Launching a 'Desi' BBC: Is there global appetite for India's point of view?

The UK has BBC World, France has France 24 and TV5 Monde Asie, Germany has DW TV, China has multilingual global CCTV, CGTN and CNC World, Russia has Russia Today in English and Spanish, Japan has NHK-

In the middle of the Coronavirus pandemic the government has decided to set up an international television channel along the lines of BBC World. Prasar Bharati, which controls official government TV channels, has floated a global tender for a consultant to prepare a detailed project report. Christened Doordarshan International, the channel would “project India’s point of view globally on contemporary issues of both global and domestic significance” and “tell the India Story to a global audience.”

Nowhere in its “Mission and Objectives” is Prasar Bharati mandated project India globally. Its prime directive is to safeguard the Indian citizen’s “right to be informed freely, truthfully and objectively on all matters of public interest, national or international, and to present a fair and balanced flow of information including contrasting views without advocating any opinion or ideology of its own.” Will this remit now be modified?

Discussions on creating a new vehicle to propagate the government’s point of view begin from the premise that foreign media is biased and India must follow other big global players who project their point of view through their own international TV channels. The United Kingdom has BBC World (which though independent is believed by many nations to be deeply linked with the government). France has France 24 and TV5 Monde Asie, Germany has DW TV, China has multilingual global CCTV, CGTN and CNC World, Russia has Russia Today in English and Spanish, Japan has NHK-World, even Singapore has Channel News Asia and Qatar, of course, has Al Jazeera.
 

The present proposal for a government-owned international TV channel has surfaced after a barrage of critical reports on the Modi government in international media. China’s successful launch of several multi-lingual international TV channels has also sharpened India’s aspirations in this area.

There were several attempts to address the problem of international perception earlier. Some were overt and others perhaps arms-length operations. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) at one point provided support for television programmes giving an Indian global perspective for telecasting on Doordarshan channels. But this was discontinued as there was no breakthrough with the Western world. Reportedly, newspaper operations in a few neighbouring countries were also facilitated with mixed results. Currently the MEA promotes India’s global perspective through “Raisina Dialogue”, an annual conference on strategic studies. Curiously it is organised through a corporate sponsored think-tank, Observer Research Foundation (ORF) rather than the Indian Council of World Affairs which is the official think-tank of the ministry.

In 1995, Doordarshan had launched an international channel called DD-India that was ostensibly available on satellite and cable in 146 countries across the world. Later rechristened DD-World international, tenders floated to market it in the US, UK and Canada attracted no bids. A rebranding of the channel by reviving its older name, DD-India which more clearly indicates its country of origin, has also not worked.

The Indian government was also accused last year of lobbying internationally using fake news sites and “zombie” NGOs. The visit of 27 right-wing Members of European Parliament to Jammu and Kashmir in October 2019 after its constitutional status had been downgraded was organised through one such dubious NGO. EU Disinfo Lab subsequently identified more than ten “zombie NGOs” accredited to the UN and over 750 fake media outlets engaged in disseminating Indian government propaganda. The fake sites had plausible-sounding names such as Los Angeles Herald, Boston Star, Dallas Sun, Dublin News, Houston Mirror, Baltimore Star, Hong Kong Herald, New York Telegraph, Shanghai Sun and Peking Press. EU Disinfo Lab however stopped short of linking the disinformation operation to Indian intelligence agencies “without further investigations”.

More recently, criticism of Prime Minister Modi’s handling of the pandemic by The Guardian, UK, and The Australian, has been countered with counter-narratives on news sites with sound-alike names -- “The Daily Guardian” registered in Uttar Pradesh, India, and “The Australian Today” edited by one Jitarth Jai Bharadwaj.

The government clearly feels the need for an overt media presence. However, before launching its own global TV channel, the government should ask whether Indian TV channels are not performing this task well enough. They are already available internationally on the internet and OTT platforms like Hotstar and mobile apps. With honourable exceptions, Indian media seems completely in thrall of the government. Therefore, to assume that the Indian media does not project the government’s point of view is prima facie incorrect. Nobody really needs to switch to a Doordarshan International for that.

Indian perception of “biases” in international reportage also needs to be re-examined. International media no longer focuses on Indian exotica – such as snake charmers and people with the longest moustaches to enter the Guinness Book of Records. Increasingly they employ Indians to report on India. Many recent articles critical of the present government have been written by Indians or people of Indian origin in the international media. Experts on foreign TV networks are Indians or persons with considerable knowledge of India. They cannot be as easily accused of lacking empathy as an all-white foreign press corps. The availability of the foreign media on internet and satellites in India also means that it is incentivised to be relevant to local audiences.

Because it would be a government funded and controlled operation, DD International will be seen essentially as a propaganda vehicle. The present dispensation is also likely to be hobbled by its narrow ideological vision and self-congratulatory notions of India as “Vishwaguru” (Preceptor of the World). The government also needs to ask the uncomfortable question whether apart from other governments, the world at large even cares for the Indian point of view? It did when the Indian economy seemed to be an engine of global economic growth. Or perhaps India was looked at with some amazement when its democracy seemed tolerant and capable of reinventing itself. A state-owned global TV channel cannot undo the perception of India as a basket case of misgovernance and bigotry even if it were cheekily called Bharat Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to counter a perpetual bete noire.