India's media misinformation nexus & Bangladesh
Serajul I Bhuiyan
Published :
Feb 10, 2025 21:31
Updated :
Feb 10, 2025 21:31
The modern media have often been referred to as a double-edged sword-a force for empowerment and information but at the same time a tool for manipulation and misinformation. Within this scenario, in South Asia, India’s media industry is outstanding not only for its scale and dynamism but also for its controversial role in disseminating disinformation, particularly about neighbouring Bangladesh. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen once observed, “Information is the cornerstone of democracy, but misinformation is its poison.”
Recent Cases of Misinformation Targeting Bangladesh: Exaggerated Narratives of Hindu Persecution. Following political turmoil in Bangladesh, a number of Indian media published a slew of unsubstantiated news reports on the atrocities being committed on Hindus in Bangladesh. The report was full of fabricated numbers and incidents. BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari told the house that more than 10 million Hindus were running away from Bangladesh to India due to “Islamic State”. Fact-checkers refuted such reports as nothing but false propaganda, while there was no proof of mass exodus of Hindus from Bangladesh.
If these hyperbolic declarations were not enough, Indian media even went on to accuse “well-known” Bangladeshi leaders, including Chief Advisor Dr. Muhammad Yunus and his cohorts, of complicity in anti-Hindu activities—an accusation supported by no valid evidence. These reports painted Yunus’ administration as indifferent or even hostile to minority concerns, which was vehemently denied by his office. The defamation campaigns were meant to discredit him and align with the narratives of the political opponents of Awami League in Bangladesh. Media coverage also framed the student leaders and advisors associated with Yunus as puppets propagating agendas against India, reinforcing divisive narratives.
The selective amplification of these reports by Indian media had the effect of serving two purposes: domestically, the Hindu nationalist sentiments were fanned by portraying Bangladesh as a hostile space for Hindus; regionally, it was aimed at destabilising Bangladesh. In this manner, media created a dent in the bilateral relations and promoted communalism within India itself.
Misinformation on Border Clashes and Fencing. Indian media have played a significant role in spreading misinformation on border clashes and disputes over fencing between India and Bangladesh. Reports are repeatedly blowing minor incidents out of proportion, depicting them as deliberate provocations by Bangladeshi authorities or civilians. The headlines often portray Bangladesh as a constant aggressor with unverified claims of border violations and hostility. Incidents of cattle smuggling or local disputes are often blown out of proportion and reported as organized cross-border crimes, perpetrated by Bangladeshi nationals. The other oft-repeated storyline in Indian media is that border fencing acts as a guard against “illegal infiltration” and “terrorism”. Such misinformation undermines efforts to address border management collaboratively, escalating tensions between the two nations.
Manipulated Video Clips. Another layer of disinformation was spread through videos that were edited or cropped out of context to show Bangladeshi aggression or anti-Indian rhetoric. The fake videos went viral in showing people supposedly asking that Indian territory like Kolkata be taken over. A most popular clip showcased men shouting slogans in Bangladeshi villages; however, deeper investigation indicated that these were performance art specifically conducted to provoke anti-Bangladeshi sentiments.
Most of such videos were debunked by independent fact-checking and analysis websites, which showed that many were either digitally manipulated or taken out of context. Influential Indian media and social media platforms amplified these stories, increasing distrust between the two nations and encouraging communal tensions within India. Such manipulation does not merely threaten diplomatic relations but also emboldens people in a volatile environment where misinformation feeds xenophobia and hostility.
The Role of “Godi Media” in Misinformation: The term “Godi Media” has emerged as a scathing critique targeting sections of the Indian media that are perceived as over aligned with the government and its ideological priorities. Coined by journalist and satirist Ravish Kumar, the term directly translates to “lapdog media,” reflecting its supposed servility to state power. This critique points to the widely different experiences from India’s relatively revered media past, once celebrated for playing a pivotal role in its hard-won freedom struggle and relentlessly defending democracy.
Historically, Indian media was lauded for championing investigative journalism and serving as the voice of the marginalised. However, over the last couple of decades, significant shifts have occurred-particularly with the rise of corporate ownership and growing state influence over editorial decisions. It has been an evolution marked by increased sensationalism, polarisation, and political patronage at the cost of journalistic integrity. The “Godi Media” phenomenon is, therefore, representative-not only of a deviation from these ideals but also constitutive of broader systemic ills, including regulatory gaps and untrammeled media consolidation.
