Who Gets to Frame the Crisis?

Note:

Written in May 2021 for Making of the Modern World 15 — a media analysis assignment examining how English-language journalism covered the Indian farmer protests. I was a sophomore, watching the protests unfold from a distance, trying to separate the framing from the facts. The essay argues that most coverage was slanted, sensationalized, and not necessarily reflective of an actual human rights violation. Modi repealed the three farm laws in November 2021, six months after I submitted this. I'll let you decide what that does to the argument.

Classified Crisis: The Media’s Bias in Covering the Indian Farmer Protests

In the 21st century, media has exponentially become more influential; the advent of social media and fast news has exacerbated not only the amount of information, but also the variety of biases that come with journalism. Although it cannot be said that English-language media (ELM) is the root of these issues, it is necessary to focus specifically on the way communication in ELM has impacted perspectives with respect to current events. To accomplish this, the recent debate pertaining to famer’s rights in India can be analyzed; select ELM regard the crisis as a violation of human rights. 

As per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 23, everyone has the right to “just and favorable conditions of work.” Along with this comes the perception of human dignity, which would entail a balance of objective and empathetic decision making, especially when it pertains to one’s livelihood (Hughes). The question at hand is whether or not the media has unfairly created the viewpoint that Article 23 has been infringed as a result of the Indian government’s decision to increase private involvement in the agricultural sector. Based on this query, although there is an agricultural crisis at hand, most media coverage of the farmer’s protests is biased against the Indian government, utilizing tactics such as vivid imagery and incendiary phrasing in order to sensationalize the news, thereby creating the impression of a human rights violation. 

To understand the influence of ELM, it is imperative to first understand the conflict at hand. Agriculture has long been a foundational aspect of Indian society, accounting for over half the population’s livelihood (Bhargava). Despite criticism for power imbalances, the farming industry in North India, specifically Punjab, currently utilizes a “middleman,” or “arthiya,” in order to manage sales (Bhargava). The system also has a “minimum support price” and “heavy government regulation” to sustain farmers in the event of price drops and competition (Bhargava). In recent years, there has been tension due to the demands of the international economy, resulting in corporate mass-production, thereby decreasing the value of traditional farming. Furthermore, the upward trend of farming families living below the poverty line has increased suicide rates (Mujib,et al.). In response, the Modi government declared that they would back out of the sector, allowing for more private investment, “freeing farmers” from the restraints of state and national restrictions (Mujib, et al.). There were three farming laws passed in September 2020 that “facilitated interstate trade, contract farming, and direct marketing;” essentially, farmers can sell “directly to private entities” and will not be controlled by the arthiya system (Bhargava). In fact, the laws passed were aimed at improving the lifestyle of farmers (along with the economy), which would maintain their dignity and traditions in the face of a globalized economy (Hughes). However, this economic venture resulted in severe backlash, since farmers fear that the removal of already “insufficient” protections would leave them “at the mercy of greedy corporations” (Mujib, et al.). This has since led to several protests by and on behalf of the farmers, causing unrest in an already pandemic-stricken country. While the problem itself seems to stem from a misinterpretation of the government’s intentions, the media hailstorm has spotlighted a “lack” of humanitarianism with regards to the handling of the protests. Given the situation at hand, the question of whether the protests are a response to a government-sanctioned human rights violation -- specifically that of unfair working conditions and livelihood restrictions -- must be tackled through a careful analysis of ELM coverage. 

The article, “Why are Farmers Protesting in India,” written by Mashal Mujib is unique because, although generally objective, it seems to be slightly biased in favor of the government and law enforcement. It objectively states both stances, but highlights the idea that the violent uprising in Delhi was contrary to the “expected” protest (Mujib, et al.). In fact, the author states that farmers “claimed,” which frames their side skeptically, and that the police “said,” showing a deviation from the incendiary language usually used by social media activists and western media. From the sound of this article, there seems to be no violation of human rights at play, and the issue is rooted in misinterpretation, thereby providing a counter to the proposed thesis. Although Mujib’s article does not support the notion of a humanitarian crisis, there are several other articles showing that ELM coverage is biased towards the farmers, framing the situation negatively. 

In the New York Times article, "India's Farmers Agree with Modi on Change, but Not on Changes,” it is evident that there is an anti-change stance, and the authors have utilized a manner of storytelling that evokes sympathy for the farmers, thereby creating the impression of a violation of the 23rd Article of the UDHR. For example, the following passage can be analyzed (Schmall and Singh):

“Jaswinder Singh Gill had plowed 20 years of savings...into his family's nearly 40-acre plot... He has eked rice out of the sandy, loamy soil with the help of generous government subsidies for 15 years, in hopes that his son and daughter may someday become the sixth generation to work the land. Then India suddenly transformed the way it farms.”

