In a twist that could've been lifted straight from a dramatic screenplay, 50 'left-liberals', including a medley of 'journalists', actors, former judges, and those affectionately dubbed as 'Urban Naxals', have risen in a chorus of support for NewsClick, the very online news portal currently under the government's radar. The reason? Allegations of a rather unsavory funding link to a US tycoon, purportedly tangled in spreading Chinese propaganda.

Now, one might pause and wonder: Why this surge of support? In answer, the names involved are quite the Who’s Who of the left-leaning brigade, counting The Wire's founder, S Varadarajan, thespians like Naseeruddin Shah, Ratna Pathak Shah, MK Venu, and other eminent personalities. Their grievance is with the Centre's stern stance against NewsClick.

On the eve of 14th August, this consortium of left-liberals, controversial journalists, and pro-naxal enthusiasts gathered to back NewsClick, a portal which has faced stringent criticism from the Government of India. This solidarity was not a mere casual meet-up but involved a meticulously circulated Google form. The aim? To seek support from those with “prominent backgrounds”. If that doesn't set a dramatic stage, I'm not sure what will.

Vasudha, a prominent user from X (which earlier went by the oh-so-familiar name of Twitter), laid bare this intriguing Google Form. She astutely remarked about the form's underlying motive to rally support for NewsClick, which is apparently facing allegations related to its ambiguous ties with China. Some of the names on that list could certainly cause a stir, as Vasudha rightfully opined.

The defenders, in their statement, rhapsodized about NewsClick's valiant endeavors. To them, it isn’t just another news portal, but a beacon of hope, shedding light on the government's inadequacies. Their claim? The New York Times report that sparked the outrage didn’t necessarily imply any illicit activities by the portal. Instead, they touted NewsClick's role as a societal watchdog, focusing especially on the marginalized sectors.

The rhetoric used to describe actions against NewsClick is worth noting. Terms like "hounding", an infringement on the "freedom of expression", and an assault on "conscientious role of independent journalism" are bountiful. The plot further thickens when they argue that today's media has become the puppet of corporate entities and genuine, unfiltered journalism is on the verge of extinction.

The roll call of NewsClick's supporters includes bigwigs like John Dayal, N Ram, Sidhharth Varadarajan, Ratna Pathak Shah, Naseeruddin Shah, and MK Venu, to name just a few.

Now, if you're curious about Sidhharth Varadarajan, he's a household name for those who love a good conspiracy. His news portal, The Wire, has faced its share of controversy, including allegations of misleading and fabricated stories. As for John Dayal, his narrative centers on supporting rather questionable figures, and our reports paint quite the picture.

Lastly, MK Venu, another prominent figure from The Wire, has had his fair share of scandals, including receiving hefty payments for TV appearances. The plot gets juicier when considering that such payments stopped after a change in leadership. Dive into our reports for the full drama.

The growing contention surrounding the signatories of a form condemning the Centre's action against NewsClick is intriguing, but we at Satyaagrah cannot yet independently verify the identities of the said signatories.

Diving Deeper into the NewsClick Controversy

Earlier this month, The New York Times spilled the beans, unraveling the connection between an American magnate and the Chinese government, and, most intriguingly, his monetary backing to the Indian news portal, NewsClick. The business tycoon in the spotlight, Neville Roy Singham, is suspected of channeling funds into global news publications to disseminate pro-Chinese narratives.

The American newspaper meticulously detailed how Singham's intricate web of nonprofit organizations and shell companies actually serve as a facade for his close association with the Chinese governmental media machinery. The article highlighted Singham's shrewd strategy of pushing forward the Chinese government's rhetoric under the guise of ‘progressive advocacy’ in various nations, including India, Brazil, South Africa, and his homeland, the United States.

Particularly concerning for India is Singham’s direct financial backing for NewsClick. This digital outlet has been caught red-handed echoing the Chinese Communist Party’s narrative in the past. As per The New York Times, corporate filings in New Delhi showcased NewsClick's unabashed alignment with Beijing's agenda.

The Larger Narrative and The Stakes Involved

Now, why should this remain in the news? Because the leftist control over media, academia, and even platforms like Wikipedia provides an unparalleled power to shape narratives, sometimes even erasing unsavory facts from public memory. Considering the forthcoming elections in May 2024, the BJP should consistently highlight this issue, emphasizing the blatant hypocrisy on display.

While the intricacies of digital surveillance sagas like Facebook and Pegasus might confound the average Indian, the NewsClick controversy, replete with accusations of foreign funding and propagandist alliances, is more tangible and therefore potentially more explosive.

However, in the cacophonous battleground of Indian media, silence can sometimes be deafening. This very silence, this omerta, surrounding the NewsClick saga is conspicuous. Where are the fearless champions of independent journalism now?

Allow me to pontificate on certain noteworthy aspects:

1. Overseas Donations: Donations from foreign entities and individuals should be centrally pooled and disbursed to states based on population metrics. The reality is that concrete proof in the form of digital communications can be wiped clean or cunningly concealed. So, how does one identify and expose a compromised mindset? The best strategy is to disrupt the flow of illicit funds. Target the supply lines.

