I’m embarrassed that I even have to write a piece like this but sadly what I’m about to analyse reflects the pathetic state of the media in India. In particular I’m reacting to a bizarre and ludicrous piece of propaganda alleging a relationship between currency demonetisation and deaths of individuals.
The piece by Deputy Editor of Huffington Post India, Shivam Vij, claims that “there have already been 33 deaths due to demonetisation in 6 days”. The author is thus asserting a causal relationship between the government’s demonetisation of high denomination notes and these deaths.
Vij goes on to cite thirty three cases which allegedly support his claim but it doesn’t take much to figure out, that one can’t establish in any credible way a causal relationship between demonetisation and an individual’s death in so many of these cases.
Start with one of the most ludicrous cases where a “businessman” in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh allegedly felt chest pains and died soon after watching Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement of demonetisation on November 8. Are we supposed to believe that it was what he was watching that led to his death? So for example, if he were watching Star Wars, would we blame Darth Vader for his death?
Take the case of a 96-year-old man in Udupi, Karnataka who died allegedly waiting in a long queue in a bank. Guess what? The man’s son says his father’s death had nothing to do with waiting in queue at the bank. So this one is at best poor fact checking or poor attempt at propaganda by the author.
Up next, a 45-year-old man in Kerala dies while falling from a construction area in the bank branch where he was depositing money. He had already successfully deposited money the previous day at the same bank. At best, you could blame lack of barricades that would have saved him falling but it’s more than a stretch to blame Modi and demonetisation.
It only gets bizarre from here. An elderly woman in Kanpur died apparently counting currency notes. Tragic, but had she died while reading the newspaper, presumably this intrepid journalist would blame the newspaper for her death?
How about an elderly person who didn’t even have to wait in a queue but collapsed of a heart attack upon reaching the bank? If he’d collapsed outside a movie theatre would this journalist blame the movie that was screened for his death? And even here, the man’s two sons say he had a pre-existing medical condition, wasn’t even standing in line and his death had nothing to do with demonetisation. The family has also expressed anger that their father’s death has been wrongly linked to demonetisation by the media.
Or how about a 45-year-old cashier in Bhopal who collapsed while working at the bank. The spin is he died overworked because of demonetisation but not a shred of evidence is offered to back this up.
A 17-year-old, son of a Border Security Force jawan allegedly commits suicide because his mother wouldn’t give him small denomination notes. There’s almost no limit to the implausible connections this writer can draw.
A couple have already been debunked. Consider where a doctor says she had to turn away parents of a sick baby not because they were carrying demonetised notes but she just didn’t have the right equipment to treat the baby. As it happens this doctor is now the subject of a First Information Report.
In another case a wife is allegedly taunted by her husband for her “inability” to stand in a queue at an ATM. She apparently commits suicide and her husband is now the subject of an investigation in abetting her suicide. So let’s get this straight. A possibly abusive husband taunts his wife for not waiting in queue at the mandi, is the vendor now the cause of what played out subsequently?
You get the idea. In each of these cases, someone dies, shortly after demonetisation but there’s no credible causal link between the two events. Also many of these stories have only a single source suggesting perhaps the version of the stories presented didn’t seem entirely credible even to other news organisations.
As I remarked at the outset, it’s embarrassing that one even needs to debunk such tripe. Any death is tragic but it’s shameful and scandalous that they’re wrongly linked to demonetisation, no less than from an international media house like Huffington Post.
That the Huffington Post does not like demonetisation is clear from pieces on the subject such as “Why the demonetisation drive violates our fundamental right to life” as shown below.
Huffington Post India on Demonetisation
So Supreme Court refused to intervene is something that was unconstitutional?
This is clearly not journalism nor is it even good propaganda. But that’s the Indian media scene for you.
(Written by Rupa Subramanya, who is an Economist and Columnist. Follow her @rupasubramanya)
Ravish Kumar, the NDTV India anchor, who claims to be the gold-standard in reporting, has landed in yet another controversy. In a bid to show how the demonetisation scheme was hurting businessmen, Ravish Kumar tried to pull off a fast one, but was caught in the act.
In his show he introduced an Ajay Arora as the head of Traders Association of Delhi, all the while forgetting to mention his Congress background. All this came to light via this expose
Tajinder Pal Singh
Exposing NDTV-Ravish-Cong Nexus against PM Modi’s Black Money Surgical Strike #CongKaRavish
https://t.co/AqZcIklIPo
— Tajinder Pal S Bagga (@TajinderBagga) November 16, 2016
The video starts with Ravish in a bid to maintain his neutral image defended the demonetisation scheme from some disgruntled men. As the video progressed a crowd gathered around Ravish which very vocally starts supporting Modi and his demonetisation scheme. Suddenly the scene cuts to a terrace where Ravish was found standing with a mere 5-7 people. He explained the reason behind the location change was to get away from all the ‘Bheed-bhaad’. Incidentally in the opening scene of the video Ravish was heard commenting about how the area lacked it’s usual hustle and bustle.
