Full Post Style – Page 372

Home
Full Post Style

भाषा नीति पर राज्यों के मुख्यमंत्रियों में मतभेद

रुसेन कुमार

रायपुर: हमारे देश में भाषाई विविधता है। 1,600 से अधिक भाषाएँ और बोलियाँ प्रचलित हैं। भाषाई बहुलता शिक्षा नीति को जटिल और संवेदनशील बना रही है। राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति (2020) में शामिल किया गया तीन-भाषा फार्मूला विद्यार्थियों को तीन भाषाएं सीखने का अवसर देता है, जिनमें कम से कम दो भारतीय भाषाएँ होती हैं —एक क्षेत्रीय भाषा, फिर हिंदी और अंग्रेज़ी।

यह फार्मूला एक बार और राजनीतिक विवाद का केंद्र बन गया है। हाल के दिनों में विभिन्न राज्यों के मुख्यमंत्रियों ने इस पर अलग-अलग रुख अपनाए हैं। भाषाएँ सांस्कृतिक गर्व और राजनीतिक समीकरणों में शामिल हो गई हैं । यह बहस राष्ट्रीय एकता और क्षेत्रीय पहचान के बीच टकराव बनती नजर आ रही हैं, क्योंकि कुछ राज्य इसका सीधा विरोध कर रहे हैं, जबकि कुछ बहुभाषिक शिक्षा को बढ़ावा दे रहे हैं।

दक्षिणी राज्यों का विरोध: तमिलनाडु की दो-भाषा नीति

तमिलनाडु इस फार्मूले का प्रखर विरोधी रहा है। राज्य 1968 से दो-भाषा नीति (तमिल और अंग्रेज़ी) का पालन कर रहा है और केंद्र सरकार के इस प्रयास को अपनी भाषाई पहचान पर खतरा मानता है। मुख्यमंत्री एम. के. स्टालिन ने एनईपी के भाषा प्रावधान को लागू नहीं करने की बात कही है और इसे सांस्कृतिक अस्तित्व और राज्य अधिकार का मामला बताया है। उन्होंने विधानसभा में कहा, “ये दो भाषाएँ ही पर्याप्त हैं… हम किसी भी प्रभुत्वशाली भाषा को तमिल को नष्ट करने की अनुमति नहीं देंगे।”

21 अप्रैल को स्टालिन ने एक्स पर लिखा: “हिंदी को तीसरी भाषा के रूप में थोपने पर जबरदस्त विरोध के बाद महाराष्ट्र के मुख्यमंत्री देवेंद्र फडणवीस अब कह रहे हैं कि राज्य में केवल मराठी अनिवार्य है। यह गैर-हिंदी भाषी राज्यों पर हिंदी थोपने के खिलाफ जनता की व्यापक निंदा से उनकी घबराहट को दर्शाता है।”

कर्नाटक में भी नेताओं ने हिंदी थोपने की आलोचना की है, भले ही वहाँ अभी तक तीन-भाषा प्रणाली लागू है। दक्षिण भारत में तमिलनाडु की खुली अस्वीकृति से लेकर कर्नाटक में बढ़ते विरोध तक, यह रुख क्षेत्रीय गौरव और सांस्कृतिक सरोकारों से प्रेरित दिखाई पड़ रहे है।

बहुभाषिकता का समर्थन: हिंदी भाषी और अन्य राज्य

वहीं दूसरी ओर, कई हिंदीभाषी और भाजपा शासित राज्य इस फार्मूले का समर्थन करते दिखाई दे रहे हैं। वे इसे सभी भाषाओं का सम्मान करने वाली एकीकृत नीति मानते हैं। उत्तर प्रदेश के मुख्यमंत्री योगी आदित्यनाथ इस पक्ष के प्रमुख चेहरा हैं। वे कहते हैं, “यूपी में हम तमिल, तेलुगु, मलयालम, कन्नड़, बंगाली और मराठी पढ़ा रहे हैं – क्या इससे यूपी छोटा हो गया है?” वे कहते हैं कि विभिन्न भाषाओं को अपनाने से राज्य में नए अवसर पैदा हुए हैं और आलोचकों पर “संकीर्ण राजनीति” करने का आरोप लगाते हैं।

