The British Broadcasting Corporation’s documentary (BBC Documentary) on the 2002 Gujarat riots has been banned in India. But a section is eager to watch this BBC documentary India: The Modi Question. He is ready to pay any cost for this. In the famous Jawaharlal Nehru University of the national capital Delhi, stone pelting has also taken place on it. This is nothing, on this issue a senior Congress leader left the party. He said that BBC has interfered in the internal affairs of our country by making a documentary, against which voice should be raised and not encouraged. That is, people are ready to cross any limit in support of BBC’s documentary, so the fire of protest is also burning fiercely. India’s sovereignty is also compromised in opposition to Modi!
The BBC documentary is said to be based on an unpublished UK Foreign Office document. In this, questions have been raised on the role of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat and the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots. It has claimed that Modi, as the chief minister, did not take decisive steps due to which the atmosphere turned violent, hence he is directly responsible for the riots. This documentary is causing a lot of hue and cry in India as well as in Britain. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also had to answer in the British Parliament. At the same time, in India, from MP to student, the ban on BBC documentary is a blow to the freedom of expression. Those who support the ban argue that the BBC has crossed the limit and has insulted the sovereignty of India and the Supreme Court here.
So has the BBC really followed bad practice? The answer must also be sought by those who appreciate the flexible aspects of Indian democracy. They emphasize that India should maintain its liberal image in the world and for this proper distance should be maintained from the internal affairs of any sovereign nation. It is interesting that today the same section is not only accepting the interference of foreign media in the very sensitive matter of its own country, but is also justifying it with various excuses. This section says that anti-Modi is not anti-national. Absolutely true, but on the pretext of Gujarat riots, hasn’t the limit of anti-Modi now extended to anti-national?
Not now, not with our leader, not with India, 302 celebrities protest against BBC’s documentary on Gujarat riots
Supreme Court’s decision wrong, BBC report true!
Think, the Supreme Court gave its verdict last year itself after a thorough investigation of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report. The verdict of the country’s top court on the Gujarat riots is exactly the opposite of what the anti-Modi section is propagating. The Supreme Court not only rejected all the questions raised on the intention of PM Modi in the Gujarat riots, but also directed the arrest of Teesta Setalvad for conspiring to keep fueling the anti-Modi wave. Teesta has come out of jail after getting wind of it. At the behest of the Supreme Court, Teesta has been sent to jail. The sword of action still hangs over them. But a section is considering the investigation of the same BBC more reliable than the SIT investigation constituted by the Supreme Court of our country. What is even more surprising is that the pro-documentary section is doing this even though the BBC has a history of spreading propaganda, especially against India. BBC poll exposed in the study
Alasdair Pinkerton, Associate Professor of the University of London, has done a study. In this, he has closely analyzed the coverage of BBC from India’s independence in 1947 till the year 2008. On the basis of this study, he said that while reporting from the geopolitical and economic perspective of South Asia, BBC continues to run a fierce agenda against India (Study on BBC Agenda Against India). Pinkerton had studied the BBC only to know the truth of the allegations of propaganda reporting. He not only found this allegation correct in the results of his study but even said that the BBC does this because of its basically colonialist and neo-colonialist mindset. A report published in FirstFirst.com quoted Pinkerton’s study as saying that the BBC’s anti-India propaganda during the Cold War years was on point. BBC does a lot of propaganda in difficult times of India
The BBC carried out propaganda against India with full vigor, especially in difficult times. In 1965, during the Pakistan war, BBC was banned in India for biased reporting. Then in 1970, Indira Gandhi’s government also banned BBC. But instead of taking a lesson, BBC intensified its propaganda. When Indira Gandhi was assassinated, BBC gave a platform to a hardcore Khalistani terrorist. There was so much public sentiment against this attitude of BBC in India that the then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had to take the lead. The British PM then asked the BBC to apologise.
Faced intolerance.. AK Antony’s son who supported Modi left Congress, what is the connection with BBC Documentary?
Watch the BBC double standards
That is a thing of the past. Talk about the recent Just 15 years back, the 26/11 Mumbai attack created hue and cry all over India. The world was shocked by the gruesome terrorist attack on the financial capital of the largest democracy. The terrorists who came secretly from Pakistan opened Holi of innocent people’s blood, then BBC in its reporter was calling them just gunmen. But exactly three years ago when London was attacked on July 7, 2005, the BBC was calling the attackers terrorists. Therefore, if someone talks about the fairness of journalists and journalism by citing BBC, then he needs to look in the mirror of facts. Be it the anti-terrorist campaign in Jammu and Kashmir or the removal of Article 370, the BBC openly raised the flag of anti-India every time. In its 2016 reporting, it called terrorist Burhan Wani a ‘young charismatic fighter’. Then in 2019, when Article 370 was removed from Jammu and Kashmir, BBC said in its report, ‘How Article 370 was the main basis for many Kashmiris to stay connected with India. The BJP has changed the relationship between the state and Delhi in such a way that it can never be rectified. BBC did not mention even once that Article 370 was mentioned in the Constitution of India as a temporary provision. Is fair journalism done by hiding the biggest facts?
BBC also did a lot of propaganda during serious issues like Delhi riots of 2020, anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests, farmer’s movement. The conspiracy of riots had already been hatched before the arrival of US President Donald Trump in India. An anti-national section of Muslims started the riot thinking that the presence of the US President would get worldwide media coverage and strengthen the lie that Muslims are being persecuted in India. On the charges of this conspiracy, many people of the Muslim community including Umar Khalid were sent to jail and they did not even get bail for a long time. But the BBC headlined – ‘Delhi riots: How Muslim homes were targeted’.
Modi, Gujarat riots… Rishi Sunak distanced himself from the controversial BBC documentary, know what he said?
BBC never misses any opportunity of Hindu protest
BBC keeps looking for opportunities to campaign not only against India but also against Hindus. In 2012, it violated journalistic dignity in such a way that it should be a shame. He wrote for Holi – the dirty festival. When the trouble happened, the BBC apologized. Then in 2021 he played on Holi. He congratulated Holi by putting a picture of Baba Bulleshah on his social media post. Similarly, on the festival of Diwali, BBC continued to spew venom. To prove it anti-women, she wrote, ‘Diwali: How the tradition of cleaning the house has been increasing the problems of women’.
PM Modi Rishi Sunak: Pakistani-origin MP was listening to Modi in UK Parliament, Rishi Sunak silenced him in two minutes!
Is the BBC racist too?
Overall, there is no dearth of BBC exploits. By raising the 20-year-old case of Gujarat riots, BBC is also targeting Indian-origin British PM Rishi Sunak? When the BBC, which has a colonial mindset, does not hesitate to run an agenda towards a particular country and a particular religion, then what is the guarantee that it is not dominated by racist sentiments? Is it not clear to the BBC that the India which was colonized by Britain, today a person with the same roots is ruling Britain? In the light of Britain’s Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India, this apprehension cannot be considered unfounded. It is being said that British PM Rishi Sunak is more interested in FTA than Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the government here.
And his government is going to benefit. It is possible that the BBC may not approve of the possible enhancement of the image of an Indian-origin PM.