yet, this Eurocentric perspective overlooks profound democratic ethos embedded within the ancient civilization of Bharat, predating Greek democracy by centuries. Bharat’s engagement with democratic principles is not a borrowed concept but a homegrown tradition that finds its roots in the Rig Veda, estimated to be composed around 1500 BCE. This ancient text reveals a society where governance was not the dominion of a singular ruler but a collaborative effort involving the collective wisdom of the Sabha (assembly) and Samiti (council), indicative of an evolved and sophisticated understanding of democratic governance far before emergence of Greek Athenian model. Vedic texts including both the Rig and Atharva vedas, detail existence of assemblies where decisions were deliberated in the presence of kings, ministers and scholars. Such gatherings were characterized by inclusive discussions and integration of diverse viewpoints embodying the essence of democratic dialogue. Approval of these assemblies led to electing or identifying a leader or ‘rajan’ unlike in the west. The very concept of a leader or ‘Rajan’ was neither divine, absolute nor hereditary. Systemic checks and balances resonate with current democratic ideals. The invocation of ‘Samjnana’ in the Rig Veda symbolizing collective consciousness furthers intrinsic democratic spirit of ancient Bharat. This term, representing unity of thought and purpose among the people, was foundational to Vedic concept of governance where decisions were made through consensus reflecting a commitment to communal harmony and mutual respect. Moreover, historical records of Mahabharata and governance models described in Kautilya’s Arthashastra reveal a continuum of democratic practices through various epochs including republican systems of Licchavi and Vaishali where leaders were elected rather than born into power. Such examples affirmed that principles of democracy—participation, deliberation and representation—are not new to Bharat but are woven into the fabric of its society. Considering this wealth of historical evidence, the notion that Bharat requires dictates in democratic principles from a Western standpoint is not only misguided but perpetuates an outdated and conceited assumption that ought to be abandoned without delay. Bharat’s democratic and judicial frameworks are subjected to proliferated patterns of interference from international organizations necessitating a detailed examination of the motives and potential impacts of such foreign meddling. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) established by Christian missionary groups concerned with the alleged persecution of Christian missionaries worldwide has positioned itself as a self-appointed global arbiter of religious freedom. Over years, it has regularly vocalized, often misleadingly, about Bharat’s society and governance. Since 2013-14, USCIRF’s stance towards Bharat has been significantly influenced by its interactions with Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), an organization linked to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an offshoot of Jamaat-e-Islami (Pakistan), particularly regarding Citizenship Amendment Act. This relationship, uncovered by independent research from an Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) firm indicates a strategic campaign to influence US policy and public opinion against Bharat highlighting a complex network of influences that questions USCIRF and other such US based entities and their impartiality in evaluations concerning Bharat. Recent machinations to portray Bharat in a negative context magnify apprehensions regarding international discourse surrounding Bharat’s internal matters. Germany’s criticism of lawful arrest of Indian politician Arvind Kejriwal and remarks by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres questioning integrity of its electoral process not only encroach upon the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference but also reveal a pattern of biased and agenda-driven scrutiny. Strikingly, Germany’s observations, juxtaposed against its role in hosting Nuremberg trials which aspired to set global legal precedents and ensure legal accountability at the highest levels of governance particularly stand out. United Nations bound by its charter to respect the sovereignty of its member states, seems increasingly influenced by growing financial contributions of Communist Party of China (CPC) indicating a shift in the dynamics of international power play. These developments do not merely affect the mechanisms of global governance but hint at complex strategic maneuvers, acknowledging resurgent Bharat as a principal contender in this global maze. Bharat advances towards electing her representatives to 18th Lok Sabha which is essentially a celebration of democracy that is unparalleled in scale and tradition, Unwarranted overreach by West into Bharat’s sovereign affairs and internal matters casts a long shadow over their intent and interest. This external curiosity cloaked in the guise of

