Just one day following the BJP-led NDA's victory in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, controversy erupted as Avani Dias, a journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News, made questionable statements on Wednesday, 5th June, about the Indian constitution.

Avani Dias, previously in the news for falsely claiming that her visa was cancelled by the Modi government due to 'critical reporting', targeted the Indian constitution this time. She asserted that 'secularism' was part of the Indian constitution since the country got independence from the British rule in 1947. This claim was made despite the fact that the concept of secularism was officially integrated into the preamble of the constitution much later.

The claims were made in a video titled 'The story behind India’s Narendra Modi', where Dias portrayed a narrative suggesting that India’s secularism was under threat under the administration of Prime Minister Modi. Her portrayal aimed to highlight a supposed risk to secular principles, casting a critical eye on the current government’s policies and leadership.

Continuing her narrative, Avani Dias makes further controversial statements in her video. At approximately 9:19 minutes, she declares, “Just so you’re across it, when India was founded in 1947 after it got independence from the British, its constitution was written to say India is a secular country, which means it has to be neutral and open to all religions.”

She then claims, “The word secular is right there on page 33 in capital letters.” This assertion, however, shows a significant oversight or perhaps a deliberate omission in her presentation. Dias neglected to mention a critical historical fact: the term 'secular' was not originally included when the Indian Constitution was adopted in 1950.

It is important to clarify that India's Constitution was indeed not drafted in 1947, as Dias suggests, but rather was formally adopted in 1950, three years post-independence. Moreover, the specific term ‘secular’ was integrated into the preamble of the constitution much later, in 1976, during a period marked by political upheaval commonly referred to as the Emergency. This amendment was part of broader changes aimed at strengthening the democratic fabric of the nation post-crisis, contrary to the portrayal of weakening secularism under the current government.

By spreading these inaccuracies, Dias not only misleads her audience but also unfairly critiques the Modi government, suggesting a threat to secularism that is not supported by the historical evolution of the Indian constitution. Such reporting could be seen as part of a larger narrative strategy, rather than a factual recounting of India’s constitutional history. Her failure to provide accurate historical context distorts the real changes and challenges in India's democratic journey.

It was, in fact, during Indira Gandhi's administration that the Indian constitution saw a critical amendment. "The then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had bypassed the Parliament and enacted the 42nd Constitutional Amendment to insert the word ‘secular’ in the Constitution." This occurred not at the founding of the nation but in 1976, amidst the controversial period known as the Emergency. This amendment was part of a broader initiative to reshape the constitution, which included enhancing the central government's power, a move that was later critiqued and partially reversed.

Contrary to the narrative presented by Dias, "the constitution was not written to state that India was a ‘secular country.’" This misrepresentation in her reporting highlights a fundamental flaw in her approach. Throughout her video, Dias relied heavily on a series of "conjectures, surmises, and suppositions" that aim not only to critique the current government's policies but also to cast a shadow over India's global image.

By distorting historical facts, Dias's narrative could mislead international audiences about the nature of India's constitutional commitments and the country's evolution towards embracing secularism officially. Such reporting fails to provide a balanced or accurate portrayal of India's legislative history and its current governance, possibly affecting the perception of India's adherence to secular and democratic values under the Modi administration. This approach not only undermines the journalistic integrity expected from a news organization like ABC News but also serves as a disservice to the audience seeking truthful and nuanced reporting.

Controversy Surrounding Avani Dias

In a series of contentious events that have attracted considerable media attention, Avani Dias, a journalist for Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News, became embroiled in a significant dispute with the Indian government earlier this year. In April, Dias took to X (formerly Twitter) to express her predicament, stating she had to abruptly leave India due to the non-extension of her visa by the Modi government.

The controversy didn’t end there. Dias also alleged that the Indian government had initially planned not to allow her accreditation to cover the critical 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Despite these challenges, she revealed that her visa was extended at the last minute for a period of two months, which allowed her briefly to remain in the country before she returned to Australia. Dias expressed her frustration over having to depart just a day before the first phase of the elections, a timing that she lamented publicly.

Further stirring the pot, ABC News released an explosive article claiming that Dias had received a direct phone call from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). According to the publication, the MEA informed Dias that she "crossed a line with her propaganda-laden YouTube video," which controversially suggested that India was involved in the assassination of Canada-based Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

The video titled 'Sikhs, Spies and Murder: Investigating India’s alleged hit on foreign soil' by ABC News, led by South Asia Bureau Chief Avani Dias, has stirred significant controversy. This 29-minute video, purposefully named, was clearly aimed at damaging India’s image internationally by portraying it as a facilitator of extraterritorial killings.

In reaction to this provocative content, the Modi government took a strong stance by directing YouTube to block access to the video in India. Those attempting to view it are now greeted with the message: "This content is currently unavailable in this country because of an order from the government related to national security or public order." This move by the government illustrates its determination to prevent any dissemination of materials it considers harmful to the national interest and India's diplomatic relations.

Interestingly, Avani Dias seemed to have harbored unrealistic expectations about the reception of her work by the Indian authorities. She was perhaps under the mistaken belief that the Indian government would roll out the red carpet for her, despite her contributions to a narrative that could potentially sour India’s relations with its allies and partner countries. This misjudgment speaks volumes about the disconnect between her expectations and the realistic implications of her reporting activities on India's sovereign policies and its stance on protecting national security.

Avani Dias, often referred to as a 'controversial journalist,' has been active on X (formerly Twitter), where she frequently plays the victim card while casting aspersions on the state of Indian democracy under the Narendra Modi regime. Her posts have stirred significant debate and criticism, particularly regarding her portrayal of the government's policies and actions.

In an interesting turn of events, Dias managed to garner support from approximately 30 foreign correspondents. However, her credibility suffered a major blow when it was later revealed in media reports that her claims about being denied a visa extension were false. It was disclosed that she actually returned to Australia for personal reasons, including her wedding and a new job opportunity, rather than any issues with the Indian government as she had claimed. Despite these revelations, she continues to hold a position at ABC News' Four Corners, contributing to its investigative segments.

Dias has a history of courting controversy beyond her reporting on India. She previously sparked outrage by insinuating that Hindus were involved in the vandalism of the Shree Laxmi Narayan Temple in Brisbane. Additionally, she attempted to portray the Pran Prathistha ceremony of the Ram Mandir as a 'Hindu supremacist' event. Her support for the wearing of religious attire in government schools, along with her misleading statements about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and her criticism of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 in Uttar Pradesh, have further fueled debates about her journalistic integrity and the objectivity of her reporting.

Through her actions and public statements, Dias appears to be engaged in creating a narrative that frequently challenges the policies of the Modi government, often using provocative and unsubstantiated claims. This approach has not only raised questions about the quality and bias of her journalism but also about the impact of her work on the perception of India's democratic and secular credentials on the international stage.