If the Modi system had the powers of self-reflection and correction, it may have imbibed three important lessons from the prime minister’s recent travels abroad that had cut a swathe through five countries from the UAE to Italy. One, that while it is possible to flatten out the lowly journalists of India, pulverise them into submission, brainwash them into reproducing every government handout as a product of genuine “news gathering”, get them to regard the prime minister as an unassailable force for global good, and so on, the world has not lost the nasty habit of demanding answers to niggling questions from those in power here.Two, merely calling oneself the oldest and largest democracy in the world does not make us one; we would need to prove that we are a democracy through the strength of our democratic institutions and our actual ground record in terms of human rights and communal harmony. Three, while we in India have long relegated the institution of the press conference to the kingdom of amnesia, the world continues to take its role as a basic tool of accountability very, very seriously.Twice in this span of the prime minister’s travels of a little short of a week, the country has had to contend with the contradictions between India’s loud claims of being a democracy equipped with a free media and a harmonious, multi-religious society, and its actual record on the ground. The first kerfuffle broke out in the Netherlands (‘Modi Govt’s Tightly Controlled Script Comes Under Dutch Journalistic Scrutiny’, The Wire, May 18), when a Dutch journalist of Indian origin pointedly wanted to know why the tradition of a joint press conference between the prime ministers of India and the Netherlands was being dispensed with. Linked to this question was of course the Dutch prime minister’s publicly voiced concern that both press freedom and the rights of minorities were “under severe pressure” in India (‘Modi’s Netherlands Visit Is Coloured By Dutch PM’s Remarks on Rights in India, Insiya Hemani Case’, May 17).A few days later the script was replayed in Oslo when a courageous commentator with the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen, Helle Lyng Svendsen, asked Prime Minister Modi as he was leaving a joint Indo-Norwegian press briefing, why he was not taking questions from “the freest press in the world?” (the reference of course was to the RSF’s World Press Index published last month in which Norway figured as Numero Uno in the list, while India way down at Number 157).What was striking was the manner both these moments of what should have been acute embarrassment for Modi were handled by his government and its supporters. The responses had two dimensions: an official one from MEA official Sibi George, and an informal barrage of social media responses. Both came coated heavily in patriotic lard. The latter conformed to a pattern long set in which any supposed disparagement of the country or its prime minister invites the most repulsive counters from tweet-happy cellphone warriors, taking their cue from the BJP’s IT cell. One specimen, calling itself ‘Desh Bhakati’ (Patriot), came up with this one against Helle Lyng six hours after the issue went viral: “You are nothing. You have no right to question PM Modi. Bought a blue tick with Chinese funding and now acting like a journalist…”But it is the formal response from George, well-versed in the art of the non-answer, that was the most cringe-worthy. The questions posed to him were straightforward and basically boiled down to why was the Indian government was dodging the genuine queries of the foreign media. What they elicited, instead, was a long spiel from George apropos of nothing. As the Wire analysis noted: “George, deployed an assertive counter-narrative frequently used by the political leadership to neutralise international human rights critiques. The diplomat attempted to frame the journalist’s concerns as personal ignorance, stating: ‘We face these kinds of questions basically because of the lack of understanding of the person who asked the question.’” He then proceeded to gurgle out some well-known shibboleths – India is a beautiful country and has a population of 1.4 billion; large numbers turn out to vote which makes it a “noisy democracy” powered by 900 million smartphones. Choosing George, a Syrian Christian from Kerala, to defuse the charge that India’s minorities, particularly Muslims, were under threat in Modi’s India was a clever move by MEA mandarins. George sallied forth, full of gusto, claiming that the minorities in India were well taken care of because their population had risen from 11% at the time of independence to over 20% (how does that counter the charge that in Modi’s India Muslims are being lynched, de-franchised, and are having their homes bulldozed today?). George’s chorus song of India’s 5,000-year-old pluralistic heritage appeared just that, a hymn that carried little conviction with his audience. How tone-deaf he was became increasingly clear as he regurgitated the very same spiel when confronted by similar questions in Norway.Such performances speak of a country that is less than honest about itself. It would have carried far more conviction to acknowledge that while there were some serious concerns besetting India in terms of social equality and civic harmony, India was committed to addressing them. The problem of course is that while Modi is happy to project the promises of the Constitution as his own and use the values propagated by the national movement to window dress