Senior journalist and television anchor Rajdeep Sardesai has once again tendered a public apology for broadcasting false and defamatory news, this time related to a sting operation involving BJP councillor Ajit Singh Tokas.

FYI. pic.twitter.com/zA4apfyOnG

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) October 13, 2025

Apology to former BJP Councillor Ajit Singh Tokas

Sardesai issued a public apology 14 years after a programme titled ‘IBN7 and Cobra Post Investigation’ aired on November 7 and 6, 2011, as part of a series called ‘Dilli’s Double Agents’. The show alleged that former BJP councillor Ajit Singh Tokas had demanded money in connection with unauthorized construction in Munirka, Delhi.

Subsequent third-party investigations found that Tokas had not demanded any money and that such practices were not tolerated in his ward. Sardesai, in his apology note, stated that his role was limited to anchoring the programme based on the investigation.

Rajdeep Sardesai tendered a public apology for airing malicious allegations of corruption against a BJP Councillor.

This is not the first time he has done it.

He has issued a similar apology to an IPS officer who was wrongly named in the Sohrabuddin encounter case. pic.twitter.com/uPQFwJ0Vcs

— Rishi Bagree (@rishibagree) October 13, 2025

History of Misreporting and Selective Coverage

Sardesai’s record includes multiple instances of misreporting:

During the UPA I government, he allegedly withheld the full broadcast of a sting exposing the cash-for-votes scandal related to the 2008 Nuclear Bill trust vote. BJP MPs Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulaste, and Mahavir Bhagora had claimed to possess cash offered to sway their votes. The partial telecast led to allegations of selective editing and media manipulation.

Former colleagues reported that Sardesai, along with Ashutosh (then heading the Hindi channel and later co-founder of the Aam Aadmi Party), did not allow the full sting to be aired, which could have potentially brought down the UPA government.

An ultimate example of Rajdeep Sardesai’s ‘ethical journalism’!

Listen to how Rajdeep did not broadcast the sting tapes in 2008 cash for votes scam pic.twitter.com/IR0F4E01fS

— Shreya Arora (@shreya_arora22) March 28, 2025

Sardesai was awarded the Padma Shri in journalism by the UPA government in 2008.

Sohrabuddin Encounter Case Apology

In May 2007, Rajdeep Sardesai, then Editor-in-Chief of CNN-IBN, aired a programme titled ‘30 Minutes – Sohrabuddin: The Inside Story’, alleging that IPS officer Rajiv Trivedi had facilitated the abduction and fake encounter killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife Kausar Bi. The programme claimed that Trivedi provided cars with fake number plates for the alleged transfer of the couple to Ahmedabad.

A complaint was filed in Hyderabad court against Sardesai and ten other reporters, claiming that the report was false, fabricated, and defamatory. Efforts to quash the case through the Hyderabad High Court were dismissed in April 2011, and the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition in May 2015. A plea to transfer the trial to Noida was also dismissed.

On November 27, 2019, Sardesai submitted an unconditional apology to IPS officer Rajiv Trivedi, acknowledging that the allegations against him were false. He stated, “…I realise that there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that Vanzara and Pandian nabbed Sohrabuddin and Kauserbi in Bidar with the help from SP Rajiv Trivedi of Hyderabad, Special Investigation Unit, and hence it was a false news telecast… I further submit that there is nothing to substantiate the allegation that Rajiv Trivedi provided cars with fake number plates in which Sohrabuddin was brought to Ahmedabad and then killed in a fake encounter.”

Following the apology, Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge D. Hemanth Kumar accepted it and passed an acquittal order the same day, noting that all respondents tendered unconditional apologies and were found not guilty under Section 500 of the IPC.

More recently, Sardesai was penalized for falsely claiming that a protesting farmer had been shot dead by police in Delhi, which led to him being taken off air and docked a month’s salary.

Despite his long record of misinformation, Sardesai continues to be a prominent anchor on India Today, raising concerns about the credibility of primetime news on the channel.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Rajdeep Sardesai Apologizes To BJP Councillor 14 Years After Telecasting False Corruption Claims appeared first on The Commune.

The recent shoe-throwing incident at Chief Justice of India Justice Gavai has once again exposed the glaring double standards in Indian journalism, particularly embodied by senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. His contrasting reactions to similar incidents separated by sixteen years reveal a pattern of selective outrage that aligns perfectly with political narratives rather than journalistic principles.

Shoe Throwing Attempt

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai on 6 October 2025 faced an attempted shoe-hurling incident in court but decided not to take any action against the lawyer involved, instead directing officials to “just ignore” the episode.

Reportedly, after security personnel intervened and escorted the lawyer out of the courtroom, officials sought the CJI’s instructions on the future course of action. “Just ignore,” the CJI told them, asking that the lawyer be warned and let go. The lawyer was later identified as Rakesh Kishore.

