Modi Biopic, NaMo TV, Et Al, Are Guerilla Marketing Tactics; EC Has No Business Here

The Supreme Court yesterday (9 April) declined to stay the release of a biopic on Narendra Modi on a petition filed by a Congress activist. It is the right thing to do.

Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that the film is pure propaganda, intended to give Modi a huge image boost ahead of voting in the general elections. The question is simple: when parties can spend crores making ad films and propaganda material ahead of an election to show their leaders and parties in good light – and all for free – what is the logic in stopping a commercial film for which people will actually have to buy tickets to watch even if it is propaganda? How is this a violation of the Election Commission’s (EC’s) model code of conduct?

A big fuss is also being made about the launch of NaMo TV, with questions being asked about how it can be shown on a DTH (direct-to-home) platform when many other news channels are yet to get the nod from the I&B ministry? The EC is again being asked to step in and gag it.

The answer ought to be simple: anyone who pays carriage fees to DTH operators can launch such programmes, including live programmes, as long as the content is not violative of any Indian law. Just as there are evangelical, Islamic and Hindu religious programmes on DTH, so are various cookery and educational shows shown live on DTH. So, what’s so wrong about a political propaganda channel on DTH, which no one is forced to watch?

The real issue here is not whether a biopic on Modi is legit or a TV channel dedicated to propagating his views is kosher. It is the flat-footedness of his political opponents, who have once more been caught off-guard by NaMo strategists ahead of an election.

India’s politicians need to grow up and stop being such crybabies, running to the Election Commission on each and every issue. And the EC should stop playing Mummy. It should chuck most of these complaints into the dungheap.

Elections are about the free play of ideas and political thrust and parry. They are not meant to be moral-policed by the EC or any other body, including the Supreme Court, except when there is a serious transgression of the penal code or contravention of laws on campaign funding. The moral code of conduct should be seen as a guideline for candidates and parties, not equivalent to a law that must be obeyed. If the moral code is used to shut people up, it is an infringement on free speech. Elections are nothing but the ultimate forums for the exercise of free speech. If anything, restraints on free speech must actually be minimised during an election, and not raised.

It is interesting that in the US, the code of conduct imposed by the Federal Election Commission is on itself and its employees, not candidates, except when there is corruption or violation of campaign funding laws. In the UK, the focus is on ensuring the legitimacy of party election financing, not on playing nanny to candidates. The Election Commissions of the US and UK do not go about telling parties what they can speak about or what they cannot.

It is only in India that the media expects the Election Commission to play referee on every issue. A Mint editorial exhorted the EC to “uphold the country’s faith in it”, citing the PM’s special broadcast on Mission Shakti (the shooting down of a satellite in low earth orbit), and the launch of NaMo TV, as transgressions it should have been tougher on. The underlying assumption is that during elections the PM must not act as the country’s CEO, or that the launch of a propaganda TV channel is something the Election Commission must clamp down on. This, when there are literally thousands of propaganda channels and partisan shows on YouTube that can be accessed and shared easily by voters.

In any case, what does one expect the EC to do? Ban the PM from campaigning? Seek a ban on the biopic and NaMo TV? In 2014, when the Modi campaign used social media platforms to spread it message, should the EC have stepped in and asked the BJP to use only TV and print for its messaging? In every election, candidates use new media options to get their message across. This time it may be a biopic; next time it may be something else.

If the EC had done anything to prevent these things from happening, it would be no different from a clampdown on free expression, which is a fundamental right. Just because some parties have been smart enough to obtain temporary tactical advantages through such guerilla marketing efforts, it is no business of the EC to stop the show.

The EC’s business is to conduct the elections in as free and fair a manner as possible, ensure that no voter is intimidated and lured with cash to vote in one particular way, and enforce campaign funding discipline – which it has never been able to do satisfactorily. The expenditure limits placed on candidates is so low that it is a fair bet that all major candidates flout it. This is where the EC is failing, not in banning a biopic here or a fledgling TV channel there. Those are legitimate vehicles of campaign propaganda.