महाराष्ट्र में हिंदी थोपने की कोशिश पर यू-टर्न

दबाव में घिरे महाराष्ट्र के मुख्यमंत्री देवेन्द्र फडनवीस ने 17 अप्रैल को हिंदी को तीसरी भाषा के रूप में अनिवार्य बनाने का फैसला वापस ले लिया। महाराष्ट्र के स्कूल शिक्षा मंत्री दादाजी भूसे ने कैबिनेट बैठक के बाद घोषणा की, “अनिवार्य शब्द को हटाया जाएगा… तीन-भाषा फार्मूला बरकरार रहेगा, लेकिन यदि किसी कक्षा में पर्याप्त छात्र कोई अन्य भाषा चाहते हैं, तो स्कूल को वह विकल्प देना होगा।” सरकार के 16 अप्रैल के आदेश के तुरंत बाद राजनीतिक, सामाजिक और सांस्कृतिक हलकों से भारी विरोध हुआ। यह निर्णय ऐसे समय में आया जब तमिलनाडु पहले ही इसी विषय पर विरोध कर रहा था, जिससे महाराष्ट्र सरकार की स्थिति और कठिन हो गई।

विविध रास्ते और जन प्रतिक्रिया

इन दो ध्रुवों के बीच कुछ राज्य अपना स्वतंत्र रास्ता चुन रहे हैं। पश्चिम बंगाल ने तीन-भाषा फार्मूला को लचीलापन देते हुए लागू किया है, जिससे उसे राजनीतिक समर्थन भी मिला है। तृणमूल कांग्रेस के एक विधायक ने कहा, “यह फार्मूला छात्रों को क्षेत्रीय और राष्ट्रीय भाषाएँ सीखने में सक्षम बनाता है,” और हर भाषा को उचित सम्मान देता है। इस नीति के स्थानीयकरण के कारण राज्य में गंभीर भाषा विवाद नहीं हुआ, और बहुभाषिक शिक्षा को लेकर आम जनता का दृष्टिकोण सकारात्मक है, जब तक बंगाली भाषा को प्रमुखता दी जाती है।
कुल मिलाकर, नीति का कार्यान्वयन राज्यों के हाथों में है, और वे इसे अपनी भाषाई संवेदनशीलता के अनुरूप अपनाने की राह तलाश रहे हैं।

The Plight of Honest Content Creators: The Case of Rachit Kaushik and Sab Loktantra

In the dynamic world of digital media, YouTube has emerged as a powerful platform for voices that challenge mainstream narratives, expose uncomfortable truths, and engage audiences with unfiltered perspectives. However, the journey of content creators who strive to deliver honest and truthful content is often fraught with challenges, from algorithmic biases to legal and institutional harassment. The contrasting fates of Sanjay Sharma’s YouTube channel Four PM and Rachit Kaushik’s Sab Loktantra (also known as Sab Democracy) highlight a troubling disparity in how the digital ecosystem treats creators. While Four PM has seemingly garnered support despite its controversial content, Sab Loktantra was abruptly shut down, and its founder, Rachit Kaushik, faced significant harassment from the Punjab Police. This article delves into Rachit Kaushik’s work, his contributions through Sab Loktantra, the challenges he faced, and the broader implications for honest content creators on YouTube.

Rachit Kaushik and Sab Loktantra: A Voice for Truth

Rachit Kaushik, a Delhi-based YouTuber and political satirist, founded Sab Loktantra, a platform that positioned as a bold voice for truth and democracy. Known by his alias “Baba,” Kaushik built a reputation for his incisive commentary on political figures and social issues, often using satire to critique corruption and governance failures. Kaushik’s videos were regarded as masterpieces of modern political satire, blending humor with sharp insights to engage his audience.

Sab Loktantra focused on exposing systemic issues, including alleged corruption by prominent political figures. One of his notable videos reportedly discussed the income of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s son, allegedly earned through renting gym equipment to the Chief Minister’s residence. This video, shared by an X handle called “noconversion,” sparked significant controversy and is believed to have contributed to the events that followed. Kaushik’s work resonated with audiences who valued his courage to speak truth to power, particularly in an era where mainstream media is often accused of complacency or bias.

