Why the BBC is the world’s greatest hypocrisy

New Delhi: Just as India is arguably the world’s greatest democracy, the BBC is possibly the world’s greatest hypocrisy. The documentary on 2002 Gujarat riots and Prime Minister Narendra Modi titled "India: The Modi Question" is clear evidence that the racist entitlement of the UK rubs on effortlessly to its in-house broadcaster.

Firstly, they surely have no business trying to dig holes in the internal matters of a sovereign nation, especially when they conveniently forget their own skeletons. You will not find a documentary on the Bengal Famine orchestrated by jolly old Winston Churchill and nor will the atrocities of Kalapani ever feature in a structured analysis. 

There are many opinions that the carnage of the partition could have been greatly mitigated had Attlee not insisted on an absurd timeline, thus thwarting sensible management of the human movement. 

The BBC is brilliant at romanticising the colonial era but finds it rather inconvenient to be objective about the reckless ancestors.

So, it is truly hilarious to hear Sir Jack Straw rather officiously, like a concerned grandfather, ordering an autonomous enquiry on the Gujarat incident, as it is clearly none of his business. 

The holier-than-thou attitude about alleged human rights issues does not befit the professional murderers and looters that staffed the East India Company and their more structured successors. 

India has a fully functional judicial system and when the Supreme Court passes a verdict, that is cast in credible stone and does not need foreigners to poke their stained noses.

What is most offensive is the liberal usage of terms like pogrom and ethnic cleansing by quaintly accented white-skinned quasi-academics, looking to propel their personal careers through the BBC documentary on Modi.

This furthers my belief that the blood successors of those who caused the millions of deaths during the illegal occupation of India (better known as Raj) should be hauled up pronto and persecuted under Indian laws. Just as some fellows were trying to get the legally elected CM of an Indian state arrested in the UK, on flimsy hearsay and a trouble-making intent.

With BBC defending its documentary as ‘rigorously researched’, it makes people wonder if the broadcaster would ever ask British PMs after 2014 as well as other world leaders why they trust Modi, India and its sovereign legal system.

Another crucial aspect to consider in a global homogenous context is the uncontrollable nature of mob violence and the sensitivity with which the state law and order machinery must handle it. We have seen this in the 1984 scenario post-Indira Gandhi and increasingly keep seeing it in pristine Western climes as well - the race riots in the USA and the inexplicable arson in Belgium and Holland post-Morocco's World Cup win. Especially in large population cohorts, whether first-world or third, situations can temporarily go out of hand and it is patently irresponsible to blame forces in power, without courtroom provenance.

There are two imminent events which possibly explain the amplification of this BBC feature at this point in time - the first being the 2024 elections and the second the UK-India FTA (Free Trade Agreement). 

Many global powers, both advanced and emerging, are deeply jealous of India’s stability and growth charts and would love to destabilise the successful ruling disposition. On a more micro note, damaging the FTA through a climate of distrust would benefit certain other nations, whose orthodox trade policies would be superseded by a fluid UK-India business corridor.

Over the many decades of its existence, the BBC has been a glorious beacon as well as an arrogant stooge, the last vestiges of vastly-defunct colonial glories. Its entitled quest to establish unsolicited thought leadership in global matters is actually an anachronistic interpretation of Victorian supremacy. They clearly have no business to create trouble in India and that too on wholly dubious grounds.