Episode's summary
Newslaundry reporters Khushi Mehrotra, Samarth Grover and Astha Savyasachi recount what it was like to report from the ground during the October 10 protests in Delhi. Abhinandan Sekhri begins by asking how live reporting differs from the investigations Newslaundry usually does, where the pressure is to stay accurate and avoid reacting in ways that could later be called unjournalistic. Khushi, who was a print reporter during the first CJP protest, says on-camera reporting brings a fear of becoming the story. Reaching the protest site took her and Samarth about two hours, with police turning them back from lane after lane. She says it wasn’t random who got through: PTI and ANI reporters were let in, and an NDTV car went ahead of them. Samarth says that unlike reporting on the violence of July 20, this time it was “an exercise in exhaustion”, with journalists questioned repeatedly, their credibility challenged, and told to stay on the footpath, away from the detentions. He adds that he sees the police’s conduct…
Newslaundry reporters Khushi Mehrotra, Samarth Grover and Astha Savyasachi recount what it was like to report from the ground during the October 10 protests in Delhi. Abhinandan Sekhri begins by asking how live reporting differs from the investigations Newslaundry usually does, where the pressure is to stay accurate and avoid reacting in ways that could later be called unjournalistic. Khushi, who was a print reporter during the first CJP protest, says on-camera reporting brings a fear of becoming the story. Reaching the protest site took her and Samarth about two hours, with police turning them back from lane after lane. She says it wasn’t random who got through: PTI and ANI reporters were let in, and an NDTV car went ahead of them. Samarth says that unlike reporting on the violence of July 20, this time it was “an exercise in exhaustion”, with journalists questioned repeatedly, their credibility challenged, and told to stay on the footpath, away from the detentions. He adds that he sees the police’s conduct…
Episodes
NL Hafta 611 Snippet : ‘A Cop Deciding Who’s a Journalist’: Reporting on the Delhi Police Crackdown
ListenedNewslaundry reporters Khushi Mehrotra, Samarth Grover and Astha Savyasachi recount what it was like to report from the ground during the October 10 protests in Delhi. Abhinandan Sekhri begins by asking how live reporting differs from the investigations Newslaundry usually does, where the pressure is to stay accurate and avoid reacting in ways that could later be called unjournalistic. Khushi, who was a print reporter during the first CJP protest, says on-camera reporting brings a fear of becoming the story. Reaching the protest site took her and Samarth about two hours, with police turning them back from lane after lane. She says it wasn’t random who got through: PTI and ANI reporters were let in, and an NDTV car went ahead of them. Samarth says that unlike reporting on the violence of July 20, this time it was “an exercise in exhaustion”, with journalists questioned repeatedly, their credibility challenged, and told to stay on the footpath, away from the detentions. He adds that he sees the police’s conduct…
NL Hafta 610 Snippet : Democracy, With a Punchline: Why Those in Power Fear Satire
ListenedThis week on Hafta, Abhinandan Sekhri, Manisha Pande and Anand Vardhan are joined by political cartoonist Manjul, Rachita Taneja of Sanitary Panels fame, and comedian Sanjay Rajoura to ask whether Indian politics has lost its sense of humour. The discussion begins with a takedown of political cartoons on the Modi government’s direction. Abhinandan argues that satire has always mattered in democracies because it can say what serious commentary cannot. “Every autocrat, every dictator fears being mocked more than anything else,” he says. Manjul recalls that early in his career, even the PMO asked for his cartoons. It was only after 2016-17, he says, that trolls supporting the ruling party, and then the government, came after him. Now, it does so through IT rules that push platforms to remove posts within hours. Rachita calls automated takedowns a dangerous precedent. Satire, she argues, punctures the aura of godlike leadership since laughing at them “brings them down to earth with the rest of us mortals.” She…
NL Hafta 609 Snippet: ‘Is Judiciary the Greatest Threat to Indian Democracy?’
ListenedThe Chief Justice of India’s remark that the polls in question were “only by-elections” in West Bengal is where this Hafta discussion begins. Abhinandan Sekhri calls it “a bit alarming”, and says similar casual comments have come up in earlier hearings. Neha Rathi, a Supreme Court lawyer and a petitioner in the SIR cases, says the Supreme Court was the right forum, but argues that the reason behind voter deletions in Bengal remains opaque. Of the “logical discrepancy” ground, she says, “there is no notification about that, it’s still a mystery.” Shahrukh Alam, a senior Supreme Court lawyer, calls the SIR a “gambit” and says the Election Commission has “got away with” its “big little power plays”. She says she and others are pushing back on the state’s legal responsibility, but asks, “What about its moral responsibility?” Rinchen Norbu cites data showing that the share of people who trust the Election Commission “a lot” fell from 50.8 percent in 2019 to 43 percent in 2024, according to a recent CSDS-Lokniti…
NL Hafta 608 Snippet :Ex-Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa Breaks Down the SIR Crisis
ListenedFormer Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa challenges the framing of the Election Commission’s internal rift. Asked by Abhinandan Sekhri whether the “dissenting notes” amount to genuine dissent, Lavasa flips the premise, arguing that if two Election Commissioners share one view and a third disagrees, it is the third (the Chief Election Commissioner in this case) who is dissenting, not the two being labelled as such. The conversation then turns to the changes made to Form 6 during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Lavasa argues that the Commission overstepped its authority regardless of whether all three commissioners were in agreement. As he says, “The Election Commission of India is not competent to make these changes, because they fall under the principle of subordinate legislation, which ought to be approved by the competent authority — in this case, the government.” Manisha Pande brings up the case of Goa, where election officers who had verified wrongly-deleted voters were reportedly unable to…
Hafta 607: Who Pays For UPI? Is The UCC Even ‘Uniform’?
ListenedThis week on Hafta, Abhinandan Sekhri, Manisha Pande and Rinchen Norbu are joined by Anupam Manur, Professor of Economics at the Takshashila Institution, and Mihira Sood, Supreme Court lawyer specialising in women’s rights. The panel opens the discussion by examining the government’s decision to introduce a 0.4% fee on UPI merchant transactions above Rs 2,000, asking what the move means for a payment system that has become central to everyday transactions in India. Anupam Manur acknowledges that UPI generates wider economic benefits, but argues that the current model also creates a problem: who ultimately bears the cost of running the system? He explains that the cost of operating UPI is substantial, while the government subsidises only a portion of it. Manur says, “When UPI came about, India was miles ahead of the world in some sense. It was truly revolutionary.” But he argues that the costs leave new entrants with insufficient incentive, which has affected private-sector innovation. “Private players are…