Should the Modi Government Ban the BBC Controversial Documentary on the 2002 Gujarat Riots?

In a democratic society, people should be free to watch what they want. The question of whether the Modi government should ban a BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots is a complex and controversial one. This article explores the reasoning behind potential bans, along with the implications and counterarguments.

Reasons Against Banning the Documentary

Banning content is not a suitable response to a documentary that is deemed controversial or false. If the allegations made in the documentary are false, they should be refuted; if the allegations are unfounded or lies, appropriate legal actions should be initiated. Rather than resorting to a ban, the government and political leaders should explain the issues to the public and defend their positions openly and honestly.

Political Implications of Banning

Status quo and political implications

The decision to ban the documentary is often criticized as an easy option for the government rather than addressing the allegations through direct confrontation and transparency. When the government chooses to ban rather than refute the content, it often portrays itself as guilty of trying to suppress the truth. This action can backfire and actually increase public sympathy for the BJP and Prime Minister Modi. The more vocal the opposition is, the more it can boost public support for the ruling party.

The Silence of Secularists and Opposition

Opposition silence and mainstream criticism

Notably, the criticism against the documentary comes predominantly from the Leftist student organizations, not from mainstream secularists or even the Congress pundits. These groups have a history of engaging in the same kinds of actions, such as the anti-Sikh riots during their time in power. Therefore, their current objections hold little weight when considering the economic and political stakes.

The Role of BBC and Truth

The credibility of BBC and historical context

The question arises, why should the BBC, a media institution known for its impartiality and journalistic standards, advocate for truth in a case that has already been cleared by the highest court in India? This raises questions about the BBC's own standards and credibility. Did the BBC condemn the fabricated evidence used to justify the Iraq War, as provided by the United States? And what about the role of Tony Blair in the Iraq tragedy?

Conclusion: A Dual Dilemma

The case of whether the Modi government should ban the BBC controversial documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don’t." Ignoring the allegations could lead to accusations of guilt by silence, while banning the documentary can make the government appear guilty by suppression. The current uproar from the Leftist groups might only serve to increase public support for the BJP and Modi.

Ultimately, the question remains: Should the Modi government ban the BBC documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots? The answer depends on the government's commitment to transparency and the rule of law, rather than resorting to censorship for political expediency.