Galwan to Leh police report—Modi govt’s censoring information, China-style

By: LT GENERAL PRAKASH MENON

Silent on China, tough on Pakistan—the Indian govt has two different ways to manage information.

The flag of doubt raised about the loss of territory in  Ladakh by the superintendent of police of Leh, has brought into sharp focus the style of information management preferred by the Union government.

The report evoked memories of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement at the all-party meeting on 19 June 2020—“Neither has anyone entered our territory nor is anyone in control of our border posts.” Though clarifications were issued by the PMO, the reality that China had changed the status quo in some areas by preventing the movement of Indian patrols has remained the nub of the ongoing border crisis.

Narrative of silence

The 17th round of India-China Corps Commander level talks was held on 20 December 2022 in the backdrop of the Yangtze incident and did not result in any progress but it was agreed to maintain dialogue through military and diplomatic channels. Throughout the crisis, the management of the information space by our government has largely been to withhold information from the public and push the narrative that it has taken a strong stand and not made concessions on territorial control that existed before May 2020. That narrative, which is again under attack, is being managed more by silence than clarifications.

Powered ByPauseUnmuteLoaded: 8.65%Fullscreen

In July 2020, I wrote about the emergence of ‘satellite warriors’, individuals mostly housed in think tanks or the media, who were using commercially available satellite imagery to inform the public about China’s military moves that often vary with official descriptions of the situation on the ground. Without any official interpretations contradicting their claim, the satellite warriors were having a free run. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statements—even if they referred only to Galwan—were increasingly looking fallacious, attempting to take cover in plain sight. Nearly, two-and-a-half years later, the aspects of the Leh SP’s report that refer to patrolling, even if only partially true, indicate that nothing much has changed in terms of sharing information with the public or even Parliament.

There is no doubt that there is some merit in the argument that China-India talks are at a sensitive stage and therefore from the information management point of view, it is advisable to be discreet about the details. But what is unacceptable is that the extent of loss of control of territory has not been shared confidentially even with the leaders of the opposition in Parliament.

Attempts to raise the issue in Parliament have been met with ‘national security’ considerations to conceal what has been evident from other sources. The truth seems to be treated as a preserve of the executive not meant for sharing. Freedom to access information is the main casualty and worse still, it is being used to alter the truth to push the narratives that promote the strong image of the central government. So, while attempts to manage the information space in the practice of statecraft may be justifiable, it cannot be the reason to protect the government’s strongman image.

Protecting Modi’s image

Overall, weakening transparency in governance has been a growing trend and is personified in multiple efforts to control the information space. Even data on Covid deaths was distorted. The latest example is the attempt to empower the Press Information Bureau to identify and neutralise ‘fake news’. In many ways, freedom, the key pillar of democracy and a constitutional right, is under assault.

The management of the information on the recent BBC documentary on the PM is revealing. It is evident that attempts at denying the documentary’s access to the public would eventually result in more Indians viewing it than would have been the case, had the government just voiced its opinion on it and shared it widely with the public. Instead, the documentary has gained prominence in the ongoing contentious domestic political discourse.

Maintaining the Modi image through such a denial is no longer necessary. His large support base is hardly going to be dented by what they consider to be an impeccable image. So what is the government worried about?

The series of state elections followed by the Lok Sabha election in 2024 would probably be the concern. One can expect that Modi will be the flag bearer for all these elections. His image is therefore the ruling party’s main brand. Among many variations of the image, that relate to transformations claimed in the social and economic spheres, is the ‘strongman’ image in dealing with India’s national security challenges posed by China and Pakistan. Such an image is better served if India’s loss of control over territory in Ladakh is kept out of public view.

India claimed victory at Doklam and it helped boost Modi’s strongman image. But the developments post-Doklam Agreement would expose the fact that India has preferred to keep quiet about China’s buildup of infrastructure and military fortifications in that region. A fact that would expose the chinks in the strongman armor, in the public viewing of the dealings with China.

Historically and across continents, keeping people in a state of ignorance is the leverage utilised by strong leaders to weave narratives based on distorted realities. They pave the way for unquestioned support and facilitate political unaccountability. In India, executive accountability to Parliament and freedom of the information space have been progressively undermined along with the weakening of the independence of constitutionally mandated institutions such as the judiciary and the Election Commission, to name a few. 

Mirroring China, Pakistan

The information management arc with respect to China and Pakistan has followed two different trajectories. For China, the management has aimed to conceal information from the public and for Pakistan it has sought to project information that aimed to convey India being tough with the nation. The timing of the recent notice regarding the Indus Water Treaty is perhaps illustrative.

The irony of this information management style is that India is heading to be more like China in censoring information meant for the public at large. At the same time, the relentless promotion of a majoritarian agenda in its ideological orientation is often mirroring that of Pakistan. In combination, it seems that interpretations of freedom and secularism as per the Constitution are in jeopardy. Freedom is fundamentally a basic structural issue whose custodian is the judiciary. Is it any wonder that the selection process of the Supreme Court judges is being sought to be changed?

China’s adversarial posture toward India is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The executive undoubtedly needs all the support in dealing with a difficult and powerful neighbour. However, in terms of information management, it is better pursued through preference for transparency rather than denial. The political leadership must believe that Indians only when better informed can best contribute to the national interests.

Lt Gen (Dr) Prakash Menon (retd) is Director, Strategic Studies Programme, Takshashila Institution; former military adviser, National Security Council Secretariat. He tweets @prakashmenon51. Views are personal.

(Edited by Ratan Priya)