A picture that featured the morning frontpage of the newspaper The Times of India portrayed the party of Indian prime minister Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The party paid a fair amount of money that day to be featured, just two days before municipal elections in Delhi. This is not a phenomenon that stands on its own, the BJP party has used its influence to push a one country, one religion and one language agenda in mainstream Indian media for over a decade now. In a few paragraphs I try to contextualise the de-democratisation of the media landscape in India and its relationship to ‘crony capitalism’.
McChesney describes in his book a media/democracy paradox. The first element of this paradox is that of a political crisis. The second one concerns media ideology and the weakened democratic debate in media ideology. McChesney debunks the argument that the media are democratic because they give people exactly what people want. I feel like McChesney presents several strong arguments and the paradox itself is a fascinating account of flawed checks and balances in the political and media landscapes in the US. I emphasize the geographical location here. Development and evolvement of democracy and its relation with the media is and has been vastly different in my country, India.
When thinking about McChesney’s paradox the developments in India partly fit into his theories. There is little room for a debate between the media and democracy and the autonomy of Indian media is undermined. However, the historicity of it is different from the pathways that led to the media/democracy in the US.
A Look into ‘Crony Capitalism’
India has gone through what author Gurcharan Das calls ‘crony capitalism’, an economic system in which individuals and businesses with political connections and influence are favoured, this is something we also observe in the media landscape. In the 90s media were primarily run by the state. In the 00’s privatisation started, but this did not change much, as the dominant Congress party still had a lot of influence on major media outlets. In recent times the BJP party has increasingly steered popular media outlets. An example is the relation between the Adani family, the BJP party and one of the most influential TV-stations: NDTV. The Adani family acquired NDTV and boasts its ties with the BJP through this channel. These relationships confirm Gurcharan Das’ crony capitalism theory.
International media outlets have a fair amount of influence in India, mainly BBC and Al-Jazeera. However, these media sources only cater to a few affluent people in India’s urban regions. Some upcoming Indian sources, such as Mint and the Wire get appraisal for their objective and investigative journalism. They however, also do not manage to reach a wider audience.
Follow the money and you’ll find out that the Indian media landscape is still characterized by crony capitalism. There is a select group of businessmen and politicians that decide what millions of people get to read, watch and hear. This can be related to McChesney’s theory to the extent that democracy (India being the biggest democracy in the world) does not per definition strengthen independence of media, but it can rather weaken it. McChesney’s theory has its limits as it is set in the context of US capitalism. In order to get an understanding of the relation between state, media and capitalism in India, it is crucial to read and listen to Indian voices. Authors such as Gurcharan Das and Arundhati Roy are great voices to start with.