Geopolitics Leadership

635

Changed Foreign Policy Stems from Bharat’s Cohesive Leadership

‘Why Bharat matters’ is a wonderful and compact rendition of the dynamic policy matrix by S. Jaishankar while being in corner office! Dr Amritpal Kaur When the realist External affairs Minister present a clinical picture of the world affairs in a compact book, it should be read with all the care. It’s because the analysis of a career diplomat is palpable and it also gives a sense of the minds that work at the helm, in the control room, assiduously at work of foreign policy making and execution. As the book unfolds, it reveals to the reader nuances of International relations from contemporary Indian vantage point from the actors end to the influencers arena, to general people who more often than not, are at the receiving end. Broadly, the book deals with various stakeholders of Indian Foreign Policy, past and present. It discusses the government’s account of international issues as well as the take of people sitting inside the power corridors or outside it. Sardar Patel, Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Dr. B R Ambedkar’s views on foreign policy issues which were not mainstreamed by the then Government of India are discussed. The point that Jaishankar is driving home in this book and his earlier publication, The India Way is that many problems of today have their roots in yesteryear’s regimes. These issues have over the years become soar points for India, territorial disputes and strategic-tactical missteps taken by Indian dispensation are the glaring examples. Why Sardar Patel or Mookerjee matter today, in part, is because they tried to warn about these mistakes and had the Government taken their suggestions on board, the picture might have been different today. There is also a shift in the approach to International relations within Indian government since the last decade and this shift comes through the book as well Nationalist foreign policy, in place of third world internationalism, open ended multipolar world order with greater role for countries like India. Jaishankar calling out the double standards that dominant powers use for similar situations are some of the examples of this shift. In many ways, Why Bharat Matters is a book that announces to the world that India has arrived, again! It goes beyond the usual standard academic analysis, into the fields of real time variables with direct impact on contours of policy making. For example, how Government of India responded to crises like COVID 19, Ukraine war, Afghanistan crisis are some issues dealt with in the book on a first person account basis. What also contribute to its salience is that Jaishankar has a deep and detailed knowledge about International relations and the games that nations play and it is this knowledge which peeps through the book. As much as it is a written word, it is also a policy statement of Government of India, its approach and stakes in international relations. In that sense, it is not a dated analysis, rather an up-to-date, in-the-moment picture of the events that have happened in the past decade and are transpiring as we write and read. What sets this analysis apart is not just frankness of Jaishankar in offering his perspective on issues, but the cool matter-of-fact assertion of strategic elbow room that India is claiming in foreign relations under mounting pressure from various parties. That India needs to take into account its own unique predicaments and opportunities to accomplish its own national goals are according to Jaishankar its raison d’etat. Though the world is still coming to terms with this changed attitude on the Indian side, but the change itself came about with the cohesive leadership under the present dispensation. Interestingly, for Jaishankar India’s arrival is not a new-kid-on-the-block phenomenon, rather it was coming for a long time. India’s rise in the past decade is the central argument of the book. There are certain fixtures of Indian foreign policy, which has remained constant in the analysis too, that is, centrality of Prime Minister in terms of Foreign Policy making, the neighbourhood policy emanating from Gujral Doctrine and the impact of foreign policy on general public. A chapter dedicated to Prime Minister Modi, his world-view and approach to foreign policy is a telling example of how Prime Ministers keep foreign policy as their own prerogative domain. It can be argued that centrality of Prime Minister in foreign policy formulation emanates from the fact that as the leader of the country, he or she has a direct hand in how the world sees us and how should the world be dealt with. Jaishankar argues in the book that on all occasions, it has been crystal clear vision of Prime Minister Modi that led the way for clearer formulations in foreign policy. That the book declares India’s arrival on the world stage as a fait accompli, not as a third world country, but as a frontline state with increasing stakes in the outcomes of international politics can also be attributed to confidence of leadership in standing up and owning responsibility in precarious situations. The book is a telling story of how the shift in confidence of leadership impacts the policy outcomes and Prime Minister as the prime example of this evolution. Dr. S Jaishankar’s experience as a seasoned Diplomat is palpable in the book he put together. The depth and crux of issues pertaining to India’s international relations are visible in his analysis. In certain ways, his style reminds one of Henry Kissinger, with crisp, assertive language and a punch in the end. However, the problem with the work is that it reads more like a diplomat’s manual than a foreign policy analysis. For an amateur reader, with no background in the foreign policy analysis the book is somewhat difficult to follow due to the insufficient information given. For example, in discussing the Afghan crisis and its outcome for USA, an indepth analysis would have been a more impactful. Issues that the book raises are pertinent in their own right, their salience could be accentuated by additional

Education Hindus Leadership Policy Technology

651

Bharat’s Civilizational Democratic System Has Evolved!