his government before the world, in actual fact he has benefitted immensely from the ugliest forms of religious polarisation as his electoral speeches would testify to.The deep resistance to the press conference on view in Europe this summer reflects a system that disdains the free media. Most of all it signals a secretive prime minister who has long resisted media accountability and who (it bears repetition) has never conducted a proper press conference in his 12 years of power as India’s most powerful leader. §A cockroach caper that threatens a state!Chief Justice Surya Kant could not have chosen a more effective metaphor to convey his contempt for young people driven by a sense of justice. His exact words bear repetition: “There are youngsters like cockroaches. They don’t get any employment. Some of them become media, some become social media, some become RTI activists, some of them become other activists.”Such spontaneous remarks made on the floor of the court indicate the contempt that India’s highest judicial officer has for social activism (‘CJI’s ‘Cockroaches’ Remark Does Not Bode Well for Democracy’, May 19). In this he is only mimicking the prime minister. Who can forget Narendra Modi’s 2021 peroration in Parliament on “andolanjeevis”. During that speech, he had in fact used the very same term that the CJI did: parasites: “When they are not in front, they operate from behind the curtains, they cannot survive without agitation.”Basically both supposed guardians of Indian democracy were expressing their utter contempt for anyone attempting to create a better world for themselves and others. What they really want are passive consumers of the wisdom they spout. The most disturbing aspect of the CJI’s statements was his attack on those using the Right to Information to expose the blatant corruption that marks life in India today. As a recent editorial in the online legal portal, The Leaflet, points out: “In twenty years the Right to Information Act, 2005 has done what no press conference or parliamentary question could. It helped frame charges against a telecom minister in the 2G scam, revealed that 744 crore rupees meant for Dalit welfare was redirected to the Commonwealth Games, and exposed that demonetisation was announced before the RBI had formally approved it…” But something that the CJI could not have anticipated happened. It created a stormy backlash. People from across the country sent in their satirical comments, all of them claiming to be “Proud Cockroaches”, “parasites” depending on the Constitution to live better lives. Activists even set up a Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), that claimed to be the “Voice of the Lazy & Unemployed”. In the process a metaphor of a common household pest was upended, and it emerged reinterpreted, charged, whiskers bristling. The CJP sent the Modi government into depression (‘Blocks Account of Satire Outfit ‘Cockroach Janata Party’, May 21). When its Insta handle overtook that of the BJP’s, touching 15 million followers in a few days, the Modi government decided to use its draconian powers to curb free speech. X was instructed to block it on grounds that it threatens India’s “national security”.Ultimately, this cockroach caper has proved to be yet another example of the power of irony and satire to counter a hegemonic, unthinking and punitive state!§The Wire’s AI PolicyIn last fortnight’s column, we had a reader asking whether the Wire had an AI policy. It was a question I put to Seema Chishti, editor. This was her response:“This is our policy on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models at the Wire: It does not use Artificial Intelligence (AI) for writing and editing stories and/or videos. AI is sometimes used for transcriptions, making charts, and for some specific programmes that use data calculations. We have made occasional use of AI for images, but always with disclosure.“We actively discourage contributors from using AI and we screen submissions for AI use.“In general, whenever AI has been used as part of research, we encourage contributors to disclose this so that editors and readers/viewers are aware of the AI use.”§Readers write in…A rare critique of Sikh representation in BollywoodPritam Singh, professor of Economics, Oxford Brookes University, comments on the Wire piece, ‘How Bollywood Assimilates and Stereotypes Sikh Identity’ (May 12): “Not as hard-hitting or as penetrating as I would have liked on the Hindi-Hindu hegemonisation of Sikhs in Bollywood, but still a rare piece that critiques the representation of Sikhs within Bollywood’s majoritarian ethos. Brave/soldier trope to buffoon (capitalising subtly on the commercial industry of the abominable Sardarji jokes) to converting that to an idiotic terrorist does not require much effort. The farmers’ protest, representing analytical strength, the moral culture of solidarity and peaceful resilience, that humbled an arrogant regime, was the most powerful critique of caricaturing the Sikhs in upper-caste Hindu imagination. This piece, although a good one, misses that historic rupture.” §Wanted: A fair examination systemErappa C Manjunatha M, president-secretary, All India Students Federation, sent this call for transparency in the admission system for medical and other professional courses…“There is a long history of student struggles behind the entrance examinations conducted for medical and other professional courses. During the 1980s and 1990s, student movements across different parts of the country fought for a fair