The Delhi High Court has run down Arvind Kejriwal’s attempt to initiate criminal defamation cases against media. The Delhi government and Kejriwal have, according to the court, displayed double standards.
You can’t do both things together – come to the Supreme Court against defamation on one hand, and then take action against the media.
– Supreme Court
Last week, the Chief Minister said the government would support “honest media houses which support only news.”
It seems unlikely that the court’s censure will have any effect on Kejriwal’s vitriol against the media. The CM has had a field day declaring that they’ve been bought over by his opponents, and are therefore more keen to highlight his failures than his successes.
Where is the Love?
Kejriwal’s recriminations against the media have almost the tone of a jilted lover. For him we are either not doing enough to highlight all the good work his government and party are doing or are simply paid off. His views though, are understandable, given the largely positive coverage he has enjoyed in the past, particularly the national TV channels.
Right from the India Against Corruption movement, an inordinate amount of coverage has been devoted to the movement. During the 2014 general elections, Kejriwal was constantly put on the same pedestal as Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi despite the fact that his party had, at best, a regional presence. Mayawati or Mulayam Singh have never received the same kind of airtime, even when they ruled India’s most populous state.
People Like Us
The media’s love for Arvind Kejriwal is understandable, if not forgivable. A disproportionate number of media houses are based out of Delhi, and the India Against Corruption movement, the precursor of AAP, was largely Delhi-centric. For most journalists, the AAP story was unfolding in their own backyards, and they were naturally keen to cover it.
Geography also gave AAP national relevance. Would Kejriwal have become as much a part of national news if he had begun his political career in a state capital? In Delhi, he was able to take on a Chief Minister as well as the Government of India.
Many in the media also found a deeper affinity with Kejriwal’s approach and ideology. From Ashutosh to Ashish Khaitan and yes, even Shazia Ilmi, quite a few high-profile journalists had joined AAP. Why?
Journalists, as much as any other professionals, belong to the so-called middle class. Kejriwal and his party did not speak the language of caste politics or Hindutva or Marxism. They were, in a real sense, a new phenomenon that captured the imagination of the media.
Is the Media to Blame?
The media then, has been a part of AAP’s DNA from its inception. Everything from Somnath Bharti’s ‘raid’ in Khirki extension, to the civil war involving Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav has been played out on television channels. Every piece of the AAP drama has played out on TV.
Is Kejriwal complaining merely because the limelight has become cumbersome now that he is in power?
Yes and no.
Most governments would prefer a media that isn’t critical, and the one in Delhi is no different. There may well be some truth to Kejriwal’s accusations of bias, but he wasn’t complaining when the reports were in his favour.
There is also another factor that may be responsible for the end of the affair. The expulsions of Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan eroded the AAP’s support base among the very people who have supported the party across India.
As for being bought and paid for, the press in India is too large and too diverse to be available to any one political dispensation.
Mature politicians are used to the criticisms of the media and have learnt not to take them to heart. Laloo Prasad Yadav doesn’t let it effect him and Rahul Gandhi has not responded to the countless jokes at his expense.
The AAP was only too happy to receive all the coverage before they came to power. Can they complain now that they don’t like what they hear?
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)