There is a point at which journalism ceases to be journalism and becomes theatre. The latest controversy surrounding Amruta Fadnavis is a classic example of how an innocuous or legitimate statement can be stretched, twisted and packaged into a political controversy that was never really there.
Of late, sections of the English-language media appear increasingly obsessed with manufacturing debates around non-issues, often building elaborate narratives around statements that, when read in their proper context, say little more than what they actually say.
The latest target is Amruta Fadnavis, social activist and wife of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. Her comments on the participation of Muslims in Garba and Dandiya celebrations have been presented by some commentators and YouTubers as though she had launched some political broadside against her husband or sought to undermine his political journey, besides causing embarrassment to the party.
That is nothing short of sensationalism.
Many analysts feel, this is precisely the kind of reporting that damages the credibility of serious journalism.
What did Amruta Fadnavis actually say? Against the backdrop of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s call to restrict Muslim participation in Garba and Dandiya events in Maharashtra, and BJP leader Nitesh Rane’s support for that position, she said she believed festivals should be inclusive and that she saw nothing wrong with a Muslim attending and peacefully enjoying Garba.
That is a viewpoint. It may be debated, criticised or supported. But where is the great political conspiracy?
The VHP had, in fact, called for restrictions and suggested identity verification measures at such events, including checking Aadhaar cards and applying tilak to establish the Hindu identity of participants. Rane too publicly supported restrictions.
Amruta Fadnavis took a different view. That is hardly unusual in a democracy.
More importantly, there is a fundamental distinction between disagreeing with a political or social position and deliberately misrepresenting the disagreement as a family or political rebellion.
Some sections of the media seem to have discovered an irresistible narrative: the Chief Minister’s wife has supposedly embarrassed the Chief Minister. The headline practically writes itself. The television debate follows. YouTubers amplify it. Social media picks it up. And suddenly a straightforward opinion becomes a political crisis.
But journalism cannot be reduced to manufacturing a crisis because a crisis makes better television.
There is another disturbing tendency here. Whenever a statement involves religion, Muslims, Hindus or the BJP, certain sections of the media seem incapable of resisting the temptation to add layers of political interpretation. Context becomes secondary; insinuation becomes the story.
Amruta Fadnavis’s position may certainly be questioned. One may ask whether religious festivals should be open to everybody, whether organisers should impose security checks, or whether concerns about misuse of such gatherings deserve consideration. These are legitimate questions.
But transforming an argument about festival participation into an alleged attempt to damage Devendra Fadnavis’s political career is a completely different proposition.
The irony is that the controversy appears to have fallen flat because there simply were not enough takers for the manufactured narrative.
Hence, responsible journalism should do precisely the opposite. It should cool down manufactured controversies, restore context and allow readers to decide for themselves.
There is enough genuine political news in Maharashtra and across Bharat without inventing another one.
The media’s job is not to create villains, victims and conspiracies out of every sentence uttered by a public figure. Its job is to report what was said, explain why it matters and distinguish fact from interpretation.
Anything beyond that is not journalism.
It is sensationalism.
And when sensationalism is dressed up as serious political analysis, it becomes not merely irresponsible but sickening.