admission system, which ultimately led to the establishment of entrance examinations. This system was not handed over to students by any government on a “silver platter”; it was achieved through organised student struggles…“However, several irregularities occurred in private colleges through the misuse of grace marks, internal assessment marks, and administrative interference, which enabled the manipulation of scores. As a result, meritorious students studying in government colleges often faced injustice. Students therefore launched movements demanding the introduction of entrance examinations to prevent such malpractices. Even after the introduction of entrance examinations, students continued to struggle for greater transparency. To prevent manipulation while entering marks into computers, the OMR sheet system was introduced. Later, the practice of publishing answer keys for examinations was also implemented as a result of sustained student movements demanding transparency.“However, in recent years there have been increasing attempts to weaken this system. Owners of private professional colleges have been using their influence to gradually undermine a system where seats are allocated purely on merit. As a result, disputes regarding the medical admission system frequently reach the courts every year…“In recent years, incidents of NEET question paper leaks have also raised serious concerns about the credibility of the system. In 2024, reports of a question paper leak emerged, yet the government stated before the court that no malpractice had occurred, effectively closing the matter. This created anxiety among students. The recurrence of question paper leak allegations now raises serious doubts about whether this problem has been ongoing for a long time.“Students today have little confidence that the government will conduct a transparent investigation into these issues. There are concerns that temporary inquiries may attempt to divert attention away from the core problems. Therefore, it is necessary for students and parents across the country to remain vigilant and oppose such irregularities. “A larger issue lies in the structure of the admission system itself. Today, nearly 2.3 million students write the examination for roughly 100,000 medical seats in the country. Such an imbalance is rare in the world. For example, in the United States, around 50,000 applicants compete for approximately 25,000 medical seats…“There is, therefore, a need for fundamental changes in the admission system for medical and other professional education. A phased system should be designed so that only students with genuine interest and aptitude for the medical profession participate in the admission process. The system must also strengthen examinations conducted at local levels and in regional languages.“The key question is not simply whether NEET should exist or not. The real issue is whether the admission system ensures fairness and transparency so that meritorious students receive justice. If admissions are to be based on PUC marks, then the PUC examination system must itself be fully transparent, and there must be equal opportunities for students from both government and private institutions. Alternatively, the possibility of selecting students based on a comprehensive evaluation of their performance in SSLC, First PUC, and Second PUC examinations, along with appropriate interviews, can also be considered. Just as the UPSC examination system functions with a degree of transparency, it is possible to design a similarly transparent system for medical admissions.“Today, the education system has increasingly turned into a business. Coaching institutions, private medical colleges, and political influence are significantly shaping the system. The situation becomes even more serious because many political leaders and business figures themselves own medical colleges…“It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that education does not become a commercial enterprise but instead functions through a transparent and fair admission system that values merit. The government must take immediate steps in this direction. In light of the recent NEET question paper leak and examination irregularities, the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA) has come under serious scrutiny. In this context, the Chief of the NTA must immediately resign. Furthermore, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan must take political responsibility and step down from his position. The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, must publicly apologize to the students of the country whose futures have been destabilised by this crisis. At the same time, we demand a swift and completely transparent investigation into these irregularities and strict action against those responsible.”§Cannot access website Wire subscriber Dr. Malcolm R. Printer has an issue with this portal’s website…“For the past one month, I have been unable to open the Wire web-site. I am using Windows 7 64 bit and my browser is Brave. Please note that I have been using this system for the past many years and have had no issue with opening the Wire‘s web-site, thus far. Kindly address this issue and oblige, please? Thank you!”My response: I have forwarded your mail to the desk and asked them to take any action they can. But sometimes the issue is beyond their control. We have also had instances when attempts have been made by state telecommunications agencies to control such access. Write to ombudsperson@thewire.in.