Earlier this year, according to a submission to British broadcasting regulator Ofcom, Arnab Goswami Republic of Bharat The team conducted “a comprehensive briefing for senior management and the production team on hate speech and how to identify pejorative statements.”
Anyone familiar with Goswami’s television shows knows that he and his team have no difficulty identifying such content. What your channels find much more difficult is keeping this type of material out of the air.
This was also the conclusion of the British authorities. The pro-Bharatiya Janata match won Republic of Bharat a penalty for a program that contained “non-textual hate speech” and “highly offensive” content. The regulator’s initial findings alone had prompted the Goswami channel to issue an apology “279 times”, with a request that the regulator take no further action.
On Wednesday, Ofcom announced that it would impose a financial fine of 20,000 pounds – 20 lakh rupees – on the television channel.
“Taking into account all the circumstances … including the need to achieve an adequate level of deterrence and the particularly serious nature of the Code violations in this case, and all of the Licensee’s statements to date, Ofcom’s decision is that a proportionate sanction would be a financial fine of £ 20,000, ”the regulator said in its order, with“ Licensee ”here referring to Republic of Bharat. “Since Licensee has registered a series of violations in a short time, Ofcom requests that Licensee attend a meeting to discuss their compliance agreements.”
The decision was made based on a program called Poochta hai bharat aired on September 6, 2019, in which Goswami and his guests used the launch of India’s Chandrayaan 2 space mission as a springboard for a wave of hate speech against Pakistanis.
Among other things, the order notes that one of the guests on the program said: “Your scientists, doctors, leaders, politicians, they are all terrorists. Even its athletes “,” every child is a terrorist there. Every child is a terrorist. It is a terrorist entity. “
Goswami himself addressed the Pakistani people saying: “We make scientists, you make terrorists.”
This was Ofcom’s finding on such comments:
“We consider that these statements are expressions of hatred based on the intolerance of the Pakistani people for their nationality only, and that the broadcast of these statements spread, incited, promoted and justified such intolerance towards the Pakistani people among viewers …
The show also referred to Pakistanis as ‘terrorists’ (including children), ‘beggars’, ‘thieves’, ‘backwards’, compared them to donkeys and referred to them as ‘Paki’, a racist term that is highly offensive and unacceptable. to a UK audience …
While the discussion on the contentious issue of Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations were legitimate topics for the Republic of Bharat to explore, we considered it unlikely that the audience would have expected to see hate speech or abusive or derogatory content related to the Pakistanis broadcast on this channel sufficient contextual justification. “
While Ofcom considered the matter, the Indian channel had the opportunity to make some representations to the regulator. Republic of Bharat acknowledged the “errors in judgment made in this program.” He also told the regulator that the £ 20,000 fine “seriously threatened his ability to maintain the Republic of Bharat channel. “He said it had been running at a loss and” did not even cover the costs of a month between its launch in August 2019 and March 2020. “
The regulator dismissed these arguments, saying that “the Licensee continues to operate despite its statements regarding its financial condition. Therefore, we do not consider that the evidence supports Licensee’s claim that the sanction would threaten its ability to operate, and we consider that the level of the sanction was appropriate in the circumstances. “
While the material in this case was aimed at Pakistanis, Indian viewers are well aware of Goswami’s incendiary language of whoever is in his sights that day. A quick sample of his work makes it clear that the television host is happy to direct his anger towards the Indians, especially if they do not agree with his point of view or that of the Indian government.
Research by academics Christophe Jaffrelot and Vihang Jumle found that material on Goswami channels is “overwhelmingly pro-BJP” and tends to portray critics of the government as enemies of the country. Tejinder Singh Sodhi, former head of the Republic TV, saying News laundry earlier this year, their job was “that of a hit man: find out what Omar Abdullah says, find out what Mehbooba Mufti says, find fault and report that they are anti-national.”
Goswami channels were at the forefront of the government’s campaign to blame Muslims for spreading the coronavirus. Its channels functioned as megaphones for official propaganda about Tablighi Jamaat, a story that fell apart earlier this month after a Delhi court acquitted all foreign members of the group who were accused of disobeying the blocking guidelines. .
The channels’ witch hunt against the girlfriend of a film actor who had committed suicide prompted the Bombay High Court in October to ask a lawyer from Republic TV, “If you become an investigator, prosecutor and judge, what use is it to us? Why are we here? “The court also found that the channel had portrayed the woman in a way that violates her rights.
Despite questions like this from the Indian judiciary and the British broadcasting regulator, Goswami’s close association with the government (his channel was initially founded by Rajeev Chandrashekhar, a member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party) has gained widespread support. of the entire ruling class. In India. This implies the fair acceptance but even the encouragement of the incendiary language that is part of the course on the Republic channels.
Having broadcast 279 apologies, being fined £ 20,000 which the channel claims could force him to shut down in the UK, and having received that ‘full report’ on hate speech, can we expect anything to change for Goswami and its channels?
.
