In selecting Amit Malviya as a punching bag, The Wire and its editors may have thought they found a juicier soft target than, say, Jay Shah. Just as a tiger or lion picks the weakest in a group of prey. After all, he is just in charge of their IT cell. While BJP may make noise, it will not dare to lower the boom on a global woke-protected leftist rag like The Wire just because he is the victim. And run the risk of synchronised global outcry. 

That was a good bet while it lasted. 

But then the entire story collapsed and backfired worse than the hit job on Shah. It is now almost universally seen as nothing more than a big lie covered up with increasingly bizarre and low-quality bigger lies that stretched credulity. The original assertion that turned out to be fake was at least somewhat plausible and easier to defend considering the opaque nature of Meta’s largely woke left-controlled censorship. But clearly Wire picked the wrong collateral damage candidate in Meta without thinking it through. Which is ironic considering they are part of the Ummah. You can almost say it is stupid on the part of The Wire to believe that they can take down Malviya or BJP without damaging Meta and by extension the fellow leftist wokes that run the show. 

In the end, The Wire and Sidharth Varadarajan were brought down not by Malviya (who barely tweeted about the entire saga) or BJP (which too kept largely silent) but by leftists within and outside Meta and by independent tech experts with no love lost for BJP. They obviously felt backing up even ignoring this botched-up fraud and its childishly verifiable lies anymore will destroy their own reputations beyond repair. Just as Wire/SV threw Devesh Kumar under the minibus, the wokes threw Varadarajan under a double-decker bus. That poor guy was not even paid his salary on time if you believe his assertions while the top honchos sat in Paris cafes tweeting anti-Modi nonsense. But then that’s how socialism has always been.

Enough has been said about the half-hearted “apology” that no one outside the ecosystem and the 10JP servant quarters takes seriously, let alone believes. The attempt to paint themselves as victims is a joke and perhaps the least believable of all the things they have said over the last few weeks. Let me not delve into that, other than to remark that, by not specifically apologising to Malviya himself, The Wire has done Amit Malviya and the cause of truth and genuine journalism a big favour.

Because now, Amit Malviya has a watertight case and an adversary that clearly shows no contrition to the target of the slander and the victim of the original lie.

Or does he? That is the big question.

The lawsuit

Now Amit Malviya wants to pursue them in court of law – both civil and criminal. We wish him luck.

It can be said that the judiciary itself and the system are on trial in this case. Because, in the past, sections of the Indian judiciary were extremely sympathetic to the supposedly “independent, speak truth to power” lobby. On the face of it, this is great. Because it is the duty of the system and its independent institutions to protect the weak and prevent bullying by the strong state. One can at least understand the noble motives when midnight bails are arranged for the likes of Teesta Setelvad based reportedly on WhatsApp messages. 

Of course, we get disgusted when this umbrella of protection extends to the likes of Tarun Tejpal who got away scoot free after openly admitting to molesting. He did not even get the ‘laceration’ that he wanted! And we are troubled when the same judiciary tells some other hapless journalist “You are safer in jail” because he took on the wrong sort of power. But that is a topic for another day.

The present saga raises tough moral questions that our judiciary must confront in all sincerity when the case comes before them. This is over and above the facts of the case itself which should be open and shut. The answers will provide them with a moral compass to decide others that will doubtless come before them.

1. Is it really “independent, speaking truth to power” media they find in the defendant’s stand? One that deserves their protection and helps in the interest of Indian democracy? 
2. Are they instead protecting an ecosystem that is globally powerful and that doesn’t need any protection but a harsh and financially painful lesson in basic tenets of journalism and respect for truth?

Let us take consider these questions.

Consider the first question – when we are discussing The Wire and its prominent face – Siddharth Varadarajan, are we really dealing with an independent journalist? Opinions differ and I would like to believe that he is neither. Activism or political hatchet jobs even for a good cause is not journalism. Mani Shankar Aiyar too writes columns for NDTV.

To me, the simple test of someone that claims to be independent is to check their track record when their pals were ruling. If you apply this test by any objective measure, the entire “speaking truth to power” cabal that shouts loudest about “independent journalism” finds its claims resting on very weak foundations.

After all, 2004-14 or even earlier periods are still fresh in our living memory, records, video clips, articles and tweets exist and are not buried in the sands of time unlike the actions of Aurangzeb or Babur.

Try answer a couple of questions sincerely:

• Will Siddharth Varadarajan and the leftists consider today’s right-wing media ‘fiercely independent journalists that speak truth to power’ if UPA comes back to power and they start attacking it non-stop? 
• If the Rajya Sabha TV were to spend public money to produce a movie featuring the wife of one of Modi’s ministers or a senior BJP figure, and if a journalist never questions that, would you call that journalist independent? 
• In any case, is it a better use of public money than Central vista which is an asset for the next century? Which one of the two incidents did Varadarajan loudly protest?
• If the same RSTV under Naidu or Dhankar invites select friendly journalists to run shows, paying them lakhs in ‘professional fees’, will the leftist cabal simply call it a routine business decision? Will such journalists ever be labelled or acknowledged as ‘independent’?
• How many harshly worded articles by these ‘independent journalists’ do you recall questioning the corruption of the UPA era? Or the rapist savagery and mass murders in Nandigram or Singur or elsewhere?
• How many fierce questions did the UPA era de-facto PM and nominal PM face in interviews, like the one Rajdeep did with Sonia G?

To cut the long story short, if the judiciary wants us to believe that they are protecting ‘independent journalism’, and not political propaganda by one set of players, they have a bit of convincing to do before the public at large accepts it and their own standards demands of them.

Coming to the question of the financial or other vulnerabilities of this group, that make them eligible for special protection, consider this. The omerta of the immensely wealthy and powerful global woke cabal, fascist looter dynasties, Editors Guild, controllers of “freedom” indices, high priests of liberalism, powerful Western and Indian liberal media and various wealthy financial backers of Wire over this entire affair gives eloquent testimony. While they jumped to use the fake news and lies spread by Wire to defame Modi/BJP and even India, they are yet to utter a word. And yet to retract their own web of lies spun on top of the original lie.

If there is an example of not just blatant crime but complete absence of contrition or shame or regret after being caught, this must be it. Does this require further mollycoddling by the judiciary?

The indecent haste to certify the ‘apology’ as a great gesture and the rush to bury the affair and ‘move on’ and the censorship of any negative reference in Wikipedia by the same cabal all point to one thing – not just BJP or Modi or Malviya, the entire nation confronts a powerful, united and immensely wealthy coalition that can destroy nations, fake history and achieve pretty much anything they want to. 

Does this ecosystem need any protection at all? Or should we worry about protecting the Indians from them instead?

If our judiciary does serious introspection on these points as the listen to various arguments that will come up before them in this matter, there can be only one result – exemplary punishment that sends a powerful message. That India is no banana republic.

In fact, the mere fact that their victims need to go through the judiciary for relief and they face the court and have their day, not some sort of gulag or firing squad which is what dissidents will face if these ideologues and their ideologies come to power, should make the answer obvious.

Let us watch the space!