Media, but without freedom of speech

In the world’s largest democracy, India, media is celebrated as the ‘fourth pillar’ of democracy and is a foundational force that impacts the national consciousness. In textbooks and civic discourses, it is often envisioned as the voice of people fostering justice and facilitating informed public debates. However, when the same media machinery is employed to silence voices and supress dissent, it turns lethal to democracy and fundamental human rights. The essay critically examines now the act of naming in media, particularly when aligned with radical ideologies, construct a narrative of exclusion. Taking the case of student activist Umar Khalid, frequently labelled as ‘anti-national’, through the collaboration of state and media, it explores how dissent is delegitimised and how such narratives contribute to the marginalization of entire communities. I argue that naming is not a neutral, isolated act, but an ideological tool that shapes public perception, justifies state violence, and undermines human rights.

The case of Umar Khalid stands as a tragic example of the failure of democratic values in contemporary India. Khalid, a former researcher and student activist in Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU),  has been a recurring figure in multiple cases in media over the years. He was involved in the protests against the judicial hanging of Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri militant alleged to have been involved in the 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. In 2016, group of students, questioning Supreme court’s decision to award the death penalty to Guru, organized a cultural programme on the anniversary of his execution. The event sparked national controversy, and Khalid, along with other student leaders, was accused of raising anti-India slogans- an allegation he has constantly denied. He was later arrested and charged under the sedition law but was granted bail. He insisted that the event was intended to provoke discussion on capital punishment and the rights of the marginalized communities, not to glorify terrorism or hurt national sentiments. However, popular news channels were of different opinions. During a disturbing debate on Times Now, hosted by Arnab Goswami, a host known for his loyal right-wing allegiance and lambasting behaviour, Khalid was labelled as an ‘anti national’, subjecting him to public character assassination. In what was supposed to be a debate but was dominated by the host and Hindutva supporter panellists, Goswami made inflammatory remarks such as, “You are more dangerous to this country than a moaist terrorist” (21:51), and “Someone’s going to name you anti-national, and I am naming you as an anti-national tonight” (23:25) Another panellist, a BJP leader and spokesperson, Nuper Sharma, was also given the voice to call Khalid a ‘Closet terrorist’ (5:51), describe him as ‘anti-India’, and even declare, “Get out of here, nobody needs you in this country.” (Tribute to Afzal Guru at JNU.2016.). Khalid later was also accused of being a ‘key conspirator’ in the 2020 Delhi anti-Muslim riots, which took place during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a highly contentious law widely criticized globally for its discriminatory stand against Muslims in India. On September 13, 2020, Delhi Police arrested Khalid under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a draconian law misused by the state, alleging that his speeches incited communal violence and disturbed public order. (BBC.2020). His arrest followed further debates and discussions in news media, which portrayed him as a symbol of everything supposedly wrong with student activism. Despite being in custody for over four years, Umar Khalid has not faced a judicial trail, yet he remains behind bars, as a certified ‘anti-national’ by the media.