The Arrest and Harassment

On February 6, 2024, Rachit Kaushik’s life took a dramatic turn when he was arrested by the Punjab Police in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, while attending his niece’s wedding. The arrest was abrupt and, according to Kaushik’s family and supporters, lacked transparency. Kaushik’s wife recounted that a white Scorpio vehicle suddenly blocked their car, and a man in civilian clothing forcibly took Kaushik away. The family was not immediately provided with a warrant, and it took time for them to learn that the Punjab Police had acted on a First Information Report (FIR) filed in Ludhiana.

The FIR, based on a complaint by Alisha Sultan, a pastor at the Church of God in Ludhiana, accused an X handle, “noconversion,” of posting content that hurt the religious sentiments of the Christian community. The complaint cited derogatory remarks against Christian women and nuns, alleging that such posts could incite communal tensions. However, the FIR did not explicitly mention Kaushik or Sab Loktantra, raising questions about the basis of his arrest. Investigations by OpIndia revealed that the only connection between Kaushik and the “noconversion” handle was a single video about Kejriwal’s son, which had been reshared by the account. There was no evidence that Kaushik directly managed the handle or posted the alleged offensive content.

Kaushik was charged under Sections 295-A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), 153-A (promoting enmity between groups), 153 (provocation to cause riot), 504 (intentional insult), and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Following his arrest, he was produced in court and sent to a two-day police remand. The incident sparked outrage among his supporters, who flooded social media with hashtags like “Justice for Baba,” “Rachit Kaushik Kidnapped,” and “Justice for Sab Lok Tantra Baba,” alleging that the arrest was a politically motivated attempt to silence Kaushik’s criticism of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

The Closure of Sab Loktantra

The harassment did not end with Kaushik’s arrest. Sab Loktantra’s YouTube channel, which had been a cornerstone of his work, was shut down overnight, a move that many believe was orchestrated to suppress his voice. Kaushik’s channel had faced repeated bans in the past, forcing him to restart multiple times. Each time, he rebuilt his platform with determination, but the final closure was a devastating blow. Unlike Four PM, which has continued to operate despite controversies and allegations of being a national security threat, Sab Loktantra received little institutional or public support. The silence from the broader media ecosystem and digital platforms was deafening, leaving Kaushik and his supporters to fight alone battle.

The closure of Sab Loktantra raises critical questions about the role of social media platforms in moderating content. While platforms like YouTube claim to uphold community standards, critics argue that their algorithms and moderation policies often disproportionately target voices that challenge powerful interests. Kaushik’s satirical content, while provocative, was grounded in factual reporting and aimed at holding public figures accountable. Yet, his channel faced repeated deletions, while others with questionable credibility continued to thrive.

The Broader Implications for Content Creators

Rachit Kaushik’s experience is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a larger issue facing honest content creators on YouTube. The digital landscape is increasingly hostile to those who dare to speak truth to power, particularly in politically charged environments. Creators like Kaushik face multiple challenges:

Institutional Harassment: Kaushik’s arrest, allegedly under the pretext of hurting religious sentiments, highlights how legal mechanisms can be weaponized to silence dissent. The vague nature of the FIR and the lack of direct evidence linking Kaushik to the “noconversion” handle suggest a targeted approach to curb his influence.

Platform Bias: Social media platforms, driven by algorithms and moderation policies, often exhibit biases that favor certain narratives while penalizing others. Kaushik’s repeated channel bans contrast sharply with the resilience of channels like Four PM, which have faced bans but continue to operate with apparent support.

Lack of Support: Unlike mainstream media outlets or creators with institutional backing, independent YouTubers like Kaushik often lack the resources to fight legal battles or navigate platform bans. The silence from the media and digital community during Kaushik’s ordeal underscores the isolation faced by such creators.

Public Perception and Polarization: Kaushik’s arrest was framed by some as a legitimate action against hate speech, while his supporters viewed it as an attack on free speech. This polarization complicates the narrative, making it harder for honest creators to gain widespread support.

Will Honest Creators Face the Same Fate?

The contrasting trajectories of Four PM and Sab Loktantra raise a troubling question: Will content creators who strive for honesty and truth always face the same fate as Rachit Kaushik? The answer depends on several factors, including the political climate, platform policies, and the willingness of audiences to support independent voices. While Four PM has been criticized for its sensationalist content, its ability to navigate bans and controversies suggests a level of institutional or systemic tolerance that Sab Loktantra was denied.

