A BBC documentary: Colonisation or Solidarity?

Dr Laila Kadiwal, UCL Institute of Education 

I examine how academic freedom was debated at two elite institutions of higher education in the UK in connection with the BBC documentary The Modi Question. I argue that there is a need for a contextually nuanced understanding of violence since various actors use discourses of academic freedom and decolonisation to suit different agendas. Universalist and rational-sounding ideas of academic freedom and decolonisation can cause more harm than good if they are void of context. It is critical to recognise their political, contextual and situated nature.

The Modi Question 

The BBC documentary The Modi Question released in January 2023, looks at Narendra Modi's policies towards India's Muslim minorities. Modi's role as Gujarat Chief Minister during the Gujarat pogrom of 2002 is examined in part one. His policies as Prime Minister of India since 2019 are discussed in part two.

The documentary draws on a report on the Gujarat pogrom produced by the UK Foreign Office in April 2002. The report notes that the violence was “planned, possibly months in advance” by a Hindu nationalist organisation. According to it, "the attack on the train at Godhra provided the pretext. If it had not occurred, another one would have been found.” It recognises the scale of the violence, “At least 2000 killed. Widespread and systematic rape of Muslim women. 138,000 internal refugees ... Over 100,000 are Muslims." The report claims, “Chief Minister Narendra Modi is directly responsible”. Twenty years on, Genocide Watch has declared an “Emergency” that Indian Muslims and Dalits are at risk of state-supported mass violence. 

The Government of India reacted harshly. Emergency laws were issued banning the documentary. It was "propaganda" reflecting a “colonial mindset”, said a Ministry of External Affairs official. A social media block was ordered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to protect India's sovereignty and integrity. A Vice Chancellor derided it as "White media’s burden”. Some retired bureaucrats called it “the archetype of British imperialism in the past". An Indian government advisor equated Modi's criticism with India's.

A tale of two institutions 

A direct and indirect reference to broader discussions surrounding the Modi Question documentary was made at two elite universities. The UCL Institute of Education (IOE) hosted an event organised by the London Review of Education to evaluate the IOE’s colonial ties. Most attendees were White, academic, and middle-class.  Just 300 yards away, SOAS held another event organised by India Labour Solidarity. Students, activists, workers, and academics mostly from India gathered. 

Speakers from different positions within the Indian hierarchy spoke at these events. Three young people led the discussion at SOAS: an activist from a Mangalorean Catholic background who has recently moved to the UK to study. His father, an academic and trade unionist, has been jailed since 2018 under India's colonial-era Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The daughter of a jailed Indian Police Officer from a dominant caste background spoke too. In 2002, her father filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India accusing Modi of involvement in the Gujarat pogrom. Also speaking was a young Kashmiri lawyer and Kofi Anan scholar based in the UK.

The IOE event featured a second-generation British Indian male post-doctoral researcher from a dominant caste Hindu background. Another speaker was a British Indian female lecturer from rural India. She is a first-generation university graduate and hails from a mixed-caste, mixed-class Muslim background.

With reference to India, a "solidarity" argument dominated the SOAS event, whereas an "another side" argument was presented at the IOE event. 

 The “solidarity” argument at SOAS

At SOAS, speakers called the screening of the BBC documentary an "act of solidarity". While the Hindutva ecosystem called the BBC documentary colonialism, many Indian students and activists saw it as decolonisation. Students were suspended or detained for watching the documentary in India and "treated like criminals", so the organisers held the event as a show of support. The event description read,

Across India, students are facing repression for showing the BBC documentary about Narendra Modi and right-wing Hindu nationalism. We are holding this screening to express solidarity and discuss the 2002 anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat and why the Modi regime is so concerned to stop all discussions on the topic.

Several Indian scientists and academics also criticised the government's blocking of the documentary as an assault on academic freedom.