Methodological inaccuracies & biases adopted by V-Dem apart from experts enlisted to evaluate Bharat’s democratic credentials is questionable Pummy Pandita The encroachment of selective and biased methodologies into the arena of international rankings and surveys has raised serious questions about their integrity. Far from being an anomaly, this issue permeates a broad spectrum of indices. Among them, the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute’s eighth annual report on democracy, entitled “Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot.” Purportedly known for its deep dive into state of democratic governance around the globe, this report seeks to provide an exploration into complex dynamics of democracy in various nations, with India receiving particular emphasis. India, the world’s largest democracy, stands at the forefront of discussions on democratic health and vitality. The nation’s democratic journey is distinguished by its commitment to regular electoral engagement, a robust multiparty system and a steadfast embrace of diversity and pluralism. Yet, V-Dem’s labeling of India as “one of the worst autocratisers” casts a long shadow, provoking thorough scrutiny of the methodologies and criteria V-Dem employs. Such a characterization not only stirs discussion but demands a more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing these assessments. As observers and analysts scrutinize these rankings, the debate underscores need for transparency and rigour in evaluative methodologies employed by V-Dem and other indices around the world. Alarmingly, implications of such rankings extend far beyond mere numbers; they significantly influence a nation’s access to resources, financial implications, opportunities, and its global reputation. Consequently, when integrity of these methodologies is called into question, it can precipitate disagreements, escalate into diplomatic strains, or necessitate shifts in policy. Varieties of Democracy Institute, anchored at University of Gothenburg in Sweden, stands as the source behind V-DEM rankings. This report includes a suite of indices such as Liberal Democracy Index, Electoral Democracy Index, Liberal Component Index, Egalitarian Component Index, Participatory Component Index, and Deliberative Component Index, each contributing to a understanding of democratic health and governance globally. The methodology and approach adopted by V-Dem Institute have raised considerable concerns particularly in their evaluation of India’s democratic credentials. A detailed scrutiny of indices and sub-indices utilised by V-Dem reveals a mixed picture: India scores well on objective measures such as the proportion of the population with voting rights and the percentage of direct popular votes. However, a noticeable decline is observed in areas heavily reliant on ‘expert opinion.’ V-Dem’s reliance on “innovative methods for aggregating expert judgments” to derive “valid and reliable estimates” for concepts that are inherently challenging to observe is a point of contention. The field of social science research is well-acquainted with the biases and limitations inherent to such methodologies. Despite this, V-Dem’s acknowledgment of potential biases in its operations appears cursory at best, quickly passing the buck to ‘experts’ and claiming to mitigate these biases through a so-called ‘measurement model’. This approach raises questions about the institute’s commitment to academic rigour, as it seems to prioritize self-promotion over methodological integrity. The transparency and accountability of V-Dem’s evaluation process are also under scrutiny. The institute reportedly relies on around roughly 25 “Country Experts” across five categories to assess each country, with the identities of most of these experts remaining concealed. This small group of experts is tasked with making judgments on the democratic status of nations, a stark contrast to the democratic ethos upon which countries like India are built. India, for its part, has established a democratic system that allows its citizens to shape their destiny through participatory elections, rather than deferring to the opinions of a select few. Moreover, V-Dem’s approach to updating its methodologies and assumptions appears uninspiring. While it claims to regularly review its methods, actual adjustments are made only “occasionally.” Criticisms from countries in the Global South, which highlight the biases and ideological leanings inherent in V-Dem’s methodologies, have been persistent. These critiques often point out the alignment of such evaluations with the interests of influential figures and the lack of significant efforts by V-Dem to address or amend its flawed methods. This ongoing resistance highlights not only concerns about the transparency and accuracy of V-Dem’s methodology but also about the competence and intentions behind the reports it publishes. The portrayal of democratic performance in V-Dem’s reports also seems to echo a familiar narrative found in Western literature and analysis, where Western nations—primarily the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia—are consistently depicted as outperforming the rest of the world. This narrative perpetuates a simplistic and often misleading view of global democratic landscapes, further complicating the trust and validity of such assessments. The persistent reluctance of V-Dem to revisit and revise its evaluative processes suggests a deeper problem than mere methodological transparency. It hints at a fundamental disconnect between the institute’s proclaimed objectives and its operational ethos. This steadfast adherence to a disputed methodology, in the face of widespread critique, underscores a concerning lack of competence or, more troublingly, suggests potential ill-intentions behind the production of these reports. In conclusion, the approach of the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute towards evaluating global democracies, with a notable focus on India, underscores a deeply troubling confluence of methodological shortcomings and apparent biases. While V-Dem positions itself as a standard-bearer of academic integrity, leveraging innovative methods and expert judgments, its persistent neglect in addressing and amending the inherent biases within its methodologies significantly detracts from the trustworthiness of its evaluations. This steadfast stance not only erodes the credibility of its reports but also casts doubt on the objectivity and underlying motives of the institute. Particularly glaring is V-Dem’s indifference towards engaging with the sustained critiques from countries across the Global South, which points to a broader disregard for the multifaceted expressions of democratic governance beyond the Western paradigm. The institute’s assessments of India bring these issues into sharp relief, highlighting a potential bias and even anti-India sentiment that seems to overshadow the nation’s democratic achievements and complexities. India’s democratic journey, marked by its vast electoral processes, dynamic multiparty engagements, and commitment to pluralism, stands in stark