Rachit Kaushik’s story is a stark reminder of the challenges faced by content creators who dare to speak truth in a polarized and often hostile digital landscape. Through Sab Loktantra, Kaushik carved a niche as a fearless satirist, exposing corruption and holding power to account. Yet, his arrest by the Punjab Police and the closure of his channel underscore the vulnerabilities of independent creators. The silence that greeted his ordeal, contrasted with the apparent support for channels like Four PM, highlights a troubling disparity in the digital ecosystem. As YouTube continues to shape public discourse, the fate of creators like Kaushik will depend on collective efforts to protect free speech, challenge institutional biases, and foster an environment where truth can thrive without fear of retribution. Until then, Kaushik’s experience serves as both a cautionary tale and a call to action for those who believe in the power of honest storytelling.

Monitored on One Hand, Mentored on the Other: India’s Baffling BBC Paradox

I remember reading this headline just few days back: “MEA’s XP Division to Monitor BBC Coverage.” My immediate thought was—here we go again. The BBC, long the target of governmental unease in India, was back in the crosshairs. This time, it was over semantics—referring to armed terrorists in Pahalgam as “militants.” The outrage was swift, coordinated, and quietly confirmed by high-level whispers to The Times of India, India Today, Hindustan Times, and others. No official press release, no open rebuke—just off-the-record confirmations that a “notice” had been issued and that the Ministry of External Affairs was now officially watching.

But here’s where the story veers into territory almost too ironic to be true.

Around the same time this backlash was building steam, I came across another announcement. A curious name showed up on the WAVEX 2025 Startup Booth Allocation list—Collective Newsroom Pvt. Ltd. A relatively unknown company was granted a coveted investment pitch opportunity under an initiative backed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. I rubbed my eyes and read the line again. The very ecosystem that’s supposedly clamping down on BBC narratives was simultaneously funding and showcasing its Indian proxy?

And here’s the real kicker: while millions of Indians go gung-ho over BBC’s content—sharing it, quoting it, swearing by it—how many of them actually know who produces all that content for BBC in India today?

The answer: Collective Newsroom, a company that is now the sole content provider for BBC News in six Indian languages—Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu—as well as English videos for BBC News India’s YouTube channel. But the company’s journey is as murky as it is meteoric.

Let’s rewind. Collective Newsroom Private Limited was incorporated on 27 October 2023, with two individuals—Prabhkirtan Singh Sehgal and Rashi Sehgal—as its directors. Yet strangely, when CEO Rupa Jha introduces herself online—including in her LinkedIn bio—she refers to herself as the “co-founder” of the company. The public records tell a different story. The Sehgals are the actual founders. No official filings (like Form DIR-12) exist to document how or when the BBC’s ex-editors, including Jha, were inducted as directors.

On 10 November 2023, a new entity—Connected Newsroom Holdings Private Limited—was incorporated. Barely a month later, on 11 December 2023, this holding company acquired 100% ownership of Collective Newsroom. Then, on 23 December 2023, four former BBC editors—Rupa Jha, Mukesh Sharma, Sanjoy Majumder, and Sara Hasan—were appointed as directors. Again, there’s been no legally mandated ROC disclosure of this transfer.

The most astonishing detail? On 20 March 2024, when Collective Newsroom was just five months old, it bought the BBC World Service Language Business of BBC World Service India Private Limited via a Business Transfer Agreement. The deal’s financial terms were never disclosed publicly.

Three weeks later, on 10 April 2024, the company was launched to the public as BBC’s exclusive Indian partner for content creation.

Their CEO, Rupa Jha, has tried to position the venture as an extension of the BBC’s editorial legacy, stating:
“We will keep the BBC Editorial Guidelines in mind when producing content for them, such as the kind of journalism the BBC practices. Upholding the trust in the BBC brand is our responsibility to carry forward.”

But here’s the uncomfortable contradiction: this entire restructuring came after the BBC’s offices in India were raided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in early 2023. The raids followed income tax surveys and were linked to alleged violations of India’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules—regulations that the BBC, ironically, seemed either unwilling or unable to fully comply with.

This isn’t just about technical compliance. It’s about transparency, a value the BBC claims to champion. And yet, there has been no public disclosure of the terms under which the BBC offloaded its language services to a six-month-old Indian company—one that had never before handled editorial operations at this scale. For a global media house that often lectures others on openness and accountability, the BBC’s silence on the nature of this transaction is staggeringly hypocritical.

