There is a disturbing new trend in Bharat’s television journalism: when facts do not fit a preferred narrative, facts are simply shouted down. The Matthew Aaron VanDyke case is the latest example of how television journalism can become dangerously irresponsible when sensationalism overtakes verification.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has made its position clear. It has not dropped or closed the investigation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against American national Matthew Aaron VanDyke and six Ukrainian nationals. The agency has explained that the present chargesheet was filed under the Immigration and Foreigners Act because those offences had already been established, while the wider UAPA investigation continues. The NIA’s Special Public Prosecutor has also indicated that a supplementary chargesheet could follow if the ongoing investigation establishes offences under the UAPA.
Yet some English television channels, including one that loudly brands itself as a “nationalist” channel, appear determined to portray the development as though the Modi government has suddenly gone soft on terrorism or succumbed to American pressure.
This is not nationalism. This is irresponsible journalism.
Criticism of the government is legitimate. Questioning the NIA is legitimate. Asking whether diplomatic considerations have influenced an investigation is legitimate. Opposition leaders, including Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Asaduddin Owaisi, are perfectly entitled to raise such questions. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has also alleged possible US pressure.
But once the investigating agency provides a specific legal explanation, the media has an equally fundamental responsibility: report that explanation honestly before constructing a conspiracy around it.
The crucial fact being conveniently lost in the television shouting match is simple. The NIA initially registered the case under the UAPA. The accused allegedly travelled into restricted areas of Mizoram, crossed into Myanmar, and were being investigated over alleged links with ethnic armed groups and alleged training involving drones and other warfare capabilities.
The latest chargesheet invokes Sections 21 and 23 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act. That does not automatically establish that the larger investigation has disappeared. Indeed, the NIA has expressly said the UAPA investigation remains alive and that further charges can be brought if the evidence warrants them.
So where is the justification for screaming that Modi govt has “let off” an alleged terror accused?
And here lies the larger problem.
A television channel claiming to be nationalist should understand better than anyone that national security cannot be reduced to studio theatrics. Nor can patriotism become a licence to manufacture outrage. If an investigation is continuing, say so. If the government has answered the allegation, report it. If there is evidence of political interference, produce it. If there is none, do not manufacture one through insinuation.
The media cannot simultaneously demand strong institutions and then undermine those very institutions whenever their actions do not fit a preconceived narrative.
There is also a dangerous double standard at work. If a government were actually to compromise a terror investigation under foreign pressure, the media should be among the first to expose it. But allegation is not evidence, suspicion is not proof, and a missing UAPA provision from one stage of a chargesheet is not proof that the entire UAPA investigation has been abandoned.
Journalism must investigate—not prosecute.
It must question—not invent.
And above all, it must distinguish between what is known, what is alleged and what is still being investigated.
Bharat needs a fearless media. But fearless does not mean reckless.
A channel cannot claim the nationalist mantle while treating verified government and investigative-agency clarifications as inconvenient obstacles to a dramatic prime-time narrative.
National interest demands facts. Nationalism demands responsibility. Journalism demands both.
Anything less is not patriotism. It is simply television going overboard.