The dramatic scene unfolded during the mentioning of cases before the CJI’s Bench, when Kishore suddenly approached the dais and tried to take off his shoe. As he was being taken away, he was heard shouting: “Sanatan ka apman nahi sahenge (We will not tolerate any insult to Sanatan).”

The incident comes in the wake of a recent controversy over the CJI’s reported remarks during a hearing last month, when a Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran declined to entertain a plea filed by one Rakesh Dalal. Dalal had sought directions to restore a seven-foot beheaded idol of Lord Vishnu at the Javari temple, part of the Khajuraho group of monuments in Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioner had argued that the idol was mutilated during Mughal invasions and that authorities had failed to restore it despite repeated representations. The court held that the issue fell within the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and not the judiciary. During the hearing, the CJI reportedly told the petitioner’s lawyer: “Go ask the deity itself to do something now. You say you are a staunch devotee of Lord Vishnu. So go and pray now. It’s an archaeological site and ASI needs to give permission etc. Sorry.”

Rajdeep Sardesai’s Two Faces

Here’s how Rajdeep reacted to the two instances of shoe hurling.

In 2009, when a Sikh journalist named Jarnail Singh hurled a shoe at then Home Minister P. Chidambaram in protest against the Congress government’s handling of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Sardesai’s response was one of empathy. He wrote, “Jarnail is a remarkably calm man. Something snapped in him the day he threw the shoe. Lost his job, but not his self-esteem.”
The tone was understanding, even sympathetic – a portrayal of moral outrage as human and perhaps justified.

Fast forward to 2025. When a lawyer reportedly attempted to throw a shoe at Chief Justice of India Justice Gavai, claiming he would not tolerate “anti-Sanatan” remarks, Sardesai’s tone was the polar opposite. “TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE behaviour,” he declared. He condemned the act as a symptom of “a culture of caste hatred and religious intolerance being normalised.”

So What Changed?

The difference in tone is striking. In one case, defiance was framed as a moment of personal conviction; in the other, it was branded as proof of religious extremism. Both men committed the same act – throwing a shoe at a powerful public figure – one attempted to throw. Yet one was treated as a man pushed to the edge by injustice, and the other as a dangerous emblem of intolerance.

What changed between 2009 and 2025? Not the act, but the political and ideological context surrounding it. Sardesai’s moral lens seems to shift with the target and the narrative. When the establishment was Congress-led and the protest came from a minority community, it was treated with empathy. When the establishment is judicial and the protest draws from a Hindu civilizational sentiment, it becomes “deeply worrying.”

Such selective outrage undermines journalistic credibility. The role of the press is not to rationalize one act of violence while condemning another, but to apply a consistent moral standard. The inconsistency here does not merely reflect bias; it shapes how society perceives dissent and legitimacy.

If shoe-throwing is wrong, and it should be, it is wrong regardless of the protester’s faith or the ideology invoked. A journalist’s credibility rests on that consistency.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post 2009 vs 2025 – How Rajdeep Sardesai Judges Shoe-Throwing Differently appeared first on The Commune.

Rajdeep Sardesai, one of India’s most prominent journalists, has repeatedly come under criticism for his coverage of some of the gravest attacks on India, particularly the 1993 Bombay blasts orchestrated by Dawood Ibrahim.

The 1993 serial bombings killed 275 innocent people and injured thousands, leaving Mumbai traumatized. Yet, in his commentary, Sardesai often shifted focus away from the perpetrators and the terror network, framing the narrative instead around communal dynamics and the psychology of Indian society.

How many of you remember that Rajdeep Sardesai wrote an article praising and defending Dawood Ibrahim in 1993 soon after the Mumbai bomb blasts which killed 275 innocent people ???

This is how he whitewashes crimes against India pic.twitter.com/o4dRQShHbd

— Rishi Bagree (@rishibagree) September 25, 2025

Just after the blasts, Sardesai wrote an eloquent piece in Times of India back in 1993. He even wrote another piece sort of following up on the ’93 piece in 2013 in Hindustan Times.

Let’s understand the problem with both these articles.

Downplaying Dawood’s Role

Even though Dawood Ibrahim was already a prime suspect in the Bombay blasts, Sardesai emphasized that there was “no prima-facie evidence” implicating him and leaned heavily on the caveat offered by the Bombay Police Commissioner. By highlighting Dawood as a “mythical demon figure” in Hindu militant discourse rather than a criminal mastermind, Sardesai reframed the underworld don in less threatening terms.

In effect, he treated Dawood more as a controversial public figure in Hindu imagination than as a mastermind of a terrorist operation that caused massive loss of life in India. This approach inevitably diluted the perception of the 1993 blasts as a direct attack on India orchestrated by a foreign-backed criminal.