To understand the complications the act of naming brings in accessing human rights, one must examine the powerful role it plays in shaping social perceptions. Naming is not merely a linguistic act, but a strategic tool in constructing discourses and reinforcing ideological frameworks. As Purvis and Hunt note, “Discourse refers to the individual social networks of communication through the medium of language or non-verbal sign-systems. Its key characteristic is that of putting in place a system of linked sign.” (Purvis&Hunt.1993.p485).  Labelling Khalid as an ‘anti-national’ is not an isolated act but is partaking in the sign-system of an authoritative and right-wing ideology of the BJP, India’s ruling party. BJP has its political power rooted in “Hindutva”, a right-wing hyper-nationalist belief that imagines India as an overtly Hindu nation, hates Muslims for being the outsiders, and perceives them as inherently threatening. Through such acts of naming then, the state and media collaboratively produce a discourse  that reaffirms the narratives that supports their dominant ideology, in this case, a Muslim student being against the nation. Althusser in his broad definition of ideology, describes it as a “‘representation of the imaginary relationships of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” (Althusser.2001.p109). BJP’s Hindutva ideology exploits this very relationship by constructing an imagined sense of constant threat to the Hindu identity. It then fosters the non-inclusive nationalist ideology where other communities, particularly Muslims, are perceived as the enemy. This ideological framework cannot operate in isolation, it is actively amplified by the media, which becomes a vehicle to supply this false sense of reality. According to Marx, “the good, true press would express ‘actual reality’ and ‘public opinion’, and the bad press, reality ‘as it would like it to be’ and opinion which distorts reality” (Marx.1842.156). In an interview with News Laundry, Khalid reflects on the consequences of distortion in news media, “In India today, truth is no longer what actually transpires, but what reaches the people. Over the last two years, I have observed the almost irrational belief people have in the printed word over, to use your expressions, ‘evidence of their own eyes’. Must be true since it is in the papers.‘Kuch to kiya hoga. Poora jhooth thode likh denge’ (‘He must have done something. Surely they wouldn’t publish only lies’).” (NewsLaundry.2022).

But why does the press turn ‘bad’?

The answer lies in media being influenced by economic interests, political power and ideological agendas. Louis Althusser concept of the Ideological State apparatus (ISA) helps in understanding media as a tool serving dominant power structures. According to Althusser, institutions such as media, schools, and religious organizations function not through direct force but reinforces state power by reproducing dominant ideologies. “The ideology realized in an ISA ensures its systemic unity on the basis of an ‘anchoring’ in material functions specific to each ISA; these functions are not reducible to that ideology but serve it as a support.” He further emphasises on the relationship between state power and control over ISAs, “To my knowledge, no class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and, in the State, Ideological Apparatuses.” (Althusser.2001.p103). Using this theorization, it can be deduced that control over ISAs is essential in maintain power. In the Indian context, the majority of news channels actively contribute to sustaining this power structure. While some media houses align with state ideology as a survival strategy among state regulation and coercion, others willingly participate and profit from promoting the dominant ideology. Under the disguise of nationalism, media legitimizes Hindutva as the core national identity, while portraying Muslims as the ‘other’, inherently threatening, anti-national, and fundamentally incompatible with the nation. The conversion of power, state, and knowledge is echoed in Foucault’s assertion that, “it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together”. (Foucault.1977.p100). Here, knowledge is produced and distributed in a way that further sustains power structures. Althusser’s concept of interpellation, further developed by Purvis and Hunt offers a more inclusive understanding of relationship between ideology, discourse, and positioning of subjects, and is central to understanding how individuals internalize ideology. They argue that interpellation “situates or places subjects within specific discursive context”, allowing for a ‘discursive conception of ideology’, “it puts on the agenda the whole neglected issue of how ideology becomes internalized, how we come to speak spontaneously.”(Purvis&Hunt.1993. p483.) They build on Hall’s theory of subject positions to suggest that ideology supplements discourse theory, suggesting that “discourse which starts as a process ends in ideology being its effect and vice-versa” (Purvis&Hunt.1993.p496). The notion becomes vital in analyzing how the label ‘anti-national’ situates Khalid within a discursive framework, as a symbol of anti-state sentiment. This cyclical relationship is crucial in understanding the formation of knowledge (discourse) through naming, functioning as an ideology and a template for individuals to think and act. For those who protest or attempt at exercising dissent, it demonstrates the consequences of speaking against the state, and for those already tempted into the dominant ideology, it validates hate towards individuals perceived different from or threatening to the state.