Education Hindus Leadership Policy Technology

614

Bharat, An Evolving, Chaotic but Vibrant Democracy

From being ‘gana rajyas’ to going high-tech in campaigns & voting, Bharat has covered huge space and willing to experiment with spiritual democracy Dr Aniruddh Subhedar Like people, nations too have a distinct nature, character and history of their own. Bharat is no exception to this and has its own uniqueness in all these three aspects. Studying Bharat diligently and objectively, one will find that ideal of democracy and freedom to choose leaders has been ingrained in her ethos since times immemorial. No doubt the modern democratic institutions of Bharat took their form after British colonization but roots of democracy in Bharat are as old as it gets. When Greece was enjoying its city states, in Bharat there were Gana-Rajyas. Ganas means the people making up a state and Gana-Rajya translates to “rule of people”. Scholars tell us that even before Gana-Rajyas, during evolution of Bharatiya civilization, in Vedic period we find existence of assemblies like Sabha, Samiti and Vidath, which used to administer people and whose leaders were elected by the people only. The Ganas were basically units as cohesive as families or clans. Later when monarchy became the norm in Bharat, it was not too far away from this basic ideal. The word ‘praja‘, which means people / subjects, literally translates to ‘offspring’ or children. In essence, Raja (King) was supposed to take care of his people as his own children. And, even during that era of monarchy, at the village level panchayats or village assemblies, usually made up of community elders, were thriving in Bharat; respected and accepted by the State. Therefore, transition to modern democratic political setup was not too hard for Bharatiyas. As soon as Bharat freed itself from colonial clutches, it made universal adult franchise one of the defining characteristics of its political system. In Letter & Practice In modern times, democratic ethics are too well entrenched in Bharat’s polity in letter and practice. Preamble of Bharat’s Constitution pledges to constitute the country into “a democratic republic”. Free and fair elections are bedrock on which this democratic systems stands upon. The Constitution ensures that there is a permanent and independent body- ‘Election Commission of India’ (ECI) which has the power to control and regulate elections to parliament, state legislatures, office of president and vice-president. Measures relating to elections are so stringent that once ‘Model Code of Conduct’ is implemented by the Election Commission, the government is prohibited from making any announcements or policy decisions that could potentially influence people’s voting choices. This means government cannot start any populist scheme and even government bodies cannot start any recruiting process. Provisions of Constitution are not a dead letter. In fact, it’s followed quite strictly. General elections in Bharat are not some run-of-the-mill affair; it is of gigantic proportions. General elections in 2024 Bharat will be the largest exercise ever in the world surpassing even the one held in 2019. Total 90 million people are eligible to vote in this election. It will be the longest-held general election in Bharat (except for the first general election of Independent Bharat in 1951-52) spanning over 44 days. One of the reasons Bharat’s democracy has endured test of time is the seriousness about voting rights and fair elections. Otherwise in Bharat’s neighbourhood there’s hardly a country which can pride itself as a true democracy. In fact, in Bharat’s west, it is hard to find a truly functioning democracy till one crosses the Middle-Eastern countries. Being one of the most populous and diverse countries in the world, Bharat plays a major role in ensuring that democracy and human rights are secure in South East Asia. Bharatiyas take their right to vote seriously and don’t like anyone meddling with it. The closest Bharat came to dictatorship was during 1975-77 emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. But what preceded and followed this 21-month stint with dictatorship is worth mentioning here. Among the other reasons, the immediate cause of Indira Gandhi implementing emergency was that the courts concluded that malpractices were used in her election and declared it as null and void. Indira Gandhi paid the price for imposing the Emergency when she and her party Congress were wiped out in elections post-emergency. Interestingly enough, she was re-elected by the people again and later her son Rajiv Gandhi won highest number of seats in Bharat’s political history owing to sympathy wave caused by Indira Gandhi’s assassination by Khalistani terrorists. It shows that Indira Gandhi always had a political stature but even Prime Minister of her standing wasn’t spared by Bharatiya people when she tried to curb their freedom. Credibility of Election Process Given the vast geographical area and size of the electorate, ECI has modernized the process by using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for polling and counting votes for more than two decades. Making the process more credible and faster, EVMs were first used in 1980s, and they are used in general elections since 2004. In 2017 many Opposition parties like Congress, Bahujan Samaj Party, Aam Admi Party harboured doubts on credibility of EVMs after they lost elections in some states. It was alleged that BJP is tempering with EVMs. The allegations went as bizarre as claiming that EVMs (a self-contained, stand-alone machine, lacking any networking capability) is being hacked via internet. A leader of AAP even brought a machine to the Delhi Assembly which looked like EVM and demonstrated how it could be hacked. All this hullabaloo was silenced when in May-June 2017 the ECI invited these parties and gave them the real EVM to prove that it could be hacked. Parties like AAP did not even participate in the challenge, while other two other parties, CPI (M) and NCP, who sent their representatives said that “they just came to understand how EVMs work”. Even without going into technical know-how the allegations against EVMs could be easily dismissed by looking at the fact that even in these 2017 elections, BJP lost in Punjab and Congress won. AAP won Punjab state