Shifting the Focus to Communal Victimhood

Instead of investigating the planning, financing, and ISI-Pakistan backing of the bombings, Sardesai pivoted the discussion to warning against stigmatizing the entire Muslim community.

He compared post-blast suspicion of Muslims to the treatment of Sikhs after 1984 or Marwaris in Assam, portraying the narrative more as a story of majoritarian hysteria than a matter of national security. While highlighting communal tensions is important, Sardesai’s emphasis came at the cost of underplaying the calculated, terrorist nature of the attack.

Reframing the Underworld as “Cosmopolitan”

Sardesai further argued that Dawood’s network was “cosmopolitan” and profit-driven, pointing out that several of Dawood’s top lieutenants, including Chhota Rajan, were Hindus. While technically true, this framing shifts focus away from the Islamist-terror link and Pakistani involvement, portraying Dawood less as a traitor working against India and more as a mere profiteering gangster.

Normalizing Muslim Alienation as the Root of Terror

Sardesai repeatedly contextualized terrorism as a reaction to Hindu-majority violence or state failure. For example, he linked Dawood’s transformation into an ISI-backed terrorist to the communal riots following the Babri Masjid demolition. Similarly, he drew analogies with the 1984 anti-Sikh pogroms and the 2002 Gujarat riots to argue that violence begets violence. While historical context is important, his narrative effectively justified Dawood’s terrorist actions as a sociological response rather than condemning them as crimes against India.

Praising or Defending Dawood?

Sardesai’s work sometimes borders on what critics describe as indirect defense. In the 2013 Hindustan Times article, he reminded readers that Dawood had once offered Toyota cars to the Indian cricket team in Sharjah if they beat Pakistan.

By portraying Dawood as a cricket fan and framing his actions as part of a broader “inconvenient truth” about riots and societal failures, Sardesai softened the image of India’s most wanted man. He questioned why Dawood became a terrorist, emphasizing the social and communal causes rather than the deliberate, planned betrayal of India orchestrated by Dawood and the ISI.

Selective Attention to Victims

In both the 1993 and 2013 writings, Sardesai highlighted victims of communal violence (1984 Sikhs, 2002 Muslims, Muzaffarnagar Muslims, Kashmiri Pandits) but largely ignored victims of Dawood-backed terrorism, such as the 275 people killed in the Bombay blasts. This selective framing centers on societal failings and communal stereotyping rather than addressing the deliberate targeting of Indian civilians by Dawood’s terror network.

Last Word

By downplaying Dawood’s criminality, reframing terrorism as a reaction to societal failures, and emphasizing communal victimhood, Rajdeep Sardesai’s coverage effectively whitewashed the 1993 Bombay blasts and other acts orchestrated by Dawood. While highlighting communal prejudice is valid, his approach shifts accountability from the perpetrators to Indian society, underplays the scale of terror, and at times even defends or praises Dawood indirectly.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post How Rajdeep Sardesai Whitewashed Dawood Ibrahim’s Crimes Against India appeared first on The Commune.

In what many are calling a glaring example of irresponsible journalism, senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai is under heavy fire for giving a prime-time space to alleged climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, the man widely viewed as the face of the violent unrest in Leh. The interview, which aired in the aftermath of arson and violence in Ladakh’s capital, is being slammed for subtly absolving Wangchuk of responsibility while downplaying the Congress party’s alleged involvement in the protests.

The criticism stems not only from the timing of the interview coming immediately after mob-led violence and arson that left over 80 people injured, many critically, and four dead, with police vans torched and the BJP office set ablaze but also from the way Sardesai framed his questions, which many claim were carefully worded to shift blame away from certain political actors.

Sardesai opened the interview by stating, “What’s happened today is extremely tragic. The agitation that you triggered off with your fast demanding statehood for Ladakh turning violent. The BJP office being burned down. The police vans being attacked and we are told at least four of the protesters have died in the firing. How do you see the events that have happened in the last few hours? Sonam Wangchuk.”

Wangchuk, rather than directly condemning the violence, launched into a narrative that subtly pinned the blame on government inaction and delayed talks. He said, “Rajdeep, this is one of the saddest days in my life generally and particularly during this movement. For the last 5 years, we have maintained utmost peace and always peaceful approaches following Mahatma Gandhi’s path with an many times. This is the fifth time and of five weeks we marched from Leh to Delhi inflicted pain on ourselves but never on others. But today was something totally unexpected out of the blue very organic when youth came out and went on a rampage. I’m extremely saddened about it but at the same time I can understand their frustration because on one hand they have been jobless for the last five years. There have been no almost no jobs particularly at the higher levels and democracy has been curtailed their demands have been unmet. So this frustration was painting you know inside and it started actually not today. It started yesterday when out of the 15 people who are on long fast others on a short one day fast. Out of them one elderly man and an elderly lady on their 14th day of fast were in critical condition and had to be hospitalized. They were taken on stretchers and that boiled their blood. Together with the fact that the government had given a date for talks which was so far away almost unnecessarily like 16 days away from the day it was announced when people are in such critical conditions you don’t keep 16 days away the talk. So people were very upset with this and that was the immediate cause.” 