Ravish then introduced Ajay Arora as the head of the Traders Association of Delhi. Arora then proceeded to bash the government’s scheme with a vengeance, by lamenting about the immense hardships he and other traders are facing, the men accompanying him also echoed his viewpoint.
Ajay Arora with Ajay Maken
Ajay Arora with Ajay Maken
The whole report was called into question when Tajinder Bagga searched the facebook profile of the eminent trader association head, Ajay Arora and found him to be the convener of All Delhi Traders Congress and in one of his photos was seen sharing the stage with Delhi congress chief Ajay Maken.
After a bit of digging we managed to find some Facebook posts which might cement Arora’s congress links. The first one shows Arora standing next to Ajay Maken during some fogging program and the second one shows him being part of Trader’s Congress’s “vasooli diwas” accompanied with people who were wearing Congress party’s Gandhi topis. These Facebook posts also might clear the air that the Congress in All Delhi Traders Congress refers to the Political party and is not a synonym to an ‘Association’.
All of the above facts were probably missed by Ravish Kumar during his research.
This is not the first time Ravish has been caught of misreporting facts, OpIndia.com had earlier reported how Ravish Kumar in his blog ‘I am not a super journalist’ twice distorted facts to discredit Kiran Bedi.
The demonetisation scheme is in full swing. Numerous attempts to stall it have failed, with even the Supreme Court refusing to step in. We have already busted over 20 rumours about the scheme. What does the media do now? Bring up some irrelevant fact, twist it, and present it in context of the current scheme to incite passions. This is much like what Arvind Kejriwal did when he claimed the increase in deposits in September 2016 was related to demonetisation (which we had debunked here).
It started with this story in DNA, titled: “SBI writes off loans of 63 wilful defaulters”. While the headline is not totally off the mark, the report is completely off track (emphasis added):
India’s largest public sector bank has dropped more than Rs 7,000 crore, more than 80 per cent of the amount owed to it by its top 100 defaulters, into the Advance Under Collection Account (AUCA) bin for toxic loans. With efforts to recover its dues hitting a virtual dead-end, the State Bank of India (SBI) seems to be have started a clean-up of its balance sheets by writing off loans worth about Rs 7,016 crore owed to it by more than 60 of its top 100 wilful defaulters.
Towards the report did mention the real nature of AUCA accounts and write offs, but no-one seemed to have noticed that. And based on the headline and the initial misleading part, the outrage industry started, led by journalists:
Deputy Resident editor of The Hindu, quoted a tweet by Senior Asst editor of The Hindu, which first conflated “write-off” with “waiver”
DNA Exclusive: SBI writes off loans of 63 wilful defaulters
https://t.co/hS7o7OYFGH
— Shivam Vij (@DilliDurAst) November 16, 2016
And this deluded abusive journalist:
As cronies led by Mallaya get loans written of by @TheOfficialSBI you queue for your own money! My take.
https://t.co/VCue6tCL5F
— Swati Chaturvedi (@bainjal) 16 November 2016
Once journalists had set the stage, politicians jumped in, a Congress spokesperson and the CPIM General Secretary:
SBI Bank- Such a nice, friendly and cooperative bank- for their wilful defaulters I meant. Rest of us? queue up! pic.twitter.com/RvUGiq2eiO
— Priyanka Chaturvedi (@priyankac19) November 16, 2016
Rs 7000 crore of unreturned loans, including Rs 1201 crore of Kingfisher written off. So much for this govt ‘making the rich pay’. pic.twitter.com/lPz7PdNo6X
— Sitaram Yechury (@SitaramYechury) November 16, 2016
So has SBI really waived off these loans? Not really. For this we need to understand what write-offs are. A balance sheet should reflect the real situation, not imaginary assets like the balance sheet created by Ramalinga Raju. And that’s why Banks have to write off loans. If they don’t write off loans, it is like claiming to hold an asset (loans given by banks, are assets of the bank) where none exists. Will you trust an entity that doesn’t give the true picture of its assets?
Hence write-offs are a purely technical, accounting entry. Write-offs give a true picture of the bank’s assets (loans given) and the income there on (interest). Accounts where prospects of recovery is bleak, are technically written off from the live ledgers and parked in AUCA in accordance with laid down instructions. Most write offs, irrespective of outstanding, should be treated as technical write offs and parked in AUCA and recovery process of these accounts will continue till resolution of these accounts (pdf link).
Even when accounts are written off, various recovery procedures like recovery suits filed before the DRT/ Court. and action initiated under SARFAESI Act continue. Accounts held in AUCA may be taken up for dropping only after exhausting all avenues of recovery, hence merely transferring an account to AUCA is not a “waiver of the loan”.
So a write off mean the loan has been waived? Definitely not. Unless of course you are a media person with low IQ or a politician with an agenda, or a politician with low IQ or a journalist with an agenda.
Update: It was brought to our notice that a similar case of media misreporting had occurred in February 2016 also, and back then, the RBI had issued a clarification stating exactly what we have explained above:
RBI’s old clarification, which failed to educate our journalists