Geopolitics Leadership Media Policy Security

595

China Spins Jingoistic Narrative

Bharat hits back on Chinese Communist Party’s false claims on Arunachal Pradesh. Global community including US recognize the dragon ploy. Rohan Giri There’s something innate in China that cannot change. It’s in its DNA to encroach on others. As part of its grand plan to usurp others land, properties and expand its hegemony, China and its ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) have tasted success in few areas while they eagerly look at grabbing neighbours’ territories. Tibet is one area where Chinese Communist Party has had large success in altering names of places, assert control on large swaps of land and change, culture, languages and life of ordinary citizens. Through coercion, China constructed certain structures to also advance on its border regions through coercive means. Similar attempts have been made with Bharat’s territories especially Arunachal Pradesh to assert its dominance in the region. Communist Party of China and its life time General Secretary Xi Jingping announced Chinese names to places in and around Arunachal Pradesh. Latest in the Chinese ploy of old and deceitful rhetoric is evidenced by statements made by People’s Liberation Army’s Senior Colonel Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for Chinese Defense Ministry. By intention, he claimed that southern region of Xizang, the Chinese nomenclature for Tibet, was integral component of China’s territory. This was obvious reference to Arunachal Pradesh which China thinks is its own territory. Chinese Defense Ministry raked up the bogey on Bharat’s north-eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh after Sela Tunnel was constructed to enhance civic and military connectivity and capabilities in the state. The latest overtures by China expose the Chinese Communist Party ploy to initially seize Tibet and subsequently move in on Arunachal Pradesh. Bharat along with 17 other countries, mostly neighbours, has experienced adverse consequences of persistently making unsubstantiated claims by Chinese Communist Party. Henry McMahon, then foreign secretary of Britain drew an 890-km border between Bharat and Tibet in 1914. Arunachal Pradesh was formerly referred to as North Eastern Frontier Agency before the establishment of the McMahon Line. On one side of McMahon, Tibet existed as an autonomous region while on the other Arunachal Pradesh was an Indian state. Chinese communist party falsely maintains that Tibet is one component of China and refuses to acknowledge this demarcation. China’s aspirations for territorial expansion had begun to gain momentum at this point. The act of manipulating maps to include some regions of Bharat has been observed since ancient times, hence its innate to its nature. Bogus claims of Chinese communists were undermined when Japanese forces launched an invasion of Arunachal Pradesh, north-eastern state of Bharat during Second World War. Additionally, emergence of Chinese expansionism posed an enormous threat to Bharat’s territorial integrity. During that period, the British-led Indian Army provided protection to Tawang of Arunachal Pradesh. Bharat has had consistently maintained a firm stance against China’s claims and Arunachal Pradesh residents have historically rejected China’s expansionist aspirations and unsubstantiated assertions. Latest PLA statements on Arunachal Pradesh have come after Chinese Communist Party misleading names of 11 locations in Arunachal Pradesh. In addition to expressing their outrage, local populace actively engaged in peace marches on the roads, demonstrating their opposition to China. The protesting people were holding placards that read, “We stand by India” and “Arunachal is not part of China.” The posters in their possession had the message, “Don’t we know… How China is oppressing the people of Tibet and is always engaged in looting it? At any cost, we would not like the condition of Arunachal Pradesh to become like that of Tibet…” Individuals hailing from Arunachal Pradesh, holding tricolor flags, asserted that similar demonstration were held when China changed the names of six locations in 2017 and 15 locations in 2021. The misleading names were in the Chinese and Tibetan languages. In 2023, the controversy over stapled visas gained attention as Indian Wushu players were granted such visas by China. New Delhi-based think tank Center for Integrated and Holistic Studies, at that time, had reported that the “Stapled visas incident is seen more as one step further in China’s grand expansionist plan and communist vision to occupy others’ land disregarding international treaties, pacts and ‘gentlemen’ agreements to not change on-the-ground goal posts. Only way to put an end to this psycho-warfare like stapled visas is to firmly retake ‘Aksai Chin’ under its ‘illegal’ occupation since 1950s and held after the 1962 war.” Bharat and its government always said that Arunachal Pradesh was, is, and will remain integral to the country. China’s illegal expansionist strategy extended much beyond Arunachal Pradesh, Tibet, or Nepal. Countries and international communities need to be alert to such machinations and not succumb to mechanisms like debt trap, infrastructure development or other forms of avarice. (Author: Rohan Giri is a journalism graduate from Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC) New Delhi, and Manager Operations at CIHS.)

Economy Geopolitics Insurgency Judiciary Leadership Media

688

Do we have a Robust Alternative to Electoral Bonds?