This narrative, critics argue, dangerously walks the line between justification and denial, with Wangchuk essentially excusing violent actions as an emotional outburst triggered by legitimate grievances, an explanation many feel dangerously normalizes mob violence.

What has further raised eyebrows is Sardesai’s subsequent question that echoed BJP allegations but gave Congress a convenient pass, “You’re saying this is the fury and frustration of the youth. Many of them unemployed, many of them angry that demands are not being met. but we are also hearing the BJP hitting back and now claiming that the protests were organized orchestrated by the Congress. They claim there were Congress council or there was a Congress counselor who was there on the streets going and inciting the violence. Has this protest of yours been taken over by politics and political parties? Is it totally apolitical? Can you say that with confidence that there was no politics involved in the violence?”

Wangchuk responded by firmly denying any political backing and dismissed Congress involvement, claiming they lack the influence to mobilize 5,000 people. This assertion, too, has been questioned especially given the volatile political climate and visible involvement of political elements on the ground. Furthermore, Wangchuk admitted a Congress councillor had expressed “a lot of anger” the day before the violence, but downplayed his role.

He asserted, “Totally. Already you should understand that from the apex body Congress was asked to leave just to keep it apolitical, although it was all political by having all parties. Then BJP exited few years ago there was only Congress and people said it was being politicized. So recently the chairman of the Apex body asked Congress to leave. So they even left the whole forum and therefore it was apolitical and even in the movement these were like 4 (4,000) to 5,000 young people and I know Congress they’re not so competent that one leader of theirs can call 5,000 people that would be too much credit of their influence on the people. They don’t have any such influence. I know and and to correct the fact it’s Not that they were on the road going people. What what it is is that yesterday one Congress counselor did a press conference which was with lot of anger because two of these anshan (hunger strike protesters) people who went in critical conditions was from his own village. So he was expressing that anger that alone.”

In a later statement that many found even more disturbing, Wangchuk seemed to rationalize the burning of police vehicles, saying, “Now police vans being burnt often happens because the police is what stops from carnage and damage to property. So, they come in between.”

Equally troubling was his take on the BJP office being torched, which he blamed on public anger over broken promises, “As for the BJP office, I think people here have a lot of anger against the BJP because in 2020 they had in their manifesto as point number one kept that Ladak will be taken under sixth schedule. They completely took a U-turn, and the next election is supposed to be in October and they’re trying to not keep it this time also. So people have lot of frustration about that even the jobs BJP leaders had you know on on public domain said there’ll be 22,000 jobs there’ll be 6,000 jobs all kinds of promises and hardly a one or 2,000 maybe but nothing like as they promised. So there has been a pentup frustration against them and that’s the only way I can explain.”

Rather than condemning the violence in absolute terms, Wangchuk consistently framed it as an unfortunate but understandable reaction to prolonged dissatisfaction raising serious ethical concerns.

In a moment of stunning irony, Wangchuk later shifted blame to the government for letting the protests escalate ignoring the fact that he himself initiated the agitation and allowed tensions to simmer. He said, “I think it is for the government to also think that they are allowing it to happen in a sensitive border area. They had five years to listen to peaceful ways of expression. You know with the first anshan, second anshan, third anshan they could have settled some of these but they kept dillydallying and you know with wishy-washy solutions and uh people had there were many hints from youth leaders and even uh not so young leaders that uh criticized me actually very badly saying that your path of peace is no use it’s not working at least with this government and we now have to take a different path and they would accuse me for keeping to the peaceful path of anshan. So this was already building up.”

This comment, exposes Wangchuk’s role not just as a peaceful protester but as someone who either miscalculated the direction of his movement or willingly ignored its radical shift.

The interview, aired at a time when tempers are already inflamed and lives have been lost, has been roundly condemned on social media. Many users accused Sardesai of effectively sanitizing the role of both Wangchuk and the Congress party while subtly directing all blame toward the ruling BJP. In a political landscape where Gen Z-led protests like those seen in Nepal are gaining traction, this kind of media portrayal is seen as not just biased but actively harmful.

By giving airtime to incendiary figures without rigorous challenge, and by appearing to sympathize with those linked to violence, the interview is being viewed as an example of journalism that crosses the line from reportage to recklessness.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Rajdeep Sardesai Gives Anarchist Sonam Wangchuk Free Rein When He Justifies Leh Violence, Arson As ‘Frustration’ appeared first on The Commune.

Israel’s Ambassador to India, Reuven Azar, firmly responded to senior news anchor and well-known Congress mouthpiece and ‘journalist’ Rajdeep Sardesai, after the latter attempted to equate Iran’s missile strike on an Israeli hospital with Israeli strikes on Hamas-controlled hospitals in Gaza.