Even as the Indian government allegedly watches BBC’s editorial tone with hawk eyes, it enables Collective Newsroom, its surrogate, to flourish under a taxpayer-supported initiative like WAVEX.

No Startup Pitch results were ever declared. Yet this newly rechristened media outfit secured a booth and investment pitch opportunity under WAVEX 2025—a platform funded and endorsed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

So I ask again—how can one wing of the Indian government surveil an international media brand for its reporting practices while another simultaneously promotes, funds, and legitimizes its rebranded Indian outpost?

As a citizen, I’m left bewildered. The messaging is muddled. Either BBC is a problematic influence in India—or it’s a trusted content partner deserving of institutional support. But surely, it can’t be both.

In today’s India, where trust in media is either weaponized or subsidized, perhaps this paradox is the only consistency left.

Revised Copy: https://mediascan.in/monitored-on-one-hand-mentored-on-the-other-indias-baffling-bbc-paradox-2/

BBC Under Scrutiny and Support: The Curious Case of Collective Newsroom

Vedansh Pandey

Even as the Government of India reportedly monitors BBC’s coverage of Kashmir, its newly formed Indian content partner — Collective Newsroom Pvt. Ltd. — has been showcased and promoted through a Ministry of Information and Broadcasting-backed startup platform.

The Ministry of External Affairs’ XP Division has reportedly begun monitoring BBC’s reporting, especially after the broadcaster referred to terrorists in Pahalgam as “militants.” Multiple mainstream outlets, including The Times of India and India Today, have cited unnamed officials confirming that a notice was issued to the BBC.

Meanwhile, Collective Newsroom Pvt. Ltd., which now produces all of BBC’s Indian language content, was allotted a booth and investment pitch opportunity at WAVEX 2025, a media-tech startup showcase endorsed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

The BBC had earlier faced “surveys” by the Income Tax Department and investigations by the Enforcement Directorate in 2023, reportedly for violations of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules. The broadcaster subsequently restructured its India operations by transferring its language service business to Collective Newsroom.

Collective Newsroom was incorporated on 27 October 2023 with Prabhkirtan Singh Sehgal and Rashi Sehgal as its original directors. It was acquired just six weeks later, on 11 December 2023, by Connected Newsroom Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

On 23 December 2023, four former BBC editors — Rupa Jha, Mukesh Sharma, Sanjoy Majumder, and Sara Hasan — were appointed as directors. However, no DIR-12 filings reflecting this change are visible in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs database.

On 20 March 2024, Collective Newsroom — at the time just under 6 months old — acquired the BBC World Service Language Business from BBC World Service India Pvt. Ltd. The value and terms of this Business Transfer Agreement remain undisclosed.

The BBC has confirmed it has applied to acquire a 26% stake in Collective Newsroom — a first-of-its-kind equity arrangement globally for the public broadcaster. Whether funding has been transferred remains unclear.

Despite no public announcement of WAVEX 2025 pitch selections, Collective Newsroom was allotted Booth 4 and listed among selected startups, raising questions about selection transparency.

While CEO Rupa Jha has positioned Collective Newsroom as an independent venture that adheres to BBC’s editorial values, even quoting: “We will keep the BBC Editorial Guidelines in mind… Upholding the trust in the BBC brand is our responsibility to carry forward,” the company’s opaque formation process raises important questions.

Despite being relatively unknown before 2024, Collective Newsroom now handles content for BBC News Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Tamil, Telugu, and BBC India’s YouTube channel. Yet, its ownership history, lack of statutory filings, and unexplained directorial changes create significant transparency gaps.

There is also the unresolved contradiction in the government’s position. While one wing of the state allegedly scrutinizes the BBC’s editorial choices, another provides institutional support and platform access to its surrogate via a state-sponsored startup initiative.

This case raises urgent questions about regulatory consistency, editorial independence, and public transparency:

Why has the government not articulated a unified position on the BBC’s operations?

What is the rationale for facilitating pitch opportunities for an entity associated with a broadcaster under formal scrutiny?

And how does the BBC, which often promotes transparency and democratic values in other countries, explain the lack of public disclosure in its own restructuring process in India?

Until these contradictions are addressed, India’s media governance narrative — and the BBC’s — remain riddled with unanswered questions.

MenuMenu