If bonds scheme was struck down to end opacity in political funding, will SC, HC judges declare assets annually to ring in transparency? K.A.Badarinath Electoral bonds have been demonised. Bond purchasers, donors to political parties and all elected representatives have been thrashed in the process. After Supreme Court struck down electoral bonds scheme what followed was ‘headline hogging’ competition from every possible analyst, writer or commentator. Given that the five-member Supreme Court judgement on electoral bonds was unanimous, there has been enough mud-slinging on political parties, leaders and every individual associated with the political spectrum. Each write up made valiant attempt to ‘get to the truth’ claims and gave out figures of ‘who paid whom’ kind of screaming headlines. At stake was Rs 16, 518 crore worth bonds purchased and donated to over two dozen parties in seven years at least. What’s unacceptable though is to depict every corporate, high net-worth individual, small or big donor, social foundation as ‘dirty’. Attributing motives to every donation made irrespective of their standing in the society smacks of cynicism at its best. Over 300 petitions have reportedly been filed by individuals, businesses and industry bodies drawing them into slugfest between parties that have benefited from political funding through bonds. Let’s not forget that barring a few swindlers, not all businesses and individuals that contributed to political parties were ‘fraudsters’. For decades political parties were run on cash donations that were hardly accounted for. Today, at least a big chunk of political funding through electoral bonds has been accounted for and donations have been made through banking transactions. These transactions need to reflect in returns filed by political parties. Companies and individuals have to show source of these funds utilized to buy electoral bonds. After the ‘Lordships’ insisted, we even know as to ‘who’s who’ made donations and the parties that en-cashed these bonds. When late Arun Jaitley piloted electoral bonds scheme in 2017-18 through Bharat’s budget, it was hailed as first step towards bringing in transparency to otherwise unaccounted ‘cash donations’. Ringing in transparency and accountability to electoral funding is what Arun Jaitley had declared as the avowed objective. Honourable judges that declared electoral bonds as ‘opaque tools’ may have either been blissfully unaware of the past ‘black money market’ in politics or chose to ignore the illicit cash that made way into elections in Bharat. They may have conveniently forgotten or chose to ignore government’s bid to end cash flows into political parties. But, the fact is that electoral bonds were a baby step towards making political donations more transparent. Otherwise, restricting cash donations to Rs 2000 would not have been announced by then finance minister Arun Jaitley. There was a need to cleanse political funding in India, Jailey had stated in his budget speech. By amending Reserve Bank of India (RBI) act, the bonds scheme became operative on January 2, 2018. State Bank of India was designated as issuer of the electoral bonds. “If you ask people to disclose that (identity of the donor), I’m afraid the cash system will be back”, Arun Jaitley had stated. Well that may be come true given that SBI has been forced by Supreme Court to divulge unique identification number of each electoral bond, along with value, date of purchase and donors names. This will enable mapping political parties as beneficiaries and each donor would be identified. It’s akin to disclosing publicly from election booth as who a voter was voting for? If ‘secret ballot’ was sacrosanct in electoral process, then keeping political donations discreet was an imperative at least for now. There are valid reasons for keeping identity of donors – individuals and firms, domestic and abroad – under wraps till an effective alternative system was in place. Apprehension otherwise is that witch hunt would begin once a political regime changes in states or centre. As long as central and state agencies are convinced that there was no malaise in political donations, then keeping political funding under wraps is an option. Secondly, disclosures on political funding by businesses or individuals, big and small, should be voluntary rather than by statute. Thirdly, a roadmap to achieve full transparency in political funding can be put together through a wider national debate. Fourthly, given that electoral bonds are not available for 2024 general elections and four state legislative assemblies, a comprehensive study on possible role of unaccounted cash or black money may have to be instituted. Fifthly, preference to a political ideology, party or policies of a particular formation need not necessarily be due to business considerations or ‘revdies’ that some parties are good at distributing to purchase votes. It’s not that every donor has a clear ‘business motive’ attached to his contribution. One tends to agree with Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman when she says that it’s a ‘huge assumption’ to say that top 30 corporate companies made political donations through bonds to ‘save themselves’ from investigative agencies. Or, construing these donations to be ‘protection money’ is again a false narrative being peddled by a few groups or individuals. Trust and credibility of electoral bonds was an issue that was flagged by Supreme Court’s five-judge constitution bench when it struck down the scheme last week. Trust and credibility was also the issue pointed to while asking all elected members of Parliament, state legislatures and councils to declare their assets annually. If transparency, credibility and trust are the factors that govern political parties and elected representatives, then should judges of Supreme Court and 25-state high courts not declare their assets every year? Why are the honourable Lordships or the Supreme Court registry sitting on a recommendation of the 30-members Parliamentary Standing Committee led by BJP member Sushil Kumar Modi? Opacity, corruption and power peddling will have to be tackled in all arms of governance including judiciary. Will the Lordships usher in transparency? Should electoral bonds not continue in absence of a more robust, alternative to fund elections? Is belittling or trivializing every political formation or elected representative

Disinformation Hindus Human Rights Insurgency Misinformation Pakistan Policy Security