Rajdeep, in his signature late-night virtue-signaling, posted on X stated, “Late night musing: when Iran attacks a hospital in Israel , it’s a ‘war crime’.. When Israel attacks a hospital in Gaza, it’s being justified because terrorists are supposedly hiding in hospital. Be it in Israel or Gaza or a Teheran tomorrow , any attack on a hospital that leads to civilian deaths is a war crime. Period.”

Late night musing: when Iran attacks a hospital in Israel , it’s a ‘war crime’.. When Israel attacks a hospital in Gaza, it’s being justified because terrorists are supposedly hiding in hospital. Be it in Israel or Gaza or a Teheran tomorrow , any attack on a hospital that leads…

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) June 19, 2025

Ambassador Azar wasn’t having any of it. In a pointed reply, he schooled Sardesai’s flawed comparison and misunderstanding of international law, stated, “You are wrong. Under international law, when a humanitarian facility is used for military purposes, it looses its immunity. Despite that, Israel has taken measures to clear civilians out of harm’s way even when the Hamas terrorists used hospitals to hide, before targeting.” 

He further clarified that, “Israel doesn’t use hospitals to conceal military activities and therefore attacking them is a war crime.”

You are wrong. Under international law, when a humanitarian facility is used for military purposes, it looses its immunity.
Despite that, Israel has taken measures to clear civilians out of harm’s way even when the Hamas terrorists used hospitals to hide, before targeting.… https://t.co/XQpSw1tqiI

— Reuven Azar (@ReuvenAzar) June 20, 2025

Azar’s sharp rebuttal comes as a reality check for those drawing false equivalence between a nation defending itself from terrorists embedded within civilian infrastructure, and hostile regimes directly targeting civilian medical facilities. Once again, a foreign diplomat had to set the record straight—something left elites seem to struggle with.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “You Are Wrong”: Israeli Envoy Reuven Azar Shuts Down Rajdeep Sardesai’s Gaza-Israel War Crime Parallel appeared first on The Commune.

Congress propagandist masquerading as a journalist Rajdeep Sardesai has stirred controversy following his remarks during a heated debate on India Today, where he appeared to suggest that India should consider accepting the current Line of Control (LoC) as the permanent international border with Pakistan and formally relinquish claims over Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Sardesai’s statements have drawn sharp criticism online, with a video clip from the debate going viral. During the discussion, he emphasized the need for a long-term resolution to the Kashmir conflict, stating, “The permanent solution is not going to come unless we discuss the real issue. We need to discuss terror with Pakistan, and at some stage, we will have to address our own issues within Jammu and Kashmir.”

In a particularly contentious moment, Sardesai posed a rhetorical question that many interpreted as undermining India’s stance on PoK, “How are we going to take back Pakistan-occupied Kashmir? We have two options. Either we agree on the present LOC as an international border which was which was put on the table which I think is a potential solution.”

His remarks have sparked a wave of backlash, with critics accusing him of echoing Pakistan’s position and questioning India’s long-standing resolve to reclaim PoK. The debate continues to fuel reactions across social media and news platforms.

Shocking!

Rajdeep wants India to permanently give PoK to Pakistan and accept present LoC as international border.

Rajdeep says "we shld not underestimate Pakistan's capacity to strike back"

Well @SardesaiRajdeep, Pakistan did try to strike India but all their attempts were… pic.twitter.com/6nV01wZVY2

— Ankur Singh (@iAnkurSingh) May 25, 2025

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post TMC MP’s Husband And Pro-Congress Propagandist Rajdeep Speaks Like A Pakistani Mouthpiece, Wants India To Give Up Claims On PoK appeared first on The Commune.

The recent Nagpur violence has once again exposed the deep fault lines in India’s socio-political fabric. While the incident has sparked heated debates, one voice that stands out for its glaring bias is that of senior journalist Rajdeep Sardesai. In his vlog, Sardesai has chosen to blame Hindu political parties and groups for the violence, while conveniently ignoring the role of Islamist provocation in igniting the riots. This one-sided narrative not only distorts the truth but also perpetuates a dangerous double standard in addressing communal violence.

The Nagpur Violence: What Actually Happened

The violence in Nagpur erupted after rumors allegedly spread that a Quran was burned during protests against Aurangzeb’s tomb. While the rumors were later found to be false, they triggered a violent backlash from Islamist mobs, who engaged in stone-pelting, arson, and attacks on police personnel. The riots left the city in chaos, with property damaged and law enforcement struggling to restore order.

The protests against Aurangzeb’s tomb, led by Hindu groups, were indeed provocative. However, it is crucial to recognize that provocation does not justify violence. The Islamist mobs’ reaction was disproportionate and criminal, and it is this reaction that escalated the situation into a full-blown riot. Yet, Sardesai’s analysis conveniently glosses over this critical aspect.