2. Striking Similarities in Modus Operandi: It's impossible to ignore the parallels between jihadist Islamist operations and their leftist counterparts. On one hand, there are the opulent Generals of Pakistan, urging impoverished young Muslims towards martyrdom. On the other, urban elites living lavishly while mobilizing vulnerable segments of the population towards Maoist ideologies. Both thrive on the naiveté of their followers, profiting from the chaos they instigate.

The real challenge for the BJP, and indeed every discerning Indian, is to unmask the urban Naxals and expose their true intent. It's imperative for Indians to discern the distinction between genuine journalism and disguised propaganda.

Ultimately, understanding the intricate interplay of motives, agendas, and tactics of these groups is crucial. The very fabric of India's democracy is at stake. Let the battle for the truth commence.

I've come across information suggesting that Gautam Navlakha and Prabir Purkayastha established a company to secure funding. If that's accurate, it could be attributed to Modi’s economic reforms. It's heartening to see that in today's India, reformists are looking towards business strategies rather than aggressive tactics. This positive shift is reflected in India's improved ease of business rankings. However, it leaves me pondering if the marginalised individuals, who often bear the brunt of such movements, get any share or dividends from such corporate earnings?

Let's pivot to a topic that has always intrigued me: the intricate workings of the bureaucratic system.

The mechanics of dubious financing are varied. An outright donation is easily taxable unless it's channeled through an NGO that enjoys tax exemptions. The recent changes under Modi’s regime have made this route more stringent. Moreover, news platforms cannot qualify as NGOs.

A prevalent maneuver is the issuance of shares to overseas investors at exorbitant premiums. For instance, a nascent private firm, devoid of any significant revenue or a product line, might sell a Rs10 share at an astronomical Rs.11,000. This influx is treated as capital, thus evading taxation.

Subsequently, significant portions of these funds could be used to appease international stakeholders, recorded as a loss or reduced income, thereby achieving further tax cuts.

To their credit, the UPA government did recognize these loopholes. Their tenure saw protests like the Church-backed anti-Kudankulam demonstrations. Consequently, P Chidambaram introduced a stringent law that considered such questionable receipts as taxable income. This law, however, inadvertently affected genuine startups. In an effort to flag the dubious 1%, the regulations stifled 99% of honest businesses, some of which had to shutter due to financial constraints.

Regrettably, subsequent administrations have not addressed this issue adequately.

These murky financial waters present a daunting challenge for any governing party, whether it's the Congress or the BJP. As reports about platforms like Newsclick emerge, it reinforces the need for robust legal mechanisms. Our administrative machinery needs an overhaul, possibly even integrating private sector expertise, to ensure genuine businesses thrive while keeping the outliers in check. We can draw inspiration from systems like that of Singapore.

Tread Lightly, Act Wisely | Legal confrontations in such matters aren't straightforward. In courts, concrete evidence is paramount, and the leftist agenda often finds substantial sympathy. While average citizens face prolonged judicial processes, certain entities secure swift hearings.

What's the solution | Rash decisions can backfire, enabling these entities to adopt a victim narrative. Mainstream international media and organizations, if provoked, can swiftly change their narrative to one that criticizes the Indian government. Rather than aggressive action, a transparent display of evidence and money trails might be more effective. By shifting the onus of explanation to these entities, public opinion can be influenced more organically.

The prevailing ecosystem is extensive and deeply entrenched.

For effective communication, the Modi administration should approach the citizens directly, ensuring transparency.

At its core, transparency means putting forth a clear and undeniable evidence of financial transactions. If the government can present a clear trail of funds, showcasing the amount and involved entities, it might shift the burden of explanation. Instead of accusing anyone, just display the facts.

This would transform the narrative. Those who received the funds would be obligated to justify the large sums. Such transparency would not only create doubts among the masses but could also sow discord within the ecosystem itself, especially if disparities in payments are made evident. We've already witnessed internal conflicts when certain entities felt shortchanged. After all, when money is the primary motivator, internal revelations can be particularly entertaining to the public.

Another strategic move is understanding and exploiting the fissures within the leftist coalition. The New York Times' decision to cover certain stories provides insight into their priorities. They're seemingly more focused on supporting a particular political agenda than protecting every stakeholder. Their concerns about China's growing influence might explain this. This is an angle I've touched upon before.

Indian leftist activists seem to be aware of the evolving global dynamics and have accordingly adapted their appearance and language, ensuring their alignment with the 'woke' global narrative, possibly to secure international funding.

While the Modi administration collaborates closely with the West on various fronts, including arms procurement, the QUAD alliance, and reducing China's influence in tech and medicine, they should be cautious. The government should actively highlight the allegiance of some Indian leftists to Beijing, emphasizing its deep-rooted nature, and how it contradicts the global 'woke' narrative. If successful, this could potentially restrict funding channels. However, it's disheartening to note that there's little evidence suggesting such a strategy is in play.

And should concrete evidence emerge linking questionable transactions directly to Beijing, the government should act resolutely. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach.

It's crucial that this issue remains in the public discourse. The leftist control over various media platforms grants them significant power in shaping public memory. My advice to BJP representatives is straightforward – consistently reference this issue whenever addressing the public, especially in debates with opposing voices. This will ensure its relevance at least up to the 2024 elections. Highlighting the contrasting narratives and hypocrisy is essential.

No matter the outcry, the discourse should persistently emphasize transparency, forcing the opposition to address the issue head-on.