During the same debate on Times Now, in another attempt to instigate the audience, Goswami posed a direct question, “I’m asking every Indian viewer tonight, what we should do with a group of secessionist, anti-national, opportunists who masqueraded to be believing in a political ideology. They are simply pro-Pakistan elements and I wonder what the forces are which are behind them.” (Tribute to Afzal Guru at JNU.2016.) Sara Ahmed in cultural politics of emotions speaks about nation becoming a “shared object of feeling through the ‘orientation’ that is taken towards it.”(Ahmed.2014.p13). She elaborates on evoking this shared feeling, “to become the ‘you’ addressed by the narrative is to feel rage against those who threaten not only to take the ‘benefits’ of the nation away, but also to destroy ‘the nation’, which would signal the end of life itself.” (Ahmed.2014.p12). In the current reality of India, hyper nationalism is the initial requirement of patriotism. Media channels takes on this requirement and incites the masses to act as a shield, making them resilient to any opposing view or voice of dissent. It sows and cultivates a division based on fear and hate, a division that ultimately creates two groups, a true Indian Citizen who adheres to this narrative and equalizes devotion for nation as the support towards the power ruling it, and the ‘others’ who protest or raise any question on the state as a threat to the nation. ‘Manufacturing Consent’ by Herman and Chomsky also indicates towards how media manufactures public opinion through selective reporting, framing and omission catering to power. Defining a ‘propaganda model’ used in the US media, they propose sets of ‘news filters’, few among which are -“the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; “flak as a means of disciplining the media” which can include pressure from the government, lawsuits, boycotts etc, and “anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism.” (Herman&Chomsky.2006.p2). Derived from the selectiveness of media, the concept of ‘worthy and unworthy victims’ also resonates when crime and discrimination against minorities such as, Women, Dalits, Muslims, are deliberately omitted from the mainstream news debates.(Herman&Chomsky.2006.p37). This bias in victimhood poses grave concerns to the victim and their communities where it not only hinders their access to justice but also dehumanizes and puts them at the risk of being treated as an outsider in their own country. Sharma’s aggressive comment in the debate, “nobody needs you in this country”, is an example of the reluctance minority identities, raising a question on their belongingness. A “propaganda approach to media coverage suggests a systematic and highly political dichotomization in news coverage based on serviceability to important domestic power interests”. (Herman&Chomsky.2006.p35). The domestic power interests are being served by the Indian media today when it acts as a defender and advertiser of the state. Press Freedom Index ranked India 151st out of 180 countries in 2025. (Scroll.2025). This rankings, along with other alarming developments, reflects a troubling decline in media independence and democratic accountability today.

We rely on news media as audience to authentically report events, but when it manipulates the narratives, it compromises human rights. The Indian Constitution grants citizens several fundamental rights, some of them relevant here are- Right to free speech and Right to Protest peacefully (Article 19), and the Right to have a fair trial with the Presumption of Innocence (Article 21). However, Umar Khalid, along with many other students, has been robbed of these rights due to the manipulation and trail by media outlets. At least seven Muslim students, councillors and human rights activists continued to be detained without trial since 2020 under the UAPA for allegedly orchestrating religious violence.(Amnesty.2024). The stories of Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, student and activists detained under controversial charges remains ignored by the media in a deliberate attempt at erasure. Khalid remains behind bars for over four years with no legal trial in process and denied bail requests. (Biswas&Poddar.BBC.2024). The cases of many student activists are sensationalized in media as it forges stories and raises question on their love for the nation. Ambedkar, called as the father of the Indian Constitution, noted several times that when news gives place to sensation and unreasoned opinion, the interest of the country suffers. (Ambedkar.1993.p227). India is suffering today with a deeply concerning reality, where one any incident involving a Muslim offender leads to widespread scapegoating and collective punishment of the entire community. Their belonging is constantly questioned, reducing them to the status of ‘second-class’ citizens in their own country. In the current political climate, where the power is increasingly acquired and sustained through religious nationalism, the partnership of power and media has become central to the oppression of minorities. As Terry Eagleton argues, “ideologies are often thought to render their beliefs natural and self-evident – to identify them with the ‘common Sense’ of a society so that  nobody could imagine how they might ever be different”.(Eagleton.1991.p58). Repetition in the media, particularly in the representation of Muslims, fosters this common sense. Protesters are not framed as concerned citizens exercising their democratic rights but rather a nuisance, with vicious and anti-national motives. What began as a state propaganda is then internalized, perpetuating cycles of discrimination and exclusion, becomes common knowledge, and violates human rights.