Sardesai’s Selective Outrage

In his vlog, Sardesai spends considerable time criticizing Hindu political parties and groups for their role in stoking communal tensions. He argues that the demand to demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb and the glorification of Chhatrapati Shivaji created a “hate-filled narrative” that led to the violence. He even states, “To unleash a hate-filled narrative where you want to go and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb, you must be prepared for some reaction and a backlash.”

While there is some truth to the idea that divisive narratives can fuel tensions, Sardesai’s analysis stops short of holding the Islamist mobs accountable for their actions. By focusing solely on the actions of Hindu groups, Sardesai paints a picture where Hindus are the aggressors and Islamists are merely reacting. This is a dangerous oversimplification of a complex issue. It ignores the fact that the violence was initiated by Islamist mobs who chose to take the law into their own hands. Sardesai’s failure to condemn this violence unequivocally reveals a clear bias in his reporting.

The Double Standard In Reporting Communal Violence

Sardesai’s approach reflects a broader trend in Indian media, where Islamist provocation is often downplayed or ignored in discussions of communal violence. When Hindu groups are involved, they are quickly labeled as “communal” or “divisive,” but when Islamist mobs engage in violence, their actions are often excused as a “reaction” to provocation. This double standard not only undermines the credibility of the media but also perpetuates a culture of impunity for those who resort to violence.

In the case of the Nagpur violence, Sardesai’s analysis fails to address the criminality of the Islamist mobs. Stone-pelting, arson, and attacks on police are not legitimate forms of protest; they are acts of violence that must be condemned without reservation. By glossing over this, Sardesai seems to effectively give a free pass to those who disrupted peace and endangered lives.

Sardesai’s analysis of the Nagpur violence is a classic example of selective outrage and biased reporting. By ignoring the role of Islamist incitement and focusing solely on Hindu groups, he has perpetuated a one-sided narrative that distorts the truth and undermines the pursuit of justice. His statement, “To unleash a hate-filled narrative where you want to go and demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb, you must be prepared for some reaction and a backlash,” reflects his tendency to shift blame onto one side while seemingly excusing the other.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Rajdeep Sardesai Justifies Nagpur Violence As Backlash For ‘Provocation’ appeared first on The Commune.

During the India Today Conclave, Rajdeep Sardesai and Nitin Gadkari, India’s Minister of Transport and Highways, exchanged intensely. The discussion centered on allegations of a conspiracy within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to undermine Gadkari’s position and rumours that someone within the party tried to defeat him in Nagpur.

Sardesai questioned Gadkari, stating, “There was a conspiracy within the BJP to defeat Nitin Gadkari. Is this right or wrong?” To which Gadkari firmly responded, “It is fully wrong.” Sardesai further pressed, “Your name was not even on the first list. You had to go meet Modiji at Nagpur airport and sort out the issue.”

Gadkari, visibly laughing, shot back, “I feel pity when I see you. Whenever the PM comes to my state, as per protocol, I meet him. Who told you? Did the PM himself say that I met him and asked when he would give me a ticket? What proof do you have?”

In response to Sardesai’s admission of not having any proof, Gadkari emphasized, “Please talk responsibly. There is nothing like that. The Maharashtra list was not even put out. The Maharashtra Parliamentary Board lists out its recommendations and sends them to Delhi. When the Maharashtra list was not even released, the list came from other places, so no name from Maharashtra came, and when my name came, it got noticed.”

Kitni beijjati karwaoge @SardesaiRajdeep? pic.twitter.com/77Gpx51bo5

— Ankur Singh (@iAnkurSingh) September 26, 2024

Continuing the conversation, Rajdeep says, “There is a buzz among the public that Nitin Gadkari is upset. You do not want to get involved in this Maharashtra election. You are happy living in Delhi, and do not want to get involved in the nitty-gritty of Maharashtra and the reason is you believe that someone in your party tried to defeat you in Nagpur. Today you must tell us the truth. Do you believe that someone tried to defeat you in Nagpur?”

Gadkari replies, “Truth is that you are 101% lying. This is the first truth. Yes, I am talking with responsibility. Whatever you are saying is lies. Listen to me fully. When you ask me, just listen. I was in J&K on official Bharatiya Janata party tour just day before yesterday. Yesterday I was in Haryana and this morning I was in Bengaluru for a programme. When I was in party programme, I had 4 sessions in J&K, so I cannot be in Nagpur. I told this to the State President, even after the Party President clarifying it, why are seasoned journalists asking me such questions and thus, whatever you said is fully wrong, it is lies, and I am not upset with anyone.”