664

Bharat Championing Global Humanitarian Leadership

Citizenship Amendment Act unequivocally embodies Bharat’s commitment to provide sanctuary to persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan Rahul Pawa In a historic move that ignited a firestorm of debate both within and internationally, Bharat’s Parliament took a decisive step on December 11, 2019 by passing Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). This landmark legislation marked a momentous shift in the nation’s approach to citizenship, amending the Citizenship Act of 1955 to offer an expedited pathway to Bharat’s nationality for certain persecuted religious minorities originating from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who had arrived in Bharat by the end of 2014. The Act specifically extends olive branch to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians delineating a clear classification based on religious affiliation. In alignment with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration’s pledge to enact CAA prior to 2024 national elections, Ministry of Home Affairs delivered a crucial update on March 11, 2024 by notifying related rules. This announcement, which detailed regulatory framework supporting CAA represents a significant move towards making the Act operative. It also echos the government’s commitment in sync the manifesto and reflect the mandate given by people of Bharat. Critically, CAA represents first instance in current day Bharat’s legal history where religion has been explicitly utilised as a criterion for citizenship. This aspect of the law has spurred a plethora of opinions and interpretations sparking an intense discussion about its implications and underlying motivations. While critics argue it undermines Bharat’s constitution by excluding Muslims sparking accusations of discrimination, proponents view the CAA as a humanitarian gesture extended to protect and provide citizenship to persecuted religious minorities. In the heart of this historic decision to enact CAA, lies a complex mosaic of historical events, demographic and ideological shifts that shaped its creation. The genesis of CAA can be traced to tumultuous Partition of imperialist British-occupied Bharat in 1947. An era was marked by fallacious stance of Muslim League led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that propagated the notion that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist. This was put to rest as millions of Muslims chose to remain in what became Bharat despite formation of East and West Pakistan exclusively for Muslims. The violent emergence of Bangladesh from Pakistan obliterated Jinnah’s claim that a singular Muslim state was the panacea for communal harmony and coexistence. Their path to a harmonious or rights respecting states has been fraught with challenges. The aspiration to uphold and foster Islamic tenets often translated into systemic and legislatively endorsed persecution of minorities—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—who found their historical roots in the erstwhile cultural landscape of Bharat. These communities have faced and continue to confront relentless religious persecution and systematic violence. Their ordeals have been marked by forced conversions, marriages, massacres, extreme violence against women and desecration and destruction of sacred sites and educational institutions. Despite1950 Liaquat–Nehru Pact and Bangladesh Constitution of 1972 espousing minority rights and secularism, the reality remains fraught with contradictions, particularly as these nations declared Islam as their state religion. This was also echoed in Afghanistan’s constitutional journey, from the 1931 endorsement of Hanafi Shariah to the 2004 Constitution that sought to balance Shia and Sunni Islam yet declared that no law could contradict Islamic tenets, laying the groundwork for state-endorsed discrimination against minorities. The Taliban years starkly exemplified this, as their strict interpretation of Sharia law further marginalised religious and ethnic minorities evidenced by the tragic destruction of the giant Buddha statues of Bamiyan, and extreme persecution leading to almost no Christians, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists or Skilhs in Afghanistan , underscoring a history of entrenched discrimination, intolerance and violence against minorities in Afghanistan. These historical nuances highlight the backdrop against which Bharat’s CAA was conceived and implemented, setting the stage for a law aimed at providing refuge to persecuted minorities from these countries, whose cultural footprints emanate from Bharat, positioning it as a beacon of human rights and humanitarian leadership in the region and beyond. The CAA, thus, is not merely a legislative act but a response to a historical legacy of division, persecution, violence and discrimination, offering a new path towards inclusivity and protection for those fleeing persecution. In the intricate mosaic of global legislation addressing the plight of persecuted minorities, Bharat’s CAA emerges with a distinct humanitarian ethos, paralleled yet contrasted by international counterparts. Notably, the United States’ Lautenberg Amendment, introduced in 1990, similarly targets religiously persecuted minorities, facilitating their resettlement from the Soviet Union and, following a 2004 extension, from Iran. Like the CAA, it identifies specific religious communities as historically persecuted, excluding Muslims from the Soviet Union and Iran, thereby hastening the path to citizenship for these selected groups. In stark contrast, the United Kingdom’s Nationality and Borders Act of 2022 embodies a markedly different approach, empowering the government to revoke citizenship without notification under Clause 9—a provision that has sparked controversy for its potential to disproportionately affect British Muslims, highlighting ethnic and religious divides. The case of Shamima Begum, often cited in debates, underscores the law’s focus on revocation rather than protection, raising ethical and human rights concerns. While the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments in the United States echo the CAA’s intent to shelter historically persecuted groups, the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act diverges, prioritising national security over humanitarian considerations. This juxtaposition illuminates the CAA’s unique position in the international legal landscape as a beacon of refuge, distinguishing Bharat’s legislative approach to addressing religious persecution without resorting to the revocation of citizenship To conclude, the CAA unequivocally embodies Bharat’s commitment to providing sanctuary to persecuted minorities, standing out as a beacon of humanitarian leadership on the global stage. It is crucial to reiterate that the CAA is not an act designed to revoke citizenship nor is it anti-Muslim or discriminatory in nature. Instead, it represents a unique and targeted legislative effort aimed at extending a hand of protection to those with historical and cultural ties to Bharat who have and continue to suffer from injustices in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. By enacting this legislation, Bharat

Disinformation Hindus Human Rights Insurgency Leadership Misinformation Policy Security World

650

Why’s Global Media Silent on Sandeshkhali Women’s Rapes?

