ARPITA DAS AGAINST THE POST

The Post published an article on 26 April 2024, headlined Complacency is the surest path to a new world war. This was an opinion piece in which the author said she feared that conflict in Europe and the Middle East could slide into a new global war if the West is complacent.

Near the end of the article the author said sanctions against Russia had been skirted mainly by China and India and “it is no coincidence that authoritarian ethnic nationalists rule those countries.”

Arpita Das complained that this was dangerous misinformation and breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and (4) Comment and Fact.

She said Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was democratically elected in 2014 and 2019 with a clear majority. “Terming a democratically elected leader as authoritarian is misleading and casting a doubt on democratic processes.”  Ms Das claimed that democratically elected governments did not rule countries, it was misinformation to suggest that India and China had similar political systems and the article should be withdrawn unless the author provided proof that Mr Modi was authoritarian.

The Post responded saying this was an opinion piece, the clearly stated opinion of its author and it met standard tests for ensuring that opinions were based on material facts.

Describing Indian’s leadership as authoritarian ethnic nationalists was a matter of opinion and The Post cited articles in the New Yorker, Le Monde, ChathamHouse.org and foreignpolicy.com to show other commentators agreed.

It also argued democratically elected leaders could well be described as authoritarian and that nothing in this column suggested this was the case with Mr Modi.

The Media Council notes this was clearly marked as an opinion piece. While it was unfair to compare India’s democratic system with China’s political arrangements, all political leaders are often described in derogatory terms by their critics. There is no special exemption in this regard for those who are democratically elected.  

People who live in democracies understand that such criticism, even if it is unfair, goes with the territory. The focus can be not on how they were elected, but how they exercised their power.  The preamble to the Press Council’s statement of principles says, “There is no more important principle in a democracy than freedom of expression.”

That freedom must extend to criticism of the most powerful figures in the world, irrespective of how they came by their positions of authority.

There were no grounds to proceed.