It was highlighted that the current climate was "dangerous for Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and women". The dehumanisation of Muslims has increased to “dangerous heights”. In addition to the fears of exclusion of Muslims from citizenship, they talked about the commodification of Muslim women on apps. They also expressed outrage over vigilante violence on the streets and lynchings of Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis. Speakers discussed anti-conversion laws that target Christians and Muslims, the abuse of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act to crush dissent, and the "summary execution of Muslims". Also discussed was the "Bulldozer genocide", the plight of Assamese Muslims, who are perceived by the regime as outsiders, and the difficulties experienced by Gujarat pogrom victims. The regime acquitted killers and rapists. Indignity and injustice continue to plague the pogrom victims. The long-standing persecution of Muslims in Kashmir was also discussed. Audience members also highlighted Sikh pogroms.

A speaker noted that the rigged system gives perpetrators a clean slate and silences whistleblowers. Haren Pandya, a former Home Minister of Gujarat, was killed after speaking out against Modi. Judge Loya was killed. A journalist, Gauri Lankesh, was murdered. The former Gujarat State Director-General of Police RB Sreekumar, human rights activist Teesta Setalvad and the speaker's father, an Indian Police Officer, were among those arrested. 

Also mentioned were 16 intellectuals and activists jailed in the Bhima Koregaon case. Students reflected that Modi is seen as the victim by the "extreme Hindu belt", a section of the public.  It was also noted that "Brahmanical patriarchy" is dominant. Violence against Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists in India is a form of casteism against the country's religious minorities. They noted that under neoliberalisation, India had moved from a soft to an aggressive Hindutva. 

Thus, speakers and students called out anti-Muslim, anti-Sikh, and casteist persecution. Defiance against the hegemonic practice was seen as a form of academic freedom and decolonisation. 

The “another side” argument at IoE

At the IOE event, a dominant-caste male speaker discussed decolonisation and India in reference to an article that indicated India is at risk of anti-Muslim genocide. While invoking the need for academic freedom to bring in "different voices", no mention was made of Genocide Watch, rights-based research, or the Foreign Office report. Instead, he alluded to a brief exchange where Rishi Sunak contradicted Foreign Office findings, to frame it as a “contested issue” and advised on it not being “just declared as a fact”. 

Genocide experts say a crucial element in genocidal processes is “denial”. On 20th January 2023, Labour MP Hussain asked in the UK Parliament: 

The Foreign Office knew the extent of Narendra Modi's involvement in the Godhra massacre ... he was in the FCO’s own words, “directly responsible”... what more does the Foreign Office know of his involvement in this grave act of ethnic cleansing?

Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak responded:

The UK government's position on this has been clear, and long-standing and hasn't changed. Of course, we don't tolerate persecution wherever it is, but I'm not sure I agree at all with the characterisation that the gentleman has put forward.

In effect, it appears that Sunak disagreed with the UK Foreign Office in describing the Gujarat pogrom as "ethnic cleansing." 

In contrast, academics and scientists from India commented that the National Human Rights Commission had "reached the definite conclusion that … there was a comprehensive failure of the State." They emphasised the importance of political accountability, since “this accountability is crucial for preventing a repeat of such events, as well as for reversing the communal polarisation that threatens to tear the country apart.”

Holding power accountable is decolonisation. Sunak, who disagreed with the "characterisation" of the Gujarat pogrom, must face the findings of the UK Foreign Office report and the National Human Rights Commission of India, not just be cited as "another side". Gaslighting isn't decolonisation. It undermines the injustices faced by thousands of Indians across caste, gender, class, religion, and location. 

The Tory party has not acknowledged British imperialism's genocides. Also, Rwanda Plan, Nationality and Borders Act, and Windrush are racist policies. In addition, their policies are involved in hostile environments, environmental degradation, climate denial, and resource extraction. They should be critically interrogated, not hailed as exemplars of genocide debate. Moreover, valuing politicians' voices over critical research reveals anti-intellectualism.  

We have an ethical obligation to explain violence and protect vulnerable populations as social scientists. Genocide Watch uses complex data to predict genocides worldwide. The effect of undermining these warnings is to put at risk populations that are already at risk. Freedom of expression is not a license, it is a responsibility to "Do No Harm." 