Prejudiced, preconceived and pre-determined narrative-based news coverage on Bharat’s happenings is neither ethical nor objective. Dr Aniruddh Subhedar Renowned Belgian Indologist Koenraad Elst had said, “Western correspondents in Delhi just don’t know very much and also don’t feel the need to find out more.” In 1990s, Elst did extensive research on India especially Ayodhya Ram Temple Movement. In his book “Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society”, Elst observed that Western media views India as a backward society which needs to learn the “European civilized ways”. As a natural consequence their view of any movement / political party that asserts indigenous cultural moorings of India was not their best bet. Overly and overtly critical view of Western media towards organizations like Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) reflects in their reportage due to this very mind set. This prognosis may sound a wee bit sweeping allegation but a simple analysis of recent events and their coverage in international media does reveal a pattern. For past two months, the shocking and gruesome cases of financial scams, land grabbing, forced labour, sexual harassments and rapes have emerged from Sandeshkhali, a village in West Bengal in Bharat. But western media raises more questions than answering any on the issue. Our analysis examines coverage of the issue by about a dozen international media organizations like The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Le Monde (France) The Times, Reuters, CNN International, Al Jazeera English and BBC What happened in Sandeshkhali? Sandeshkhali is a village in Indian state of West Bengal in proximity to Bangladesh border. West Bengal is currently ruled by Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) whose leader Mamta Banerjee has been an outspoken opponent of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his political party, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP). Being one of the very few political leaders who found some traction in resisting BJP spread in Bengal, Banerjee holds significance for anti-BJP political formations. For last few months, news reports of financial irregularities in West Bengal being investigated by the government agencies have been frequently filed by newspersons. On January 5, 2024, officials of Enforcement Directorate (ED) went to investigate TMC leader in Sandeshkhali, Sheikh Shahjahan in a financial scam. ED officials were attacked by his men following which Sheikh Shahjahan went into hiding. It was during his absence that the local women could gather courage to speak up and depth of the issue came to light. Sheikh Shahjahan and his men were de facto rulers of the area. They grabbed land of locals, made them work like slaves, facilitated illegal immigration from neighbouring Bangladesh in large numbers to numerically enlarge their supporter-base. But most horrific reality of Sandeshkhali was that women were being raped by Sheikh Shahjahan and TMC bigwigs regularly at their will and pleasure. At midnight, women were summoned from their homes, assaulted and returned: “Trinamool people will come and check out which house has a young and pretty wife”, revealed women of Sandeshkhali. As they all belonged to ruling party Trinamool Congress, this went on unabashedly and in complete know of the state police brass. After women of Sandeshkhali spoke of their ordeal in public, it turned out to be a big story in national media. Severity of Sandeshkhali incident could only be matched by what followed after it came to public knowledge. State government put its weight behind the accused and blocked investigation of the incident. Opposition leaders were being blocked by the TMC government from entering Sandeshkhali. A journalist of a leading national news channel, who was reporting on issue, was arrested by State police while on camera. Sandeshkhali in Western Media It goes without saying that what was happening in Sandeshkhali deserved media outrage and its coverage in the international media was expected. But a simple Google search tells that there was not a single article or write-up on Sandeshkhali in any of the above-mentioned international media outlets, except in BBC. British Broadcasting Corporation reported the plight of Sandeshkhali women as it has regional language offices in India that have some traction. Sandeshkhali women’s problems and misrule of TMC got some coverage in national media as Union Minister of Women and Child Development Smriti Irani flagged the issue. TMC strongman Sheikh Shahjahan absconded for 50 days, arrested later owing to court directives and Sandeshkhali could not be avoided any further. While there’s no plausible explanation to remain silent on Sandeshkhali story, western media may take umbrage in defence that the story may not warrant global attention or comment, Some even went to the extent to say that Sandeshkhali was India’s internal issue and we respect the country’s sovereignty. But as further analysis will show that it is not true either. Farmers’ Protest coverage In contrast, Punjab farmers protest hogged headlines in news portals of global media houses. This clearly debunks their stated claims of honouring sovereignty cited in Sandeshkhali story. About 16 news stories were done on farmers’ protest, not counting the multiple stories done by BBC and Al-Jazeera in first ten days of Punjab farmers hitting the streets at Sindhu border. One each by New York Times, The Guardian, Financial Times, Reuters, two stories by The Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, and CNN International and six in The Washington Post. Both BBC and Al-Jazeera did multiple stories on farmers’ protest issue. Apart from coverage of farmers’ protests, these media outlets also found space, time and invested on other stories as well. On March 1, 2024, a foreign tourist was gang-raped in the Indian state of Jharkhand. This became a prominent story followed by several global media outfits including The Washington Post, Reuters, CNN, Al-Jazeera and BBC and others. Severity of Sandeshkhali rapes is much bigger in magnitude. If the horrific crime that happened with the foreign tourist deserved media coverage, then by the same measure, Sandeshkhali story should have become a global headline given that leaders and cadres of ruling TMC were involved and it happened with

Blog Post