Painting Umar Khalid as suppressed activist is far from truth. Prejudice, agenda-based biased reporting, an attempt to destabilize India
Rohan Giri
The big question: Why do we tell stories? This is title of a series published by The New York Times dated December 8, 2022, identified as turning point in 2022. Why or when the title was chosen doesn’t matter.
The title propels us to understand whether we are playing with facts to sell the story or a particular view point? Are we not becoming a party to make the story attractive? Narrating the story in full, objectively based on facts without taking sides is sacrosanct for any media house or journalist worth his salt.
In “Four Years in Jail Without Trial: The Price of Dissent in Modi’s India” The New York Times has created a masterpiece using well-known clichés that frequently get employed by propaganda writers to influence public opinion. The piece makes extensive efforts to arouse empathy for people like Umar Khalid, portraying him as representation of suppressed resistance.
Image of the accused as a disillusioned young voice ‘testing’ the system, victimhood, the minority position of Muslims, the protracted wait for justice and the emotional toll on family members are all well-worn themes that are touched upon in this story. Together, these elements create a story that is meant to evoke empathy while delicately rephrasing dissent to fit the ideological preferences of the writers, editors and the editorial board.
Former student and fundamentalist Umar Khalid was charged with being mastermind in 2020 Delhi riots that resulted in extensive loss of life and damage to property in the communal violence in India’s capital city. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which was passed in order to combat terrorism and stop actions that threatened India’s integrity, sovereignty and internal security led to his detention.
UAPA provisions which permit arrest of those involved in acts that provoke communal strife and endanger national security correspond with Khalid’s imprisonment. Although UAPA is constitutionally approved for protecting national interests, particularly in cases like the Delhi riots, which intensified communal tensions and societal polarization, critics of his arrest frequently claim that it restricts freedom. Moot question however is what kind of freedom?
Presenting facts-based story impartially is basic responsibility of media and in particular respected forums like ‘The New York Times’ while covering intricate sociopolitical issues. With its global reach, the NYT has considerable narrative-building ability. However, NYT has frequently come under criticism over the years for selective framing of stories and cherry-picking topics to support specific narratives often misleading readers. The coverage of Umar Khalid, who has been detained on charges that according to Indian law are serious crimes against peace and national integrity, is one notable instance.
A recurring pattern of selective reporting is evident while analyzing NYT’s coverage, particularly on Indian issues. As NYT frequently exaggerates specific incidents while ignoring larger circumstances or opposing viewpoints, its readers’ opinions are frequently distorted. Their coverage of Khalid’s case has primarily presented him as a victim of an authoritarian crackdown with no reference to the judicial system or the strong evidence supporting his imprisonment. This selective reporting misleads readers by giving an altered, frequently exaggerated account of Indian events without taking into account the intricate details of the system.
Khalid’s case is not exceptional; the farmers’ year-long demonstrations’ against agricultural reforms is another example of how NYT’s reportage remained biased and motivated. Rather than presenting the rationale, NYT focused on demonstrations and portrayed it as a “fight against government,” whereas, assessments show that the reforms were aimed to increase farmers’ economic sovereignty by expanding the sector. Nevertheless, NYT stuck at the resistance mode and constantly fabricated the gauzy stories.
Another notable example is a September 2014 cartoon titled “Elite Space Club,” which mocked and served as stark example of its repeated prejudice in depicting India’s achievements. Rather than recognizing India’s unprecedented success as first Asian nation to set foot on Mars — a feat completed at an astonishing cost efficiency — the cartoon cast a negative shade, turning a scientific milestone into a matter of financial derision. Such portrayals, not only denigrate India’s progress in space exploration, but also highlight the New York Times’ desire to promote prejudices rather than report achievements of non-Western nations. In an era where global successes transcend national borders, can a media house legitimately claim journalistic integrity if it promotes cultural bias and racism to overwhelm true advancement?
Plenty of instances indicate NYT’s ingrained bias and inappropriate reporting on Indian issues, whether it is the discussion over the Citizenship Amendment Act or abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution. NYT repeatedly skewed portrayal, framing these issues from preset prism that casts the Indian government and other socio-cultural organizations as “Hindu hardliners” or “fascists” hell bent on oppressing a specific segment of society. This deliberation reflects an attempt to create a contentious narrative rather than providing a balanced perspective on India’s legislative and constitutional achievements.
These are not isolated instances; rather, part of a troubling trend that attempts to undermine India’s social dynamics, weaken its democratic foundation and misrepresent its policies globally. A disturbing objective is revealed by NYT’s unwillingness to understand India’s landscape, which includes the CAA, farmers’ demonstrations, and the Kashmir issues. Such reporting is the result of selective blindness, which threatens the fundamental values of responsible journalism, rather than journalistic integrity. The publication’s ideological objective is more evident in its dependence on fringe voices and skewed portrayals than in any sincere interest in the facts.
It’s time to hold entities responsible for influencing perceptions of nations like India. The way NYT has portrayed Umar Khalid serves as a warning, a reminder that, as important as press freedom is, the universal duty to preserve integrity and truth.
To retain credibility, NYT must abandon its selective approach, embrace balanced reporting and acknowledge its own biases. Anything less falls short of objectivity and tantamount to wrapping propaganda wrapped in the guise of journalism.
For India and its global readers, this selective narrative is disservice, one that must be called out, challenged and corrected.
About The Author