Round 2 of Rajdeep's Dhulai

Gadkari- "Tum 101% jhooth ho" pic.twitter.com/dtkN8LLLVm

— Ankur Singh (@iAnkurSingh) September 26, 2024

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Truth Is That You Are 101% Lying”, Says Union Minister Nitin Gadkari On Journo Rajdeep Sardesai appeared first on The Commune.

YouTuber and content creator Aaj Ki Taza Khabar, known as AKTK, who boasts 1.44 million subscribers and over 1,400 videos, has publicly come out with a video criticizing “YouTube India” for allegedly shadow-banning his content whenever he mentions names of left-leaning journalists and YouTubers like Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee, or Rajdeep Sardesai. According to AKTK, the YouTube algorithm swiftly demonetizes his content when his content mentions these names. He recently shared a video documenting this issue and questioned whether this is how the algorithm is supposed to work.

On 21 August 2024, AKTK took to his official X account to reveal that mentioning names like Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee, or Rajdeep Sardesai in video titles led to demonetization. He posted, “Mentioning Ravish, Rathee or Rajdeep Sardesai name in Video title can demonetize your video। Herez d proof @AshwiniVaishnaw  @Shehzad_Ind  @YouTubeIndiaIs this how your algorithm works? Really shocking how Big Tech is controlling the narrative @AchAnkurArya @ajeetbharti.”

In his post, AKTK included a video detailing his experience with YouTube India. He described how he initially titled a new video, “Operation ‘Save Mamata’ by Andh Namazi Gang,” and had no issues with monetization. However, when he changed the title to “Operation ‘Save Mamata’ by Ravish -Dhruv-Rajdeep,” the monetization status switched from “on” to “limited” within minutes, and YouTube imposed ad suitability restrictions. After reverting to the original title, he could fully monetize the video with no limits.

Mentioning Ravish , Rathee or Rajdeep Sardesai name in Video title can demonetize your video।

Herez d proof@AshwiniVaishnaw @Shehzad_Ind @YouTubeIndia Is this how your algorithm works ?

Really shocking how Big Tech is controlling the narrative @AchAnkurArya @ajeetbharti pic.twitter.com/qtmqv9NpX5

— AKTK (@AKTKbasics) August 21, 2024

The video quickly went viral, prompting widespread discussion among netizens. Many criticized YouTube for perceived bias, accusing the platform of favoring left-wing or liberal content creators while suppressing right-wing or nationalist voices.

YouTube and Indian General Elections

The issue of shadow banning and content suppression by the US-based tech giant YouTube is not new. During the Lok Sabha elections in 2024, numerous YouTubers who supported the incumbent BJP party reported encountering shadow bans and demonetization, which significantly hindered the visibility of their content. Many of these creators, who had predicted a decisive victory for the BJP and a significant loss for Rahul Gandhi’s Congress Party, faced similar issues.

After the polling concluded on 1 June 2024, and with the release of exit polls, political commentators and journalists increasingly turned to YouTube as a platform for their analyses. This shift occurred as digital media continued to grow in influence. However, some YouTube creators believed that the tech giant unfairly restricted their content. They took to social media to demand action against what they perceived as biased treatment by YouTube India and relevant authorities.

Similar Instances

Notable figures such as senior journalist Ajeet Bharti, The New Indian editor Rohan Dua, TV journalist Sushant Sinha, The Jaipur Dialogues media platform, and YouTubers AKTK and Ankur Arya voiced their concerns. Still, their appeals did not receive a response.

Rohan Dua

Dua highlighted the issue on X, asserting that YouTube’s actions represented a “criminal offense to influence polls” and suggested that the platform fostered anti-Modi sentiment. He claimed that recorded conversations of 17 YouTube India employees revealed instructions on how to shadow-ban neutral coverage while promoting anti-Modi content. Dua alleged that this conspiracy affected press freedom and mentioned that among those involved in manipulating the algorithm were 17 employees, including five women and 12 men from various Indian states. He believed this constituted “criminal conspiracy under IPC Sections 127A, 120B, and 171B/R bribery charges.”

BEWARE| I’m hearing India’s intelligence agencies have been supplied with recorded conversations of 17 @YouTubeIndia employees in India who explicitly wrote & spoke instructions on how to shadow ban any neutral coverage & promote anti @narendramodi trash.

Its a criminal offence…

— Rohan Dua (@rohanduaT02) June 2, 2024

The accusations suggested that videos from pro-Modi creators mentioning opposition leaders or INDI Alliance members were flagged and demonetized. Creators then faced two to three days delays in resolving these issues, during which time the news became outdated, diminishing the video’s relevance and viewership.

Ajeet Bharti

Bharti reported on X that YouTube had demonetized 35 of his videos over the past 45 days and re-monetized 32 after appeals. Despite these re-monetizations, the delays resulted in zero revenue during peak election periods. “They were wrong 32 out of 35 times during the peak election period,” Bharti noted. Union Cabinet Minister Smriti Irani has also expressed concerns over YouTube’s alleged targeting of BJP-supporting creators, citing instances of demonization.

