Rana Ayyub was recently in Assam, coinciding with the large-scale eviction drives targeting illegal encroachments on government and reserve forest lands. Officials clarified that the action was carried out under the law, with due process followed. The state government has also announced that names of such encroachers will be removed from local voter lists, though they remain eligible to vote from their original place of residence.
Yet, Rana Ayyub’s reporting focused on families she described as “victims,” including her revisits to Haider Ali’s family, whose son was killed during a previous eviction clash. Her narrative highlighted demolished homes, but left out the critical context: these structures were raised illegally on public land. If her work was purely about justice, why omit the reasons behind eviction?
A Familiar Pattern
This is not the first time her work has been questioned. The Supreme Court dismissed her 2002 riot book as unreliable, with one bench calling it “a piece of fiction, not evidence.”
More recently, the Enforcement Directorate charged her with misusing ₹2.7 crore raised for COVID-19 relief, of which only a fraction was reportedly spent on the cause while the rest was reportedly diverted to personal accounts.
Even internationally, she has used platforms to criticize Indian institutions while enjoying awards and recognition abroad. This raises an obvious question: is her activism designed to strengthen journalism or to reinforce a particular global narrative against India?
Selective Outrage
What makes Rana Ayyub’s reporting especially questionable is its selectivity. In Assam, she chose not to highlight the criminal networks linked with encroachments, nor the impact of unchecked infiltration on local demographics.
Is this journalism, or is it agenda-driven activism? Why does outrage surface only when it fits a certain ideological template?
Why This Matters
When outside figures and organizations enter Assam during sensitive eviction drives, it risks inflaming tensions rather than helping resolve them. Presenting half-truths under the garb of human rights is not only misleading, but dangerous—it undermines legal processes and feeds propaganda.
A Needed Reckoning
At what point does selective outrage become propaganda? At what point does misuse of public donations become fraud, not activism? And At what point does running down Indian institutions abroad, while thriving in India, stop being “journalism” and start being a political project?
Rana Ayyub’s Assam visit is just the latest chapter in a pattern that has long been visible. For citizens, the concern is simple: if journalism is reduced to half-truths, selective outrage, and financial impropriety, it ceases to be journalism at all.