This passage alone could create dissent with regards to the laws passed. By drafting a narrative about a family business as well as using terms such as “eked,” the authors have created a compelling argument against Modi's venture. Rather than discussing the effects of the laws on family farms, the article covered a specific family’s impending struggles. While specificity may be a commonly used trope in journalism, here, it sets an inherently biased tone that influences the reader negatively. This is followed by statements regarding the way that  the government has “cut off internet access for protesters” as well as “suppressed[ed] criticism” from supporters (Schmall and Singh). The article then quotes a distinguished independent economist, Devinder Sharma, who said that “agriculture in India does need change” but “this isn’t the way forward” (Schmall and Singh). This specific line makes it clear to the reader that the Indian government isn’t paying heed to the necessities required to provide a “favorable” working condition for farmers (Article 23).  Overall, utilizing this narrative frame essentially pushes forth the perspective of a humanitarian crisis, without regard for the actual facts of the event. 

An article from The Times of India, "Punjab farmers happy with DBT, but want arthiyas in system," discusses how farmers didn’t ask for a change from the current system -- it provided a sense of tradition and allowed them to be somewhat shielded from large corporations. Author Kamal Neel primarily describes the way that arthiyas are important to the current system because they manage the transactions between the farmers and distributors. These “middlemen” can sometimes appear to be taking advantage of the farmers, but they also support them and purchase essential commodities (Neel). This barter system is the foundation of the current agricultural sector, and Neel attempts to emphasize this point throughout the entire article. Although he does admit that there is a tense relationship between the arthiyas and farmers, which could be improved, his bias is evident with regards to the protests. Even the title, which includes the word “happy” alongside “want,” shows the duality of the situation; it is not possible to remain rooted in the old system but the media, as well as the supporters of the situation, want a middle ground rather than conceding to the government’s laws. Along with this lies the concept of pushback against the way in which the laws were passed; the article states that by utilizing the “ordinance route,” due diligence was not followed (Neel). Essentially, the article provides the farmer’s perspective in an attempt to be objective, yet has an underlying bias that causes the reader to think about how the laws and reaction to protests could be in violation of “favorable working conditions,” otherwise known as Article 23. 

On the other end of the spectrum lies an entirely incendiary article published by The Times in London, in which the author Hugh Tomlinson not only frames the entire situation as a violation of human rights, but displays a deep dislike for the Indian government and its leaders. One clear indication of this viewpoint comes from Tomlinson’s use of the phrase “romped to power” when describing the way in which Modi established his government. The cynicism, not lost on the reader, is a perfect framework to create the idea that there is a humanitarian crisis at hand, when an objective analysis could prove otherwise.

The imagery in the article is also important; it creates a callback to other human rights protests (primarily through the raised fists) that should be fresh in a reader’s mind. This effectively links the situations, escalating an issue that, if objectively discussed, might be portrayed differently. 

From the articles and journals analyzed, there doesn’t seem to be a clear correlation between the location of the newspaper and its framing of the situation, although they are all English-language publications. However, it is evident that there is a wide spectrum of perspectives present, which not only amplifies the idea that an objective analysis of the situation would show a lack of a humanitarian crisis, but also that there is no real “hindrance” to the 23rd Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Rather, there seems to be a drastic misinterpretation and lack of trust in a system that, if resolved, would allow for things to settle down and proceed in a peaceful manner. All of the aforementioned publications did agree on the fact that the Indian agricultural system is in dire need of reformation, but none were able to definitively prove that there is anything more “sinister” to the situation. This goes to show that the media has unduly created a hailstorm of negative bias through biased word choice and narrative, along with some choice imagery, in order to create a human rights crisis, where none exists. Although nothing can be done about the strong impact of English language media on the relation of information, it should be noted that bias not only exists, but affects the portrayal of situations, creating obstacles to objectivity and resolution. 

Works Cited:

Schmall, Emily, and Karan D. Singh. "India's Farmers Agree with Modi on Change, but Not on Changes: [Foreign Desk]." New York Times, Mar 24, 2021. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/indias-farmers-agree-with-modi-on-change-not/docview/2504194949/se-2?accountid=14524.

Kamal, Neel. "Punjab farmers happy with DBT, but want arthiyas in system." Times of India, The (Mumbai, India), sec. Chandigarh, 24 Apr. 2021. NewsBank: Access World News (Formerly America's Newspapers), infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=AWNB&docref=news/1820D2358F0CFF30. 

Mashal, Mujib, et al. “Why Are Farmers Protesting in India?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/world/asia/india-farmer-protest.html. 

Mashal, Mujib, and Hari Kumar. “Indian Farmers Vow to Continue Protest, Unappeased by Court Ruling.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/world/asia/india-farmers-protest-court-law.html. 

Tomlinson, Hugh. "FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT - Thousands of angry farmers surround Delhi to protest at new agriculture laws. For once, Narendra Modi looks rattled." Times, The (London, England), 02 ed., sec. News, 14 Dec. 2020, p. 40. NewsBank: Access World News (Formerly America's Newspapers), infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=AWNB&docref=news/17F5D3503ACA00C8. 

Rohan Bhargava. “The Economics Behind the Punjab Farmer Protests in India.” Michigan Journal of Economics, 14 Apr. 2021, sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2021/03/03/the-economics-behind-the-punjab-farmer-protests-in-india/. 

Hughes, Glenn. “THE CONCEPT OF DIGNITY IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 39, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1–24. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23020122. Accessed 19 May 2021.