It's important to put different voices in context. A UK ban on Modi followed the Gujarat pogrom. However, in April 2022, then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson hugged Modi as a "special friend" and signed the “expanded Defense and Security Partnership ”. In addition to political and economic, Sunak has a personal conflict of interest. According to James Manor, Sunak "first-hand saw the manner in which Infosys Foundation – run by his in-laws – was unfairly targeted, until Narayana Murthy stopped making critical comments about the Modi-Shah regime.". His mother-in-law Sudha Murthy is now a trustee on Modi's board.

Nazi connections are implicated in this "another side" argument. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Modi's ideological parent, has Nazi ties (see Leidig, 2020; Schaeffer, 2018). RSS donors based in the diaspora often ally with alt-right and neo-Nazi groups. "Hinduphobia" and freedom of speech arguments are also used to weaken Modi's criticism. 

A deeper issue is casteism. In neoliberal India, Hindutva seeks to ensure upper-caste Hindu patriarchy - a situation that benefits dominant-caste Hindu men, whereas nearly 85% of Indian Muslims are caste-oppressed Shudras, Dalits, and Adivasis. 

A decolonial irony

A Black feminist speaker at the IOE conference said poignantly, "We need to be critical of the tools we employ." How we employ these tools requires a deep contextual understanding of violence. Also, we need to understand how our denial or acknowledgement of mass atrocities impacts the most marginalised.  

As I write, another Dalit student Darshan Solanki has succumbed to what is described as ‘institutional murder’ by casteist structures. He was the first generation Dalit student at a premier Indian university. On the Hyderabad Central University campus, Rohit Vermula committed suicide, saying, "My Birth is My Fatal Accident." In casteist structures, the caste-oppressed populations’ view of life and death is radically different from the lovely "death and rebirth" view of Savarna patriarchal philosophy that is often disguised as the "Indian philosophy" in UK universities. 

Ironically, dominant-caste academics often complain of a lack of representation in academia rather than acknowledge their privileges based on widespread casteist-patriarchal dispossessions. The IOE saw the launch of at least four books written by mostly Brahmin or dominant-caste/race academics during the same month. Bahujans (majority) have the least voice, including Dalits, Adivasis, nomadic populations, Shudras, religious minorities, and regionally discriminated populations (such as Kashmir). In UK education, academic canons and book launches often exclude them. By denying casteism and affirming caste innocence, caste privilege is protected. 

Moving on is often advocated by those who benefit from the status quo ("Move on, victims"). Rather than grasping the complexity of systemic racism, casteism, and reparations, they raise privileged-centric concerns: cancel culture and self-centric views of safety. Victims are expected to tailor their critiques to assuage their fragility. The Indian female panellist from a mixed-caste background sensing the implications of such views noted that education should be a safe space for marginalised groups and that the dominant castes and classes should be brave enough to embrace discomfort.

Discussions at SOAS and IOE also raised questions about white privilege in decolonial solidarity. Some prominent anti-caste activists viewed “White Saviours” positively in the 1800s. The changing hierarchy contributed to anti-caste struggles. BBC needs decolonisation, just like the IOE, SOAS, and the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom. In this case, however, a SOAS speaker noted, the BBC had acted in solidarity. The documentary amplified the voices of violated people. The dominant caste male speaker at IOE stressed everyone had a say in issues regardless of their background. At the same time, decolonisation is about ensuring that the voices of those who have been excluded - at the intersection of casteist, racist, gendered, sexist, homophobic and ableist structures - are foregrounded. 

There is a connection between the university and the broader world. Colleagues with power and privilege must therefore recognise the deeply politicised and contextual nature of decolonisation.  By acknowledging the widespread exclusion of caste-oppressed populations, they can avoid making erroneous assumptions about equality of opportunity or epistemic zero points. Without reparative political commitment, well-meaning colleagues could be upholding the structural and epistemic supremacy of the dominant caste patriarchy, which undermines India's anti-caste decolonial struggle. The irony of solidarity with decolonisation in Westernised universities is this.