The modus operandi of “Godi Media” is multifaceted, employing various techniques to shape public perception and advance political narratives. These strategies are not only sophisticated but also deeply embedded in the media’s operational fabric. Some of the key mechanisms include: selective reporting, amplifying communal narratives, social media integration, delegitimiation of critics, sensationalism and fear-mongering
Promoting Awami Narratives. A recent example of selective narrative promotion was observed in an interview conducted by the Indian Express with former Bangladeshi Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal. The interview highlighted Awami League’s stance on regional stability and downplayed opposition viewpoints, aligning with narratives favourable to India’s current government. Critics argue that such interviews often lack balance, failing to represent a comprehensive view of the political situation in Bangladesh. This selective reporting fosters distrust and complicates regional dynamics.
A Multi-Pronged Approach. These mechanisms reflect a deliberate effort to control public discourse and redirect attention from critical issues toward divisive narratives. Media analyst Pankaj Mishra aptly remarked, “The greatest threat to democracy is not overt censorship but the manipulation of information, where citizens are fed selective truths and outright lies in the guise of news.” Addressing this requires robust media literacy programs, independent regulatory frameworks, and a commitment to journalistic integrity. Only through such efforts can the public be empowered to discern truth from propaganda and foster a more informed, democratic society.
Propaganda Model: One critical method for understanding how mass media works in service to elite interests at the expense of journalistic integrity and accountability to the public has been the Propaganda Model, as suggested by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. This model postulates that media content is filtered through five key mechanisms: ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and anti-communism or ideological control. Each of these filters curbs the narratives that come out to the public and gives a systematic bias in favour of the points of view of powerful stakeholders.
In the Indian context, corporate-owned media houses too often align with government-sponsored narratives, mostly because of the financial dependencies of the media group and regulatory considerations. Heavy consolidation of ownership in politically affiliated entities further cements this alignment. As Noam Chomsky famously observed, “Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states.” His observation finds perfect resonance in India, with media increasingly playing the role of carrying state-sponsored propaganda and silencing critical perspectives or dissent.
In fact, the Propaganda Model finds relevance in India through selective amplification: pro-government policies are promoted-for instance, CAA or demonetisation policies were completely branded as undisputed success stories, and criticism was either denied or condemned. The framing of neighbouring countries, like Bangladesh, as adversaries normally reflects these filters; it bolsters nationalist sentiments to divert attention from domestic issues. This dynamic, therefore, calls for urgent structural reforms that guarantee media independence and the primacy of public interest over the agendas of elites.
Agenda-Setting Theory: This is the Agenda-Setting Theory by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw, which researched how media controls public discourse at which point something was an issue and where it was irrelevant. “The media doesn’t tell us what to think,” as McCombs said, “but it tells us what to think about.” In the context of India, this influence seems overtly within a strategic prioritising of divisive narratives, more so as a political order.
Indian media’s focus on contentious issues like cross-border migration, communal violence, or border disputes with Bangladesh exemplifies the agenda-setting process. By giving disproportionate attention to these topics, media outlets shape public perceptions, framing Bangladesh as a perpetual threat to Indian sovereignty and communal harmony. For example, exaggerated claims of “infiltration” from Bangladesh are routinely highlighted, creating a sense of urgency and fear, despite evidence indicating that such narratives are often overstated.
This agenda setting bias extends to international relations, where selective reporting shapes diplomatic discourse. This selective focus has not only distorted public understanding but also legitimised divisive policies and undermined regional stability.
Countering this trend, the essentials are media literacy and plurality in newsrooms. The expansion of the media agenda to include constructive and balanced reporting will facilitate India moving closer to an informed and cohesive society.
Impact on India-Bangladesh Relations: Erosion of Trust. Misinformation has indeed dissolved trust between India and Bangladesh, fostered over a long period through diplomatic and cultural interactions. Sensationalist reporting transforms nuanced bilateral issues into either communal or political binaries, thereby building a narrative of division, not cooperation. For example, stories exaggerating incidents of cross-border infiltration or portraying Bangladesh as a haven for anti-Indian elements have fuelled suspicion on both sides. This type of reporting distorts the facts and can generate ill-will, especially when one country is singled out in narratives for blame disproportionately.
