Between Aurangzeb and Kunal Kamra, we are now fully qualified to call ourselves “The Republic of Intolerance”.  

The month of March in Maharashtra has seen agitations and riots around a Mughal emperor who died 300 years ago. And a stand-up comic, who performed in Mumbai in January but released a video of his act in March, receiving threats to his life, several cases being filed against him, and a privilege motion against him in the state assembly. 

Meanwhile, it was almost comical to learn that the wrecking brigade of Eknath Shinde’s offended loyalists, who trashed the venue where Kamra had performed, expressed disbelief that he was not present when all of them had just seen his video! 

But jokes apart, the current generation must wonder whether there was ever a time when humourists and cartoonists could poke fun at politicians and not be slapped with cases, or be lynched, or sent to jail.

In fact, such a time did exist. As recently as 1975, just 50 years ago, the late Abu Abraham could draw and publish a cartoon in which he depicted the person holding the highest office in India, none other than the President, as someone sitting in a bathtub signing the declaration of the Emergency that Indira Gandhi had sent to the Rashtrapati Bhawan late on the night of June 25, 1975. Abraham did not have cases filed against him, nor was he sent to jail and the newspaper that published his cartoon, Indian Express, was not banned. And this even as Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency and placed curbs on the press.

In 1987, in the same newspaper, the cartoonist Ravi Shankar drew the image of a worried Rajiv Gandhi, by then the prime minister, sitting in a big chair, shouting “Mummy”! Shankar too did not face any adverse reactions from the Rajiv Gandhi government. 

Today, we truly live in the “Naya Bharat”, the title of Kamra’s controversial show. Not only are politicians in the list of unmentionables, but even events from the recent past cannot be referenced. 

While Kamra refuses to apologise, the well-known actor Mohanlal from Kerala has done so with alacrity. He has agreed, after objections raised by members of the Sangh Parivar about scenes mentioning the Gujarat 2002 communal carnage in his new film Empuraan, to make “voluntary modifications”. 

It is not just actors and comedians who need to worry. Journalists, especially those who believe in doing the job for which they are trained, are in for tougher days given the rising temperature of intolerance in general, and specific statements and laws that several states are contemplating or have already enacted.

In Assam, Dilawar Hussain Mazumdar, who works for a digital platform CrossCurrents, was covering a demonstration outside the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank. He was detained, then arrested, then rearrested. Mazumdar and the platform for which he works have been critical of the ruling BJP in Assam. It is also not a coincidence that Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma is a director of the bank before which the demonstration was being held. 

While Mazumdar has been granted bail, his detention is worrying not just for its arbitrariness but also because of Sarma’s remark that Mazumdar is not a “legitimate” journalist. In other words, if journalists who work for web portals do not get accreditation, they cannot be regarded as journalists. 

Then take Maharashtra, the scene of both the Aurangzeb controversy that led to a communal riot in Nagpur, and the incident involving Kunal Kamra who faces several legal challenges if he steps into the state.

The state government is in the process of setting up a Media Monitoring Unit at the cost of Rs 10 crore, ostensibly to check whether government programmes and policies are being reported accurately. But we know that “monitoring” the media cannot be that innocent.

Why does the government need a special media monitoring unit when it already has the Directorate of Information and Public Relations that does precisely this: it monitors the media, sends out press releases about government programmes, and informs those who run the government about the media’s response.  

Incidentally, it was the same Kunal Kamra, who challenged a similar attempt by the central government to set up a Fact Checking Unit. This was also supposed to monitor the media and deal with “fake” or “false” news relating to government programmes. Kamra’s challenge before the Bombay High Court resulted in a ruling that has stopped the central government from proceeding with this for now.

When governments decide to monitor the media, categorise journalists as “legitimate” or not, and introduce laws that increase their powers of arbitrary arrest, there is a reason to be worried. 

The Maharashtra government has reintroduced a law that lapsed last year before the state elections. In July last year, the government then led by Eknath Shinde, had introduced the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill 2024. In December, the new government led by Devendra Fadnavis reintroduced the same bill. It is likely to come up in the monsoon session.

The ostensible reason stated for bringing in such a law is apparently to curb “urban Naxals”, a vague term that covers anyone or any organisation that is critical of the government. Additionally, it duplicates laws that already exist such as the UAPA and provisions in the criminal law that give governments the power to detain and imprison individuals on a whole range of grounds. Such laws have already been widely used in the last decade, including in Maharashtra. 

Therefore, we must ask why such a law, and why now? Editorials in several newspapers including The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Herald and Times of India have asked the same question. The Hindu writes:

“When existing laws seem adequate to tackle extremism, and the area affected by left-wing extremism is limited in the State, the only reason such a proposal has been made could be an oblique intent to crack down on lawyers, dissenters and human rights activists involved in taking up the cause of the marginalised.”

Needless to say, journalists and news portals that speak up on human rights issues would also come under the radar of such a law.

So, is this just a coincidence that several states are bringing in similar laws, and closely monitoring the media, either through new structures as in Maharashtra, or through their existing bodies? Or does it suggest that the Modi government has decided to let the states do what it hasn’t managed to do yet, especially in controlling the media that is still independent and continues to be critical?

I would suggest it is the latter. To the world the Modi government can claim India is a democracy, that freedom of expression is guaranteed. In fact, through existing laws and new ones being introduced at the state level, every attempt is being made not just to curb civil society groups and dissenters, which would include writers and journalists, but also to keep a closer eye on media and journalists. 

With journalists and journalism under threat, we need you more than ever. Click here to support our work. And click here to contribute to our new investigative project on the impunity of India’s police.