Although, I have given up on tagging @YouTubeIndia for clarifications, but there is always that instance where our comprehensive abilities to calm us down evaporate.

This time, maybe roasting Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi didn't go down well with them and so they, at first…

— Ajeet Bharti (@ajeetbharti) May 15, 2024

String Reveals

In a related case in September 2023, right-wing YouTuber Vinod Kumar faced a similar situation when his channel “String Reveals” was arbitrarily banned. Kumar subsequently took legal action, filing a petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking two crore rupees in compensation and the reinstatement of his accounts. His content primarily focused on promoting Hindu culture and temples.

Google has arbitrarily suspended our YouTube accounts. All the String channels have been terminated. Now @String has approached Andhra Pradesh High Court. Adv @shashank_ssj has filed a Writ for String seeking restoration of our YouTube channels. Additionally, High Court has been… pic.twitter.com/DmveOCtdNq

— Stringg (@StringReveals) March 27, 2024

String Channel removed
No strike, no violation but straight delete@TeamYouTube @YouTube
Please explain whose boots you licked to do this to me?
If you don’t bring back my channel asap, you will see how far I’ll reach.
Mind you! YouTube is not the only platform where we can do… pic.twitter.com/GCF3Fqcz2K

— Stringg (@StringReveals) September 20, 2023

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post YouTuber AKTK Accuses YouTube India Of Shadow-Banning Anti-Leftist Content, Alleges Bias Against Nationalist Voices, Tacit Support To Leftists appeared first on The Commune.

On 13 August 2024, the Delhi High Court directed Rajdeep Sardesai to remove a video he posted on X in which he accused BJP’s national spokesperson Shazia Ilmi of “abusing” an India Today video journalist in a TV debate during the Agniveer scheme row.

The controversy began when Shazia Ilmi participated in a debate on the India Today news channel last month concerning the Agniveer scheme. During the debate, Ilmi left halfway through, alleging that her microphone had been intentionally turned off to silence her.

Rajdeep Sardesai then shared a video and tweeted that Ilmi’s actions—allegedly cutting off the microphone and reportedly mistreating the video journalist by evicting him from her residence—were unacceptable. He emphasised that the video journalist was simply performing his duties.

Defamation Case Against Sardesai

Ilmi filed the defamation lawsuit last week, challenging the video posted by Sardesai, which alleged that Ilmi had mistreated an India Today journalist. Her legal representative argued that the cameraman recorded her without her consent. She claimed that her consent was revoked when she exited the show, but the cameraman continued to follow her, thus infringing on her privacy.

Ilmi further contended that Sardesai’s video was edited in a way that distorted her character. She argued that Sardesai’s implication that she threw the microphone and mistreated the cameraman damaged her reputation by depicting her as poorly behaved. Ilmi stated that she did not use abusive language and that the expletives attributed to her in Sardesai’s video had been muted.

The Court questioned Sardesai’s authority to use the footage. The bench asked his counsel whether India Today had permitted Sardesai to use the video.

The Court observed that the footage posted by Sardesai was made public after Ilmi had left the show and involved only her interactions with the cameraman. It stated, “You had no right to record or use the video,” addressing Sardesai directly. Additionally, the Court has mandated that the video be blocked on social media platforms.

Finally, the Court added the cameraman as a defendant and requested both parties to submit video transcripts. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on 16 August 2024.

Response from Ilmi

Following the Court’s order, Shazia Ilmi expressed her appreciation, stating her relief at removing the “defamatory video.” In a post on X, she wrote, “The political smear campaign against me by a political propagandist will no longer inflict the mental and emotional distress I have suffered. Uparwala Sab Dekh Raha Hai.” Ilmi also thanked her supporters, saying, “I am deeply grateful to everyone who supported me during this difficult time. My family and I appreciate your support immensely.”

Context

The controversy stems from a TV debate on 26 July 2024, moderated by Sardesai on India Today. The discussion, which focused on Kargil Vijay Divas, also touched upon the politicisation of the armed forces. Major General (Retd) Yash Mor and Ilmi were panellists on the show.

During the debate, Major General Mor highlighted perceived issues with the Agniveer scheme, prompting Ilmi to respond. Sardesai interjected, stating that Mor was presenting ‘hard facts’. Ilmi retorted, “Don’t sermonise,” leading to a heated exchange before she exited the show.

Later that evening, Ilmi accused Sardesai on social media of lowering her microphone volume during the debate. The following morning, Sardesai alleged that Ilmi had ‘abused’ the India Today video journalist.

(With Inputs From Live Law)

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Delhi HC Rebukes Rajdeep Sardesai: Says “No Right To Record Or Use The Video”, Orders Removal Of Shazia Ilmi Video appeared first on The Commune.