More than this, the non-stop framing of Bangladesh as a source of regional instability-either as a source of illegal migration or a threat to India’s border security-has alienated large sections of the Bangladeshi public. Consequences of this are that constructive dialogue or problem-solving is unlikely with eroding trust, leaving festering unresolved issues in its wake.
Regional Instability. Disinformation campaigns have increased regional instability by fanning nationalism and antagonism between India and Bangladesh. Narratives that some media continue to amplify focus on conflicts and grievances, often at the expense of stories about cooperation and mutual benefit. These also extend to hamper efforts at addressing other transboundary issues, such as water sharing from the Teesta River or cross-border migration flows. By depicting such issues as zero-sum conflicts rather than opportunities to bargain over, misinformation diminishes the prospects for diplomatic solutions. The sensationalized narratives have broader ramifications: for one thing, greater communal tensions in India itself, as they are often catering to divisive ideologies.
As Noble Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus once said, “Regional harmony cannot flourish in an environment polluted with lies. Respect for one another and honest dialogue are the bedrock of development.” Reducing the destabilizing potential of this disinformation calls for underlining transparency, open dialogue, and actually to belie all those misguiding narratives that delay regional stability with positivity from both countries.
Way Forward: Media Accountability. The media in India will have to regain credibility through transparency and accountability as basic tenets. It would require regulatory mechanisms that are non-partisan and do not fall prey to the interests of political and corporate master minds. Fact-checking initiatives like Alt News and BoomLive need more support from civil society and international organizations if they are ever going to win the battle against the proliferation of fake news. As Dr. P. Sainath, one of the more prominent media scholars, echoes, “The media have to be the watchdog of democracy, not the lapdog of power.” For that to happen, there needs to be a promotion of ethical journalism over sensationalism for profit. An independent media council would be a damper on biased reporting and make them accountable for spreading misinformation.
Diplomatic Engagement. Open communications between both countries would, therefore, enable India and Bangladesh to discuss core causes and consequences of disinformation campaigns. There is a need for setting up dedicated bilateral committees on media ethics and regional stability as an icebreaker for constructive dialogue. These could comprise representatives from the government, academia, and independent media organizations that provide a balancing effect for well-rounded perspectives to ensure actionable outcomes. Regular exchanges among journalists, fact-checkers, and policymakers in the two countries can create mutual understanding and reduce the scope for misinterpretation and deliberately created misinformation.
Public Media Literacy. The only constructive, long-term solution for defeating the spread of misinformation empowers the public to critically assess information. Media literacy programs should be integrated into school curriculums, workplace training, and community outreach initiatives. Such programs can help people to identify credible news sources, spot biases, and understand manipulated content; such knowledge will make citizens resilient. The entrenchment of media literacy is not only an antidote against misinformation; rather, it allows citizens to meaningfully engage in democratic processes.
Conclusion: The media in India wields immense influence in shaping public discourse, both within its borders and across the region. However, its growing alignment with political and ideological agendas has increasingly turned it into a vehicle for misinformation, particularly in narratives concerning neighbouring Bangladesh. This transformation poses significant challenges to the integrity of journalism and the stability of regional relationships.
What is expected is for the Indian media to regain the lost credibility by going back to the very foundational role of being the watchdog of democracy. That would require putting in place strong ethical frameworks which prioritize truth and accountability over political convenience and sensationalism. This calls for comprehensive media reform, public education on the issue, and international cooperation.
The stakes are higher than the newsroom. Misinformation is not only a national issue but also affects India’s reputation as a regional leader.
Of course, it will be much more about restoring trust in the media, but essentially, the struggle against misinformation will safeguard democratic values that bind nations together. India’s media, government, and civil society must come together to reclaim the integrity of information so that public discourse is informed by fact and fairness, not propaganda and prejudice. In so doing, India will be able to restore trust at home and contribute toward peace in the region and stability in the world.
Dr Serajul I Bhuiyan is a professor and former chair, the department of Journalism and Mass Communications at Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia, USA.
Bangladesh Defense
en.prothomalo.com
