Is Mumbai Press Club really a 'naxalite hub'?
Is Mumbai Press Club really a "naxalite hub"?
Total Views |
The recent decision by the Mumbai Press Club to expel three of its members is not just another internal move or a routine disciplinary action. It is a significant moment of reckoning. For years, there have been whispers about the direction the Club was taking, but this time, the institution felt it had no choice but to step out and draw a line.
On April 27, 2026, the Managing Committee finalised the removal of Gurbir Singh, Bernard D’Mello, and Shrikant Modak. While some might want to frame this as an abrupt or ideologically driven purge, the reality is far more grounded in administrative procedure. This was the culmination of a long, documented trail of show-cause notices and non-compliance, a situation the Club simply could not afford to ignore any longer.
According to the official communique, Gurbir Singh did not follow protocol when he received his notice. Rather than engaging with the internal inquiry, he took to social media, sharing the notice alongside what the administration called "inaccurate representations." This coincided with reports from online portals claiming the Club had banned human rights activists, a narrative the Club flatly denied. Meanwhile, Bernard D’Mello and Shrikant Modak acknowledged they had organised the event to discuss the legal nuances of the Bhima Koregaon case.
To ensure the process was handled fairly, the Managing Committee set up a three-member Inquiry Committee led by Chairman Rajesh Mascarenhas, Secretary Mayuresh Ganapathye, and Treasurer Saurabh Sharma. The questions they posed were not just symbolic; they were fundamental: Who invited these guests? In what capacity? Were the legal risks of hosting people on restrictive bail considered? More importantly, was the Club being used responsibly? When the members’ responses came back as evasive or inadequate, the Committee felt expulsion was the only remaining path.
The ‘freedom of expression’ argument is often used as a shield to blur the lines between professional journalism and activism. But a press club is not a private living room; it is a public-facing institution that trades on its credibility. It cannot maintain that credibility while practicing selective blindness toward the risks of the associations.
This gathering was not the first such. Take the controversy involving Samar Khadas and the screening of Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s film “Maharashtra Manipulated? How Elections Were Stolen in India’s 2nd Largest State” on Indian elections. Critics felt the film presented a one-sided narrative that undermined democratic institutions without solid evidence. Again, the same ideological circle, including Teltumbde. The fallout was messy, with social media vitriol directed at Khadas, which was undeniably wrong. But focusing only on the "trolling" misses the bigger question: Why does this specific venue keep finding itself at the centre of these polarised, one-sided flashpoints?
This looks like "institutional capture," where spaces meant for professional growth are slowly converted into ideological workshops. In these environments, dissent is only welcomed if it points in one direction. By enforcing accountability now, the Club is breaking that cycle.
The message is clear: being a journalist does not grant you immunity from institutional rules or legal sensitivities. There is a vital distinction between reporting on a movement and becoming its PR arm. While some in the media have tried to frame this as an attack on "independent voices," that kind of deflection only hurts the industry's standing. Trust is lost through small, consistent compromises. This action is a necessary, if difficult, attempt by the Mumbai Press Club to reclaim its neutral ground.
On April 27, 2026, the Managing Committee finalised the removal of Gurbir Singh, Bernard D’Mello, and Shrikant Modak. While some might want to frame this as an abrupt or ideologically driven purge, the reality is far more grounded in administrative procedure. This was the culmination of a long, documented trail of show-cause notices and non-compliance, a situation the Club simply could not afford to ignore any longer.
The friction began early this year. On January 22, the Club issued notices following a gathering held on January 19 that set off alarm bells internally. This wasn't an average press meet. The event featured several prominent individuals currently embroiled in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case, including Varavara Rao, Anand Teltumbde, and Gautam Navlakha, among others. Given that several of these attendees are out on bail with strict legal restrictions on public engagement and association, their presence puts the Club in a precarious legal position.
According to the official communique, Gurbir Singh did not follow protocol when he received his notice. Rather than engaging with the internal inquiry, he took to social media, sharing the notice alongside what the administration called "inaccurate representations." This coincided with reports from online portals claiming the Club had banned human rights activists, a narrative the Club flatly denied. Meanwhile, Bernard D’Mello and Shrikant Modak acknowledged they had organised the event to discuss the legal nuances of the Bhima Koregaon case.
Before the incident, sections of social media had labelled the Mumbai Press Club a “Naxalite Hub,” causing concern among members and prompting informal queries from various quarters.
To ensure the process was handled fairly, the Managing Committee set up a three-member Inquiry Committee led by Chairman Rajesh Mascarenhas, Secretary Mayuresh Ganapathye, and Treasurer Saurabh Sharma. The questions they posed were not just symbolic; they were fundamental: Who invited these guests? In what capacity? Were the legal risks of hosting people on restrictive bail considered? More importantly, was the Club being used responsibly? When the members’ responses came back as evasive or inadequate, the Committee felt expulsion was the only remaining path.
The broader context here is what makes this episode so significant. The Mumbai Press Club is supposed to be a neutral ground for professional journalists. However, it has increasingly gained a reputation for being an echo chamber for a specific ideological ecosystem. Events focused on Naxalism, such as book launches, panel discussions, and screenings, have become frequent. In many of these, Anand Teltumbde is a recurring figure. While Teltumbde is a recognised academic, he is also an accused in a violent conspiracy case. When an institution for journalists repeatedly provides a platform for individuals under such legal scrutiny, it ceases to be a matter of ‘free speech’ and becomes a matter of poor institutional judgment.
The ‘freedom of expression’ argument is often used as a shield to blur the lines between professional journalism and activism. But a press club is not a private living room; it is a public-facing institution that trades on its credibility. It cannot maintain that credibility while practicing selective blindness toward the risks of the associations.
This gathering was not the first such. Take the controversy involving Samar Khadas and the screening of Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s film “Maharashtra Manipulated? How Elections Were Stolen in India’s 2nd Largest State” on Indian elections. Critics felt the film presented a one-sided narrative that undermined democratic institutions without solid evidence. Again, the same ideological circle, including Teltumbde. The fallout was messy, with social media vitriol directed at Khadas, which was undeniably wrong. But focusing only on the "trolling" misses the bigger question: Why does this specific venue keep finding itself at the centre of these polarised, one-sided flashpoints?
This looks like "institutional capture," where spaces meant for professional growth are slowly converted into ideological workshops. In these environments, dissent is only welcomed if it points in one direction. By enforcing accountability now, the Club is breaking that cycle.
The message is clear: being a journalist does not grant you immunity from institutional rules or legal sensitivities. There is a vital distinction between reporting on a movement and becoming its PR arm. While some in the media have tried to frame this as an attack on "independent voices," that kind of deflection only hurts the industry's standing. Trust is lost through small, consistent compromises. This action is a necessary, if difficult, attempt by the Mumbai Press Club to reclaim its neutral ground.