The media exploitation of its entrusted legality generates a sense of ‘felt legitimacy’ among the public. As articulated by Elisabeth Anker, the term refers to an “affective experience of authorizing state power”, it is “as powerful and meaningful as any formal consent, even when nothing procedural or deliberative has occurred to instantiate that feeling.” Anker further argues that “Discourses cultivate subjectivities that produce legitimacy as their effect. (Anker.2014.pp111-113). So, when the media promotes narratives that vilify Muslims, or delegitimizes the motives of activists, it establishes the actions of the state as indisputable. Dissent is rendered illegitimate and such portrayals, certified by felt legitimacy, are internalized and justified by the wider public. This has devastating consequences on the marginalized communities. In states governed by BJP, the destruction of Muslim property as a form of justice without legal authorization has become a concerning norm. (Source). JNU, ranked as the second-best university in India according to the Ministry of Education, keeps facing allegations of extremism. During the CAA protests a masked mob attacked the college campus with metal rods and the police stood as spectators, failing to make any arrests. (Guardian.2020). Lynching have tragically become everyday affair and peaceful protests are rare. Violent incidents during festivals, mobs chanting Hindutva slogans in front of mosques, denying renting properties to Muslims, and acts of violence on the suspicion of beef consumption (meat of cow considered sacred in Hinduism), are few of many examples of how media can disturb social dynamics. These actions, although unconstitutional and violent are met with an implicit majoritarian consent. Bandura’s Social learning theory provides a valuable insight in understanding how media shapes societal behaviours as he contends that the learning occurring through observing and imitating others, especially our role models. Media, as a significant social agent, when takes part in validating hate, society follows. Whether it’s the destruction of property, acts of hate speech and violence, or the vilification of a whole religion, public acceptance justifies every act.

While naming alone may not hold power, but when infused with the rhetoric of morality, nationalism, and dominant ideology, it becomes a weapon of destruction. In such cases, not only are constitutional rights denied and violated, but the inherent rights of human dignity are also undermined. Khalid has now spent four years in jail without any trial in progress. His freedom has been stripped away through systematic character assassination, and though nothing has been proven, he, along other Muslim students, continues to be perceived as a criminal and an anti-national. Popular Indian media in multiple cases, especially in delivering news, has repeatedly failed its citizens and posed a serious threats to their rights. When radical right-wing journalist imitate the very pillar of democracy, the structure itself begins to fall. Through the  dissemination of false information, selective reporting, silencing of voices, labelling, and trial by media, the press undermines fundamental human rights of information, speech, visibility, and justice. As the media increasingly aligns itself with state power, it erodes public trust. Similar instances of manipulation can be witnessed around the world, whether it’s the portrayal of the genocide in Gaza as a “war”, or the Trump administration labeling Palestine supporters as ‘terrorist sympathizers’. The understanding leads us to the conclusion that naming is a significant practice that profoundly affects human rights. In the case of Umar Khalid, media’s strategic use of naming practice has been crucial in framing him as a threat to national security. It reflects a larger issue of where individuals and groups are criminalized through language and media representation, effectively denying them access to their rights in their own country. CAA protests were eventually suppressed, and the legislation was implemented despite global opposition but what remains as a troubling reminder is the consequence of dissent and the erosion of human rights. As someone who was actively involved in those protests, it is deeply disturbing to witness the narrative being shaped. The many examples should compel us to learn, to hold on to our shared humanity, and to question the selective propaganda being fed to us, a yet another violation of our right to information.