Raphael Satter’s case exposes global media’s anti-India agenda – Firstpost

In any democracy, the media and press are the fourth estate and pillar of strength. Social media has complicated this task. They are the bridge, listening and articulating posts between the people, parliament and the executive. But they have to be true to their critical role in nation building and not undermine the country due to sheer ideological or pecuniary compulsions, lest they lose their credibility.

Unfortunately, that is turning out to be true in many cases across the world where the power of media is being capitalised for regime change agendas as part of the gray-zone warfare. India is not immune from such onslaughts; rather, it has become a major target ever since it has begun to exercise an independent foreign policy driven by strategic autonomy and national interest.

I thought of commenting on this particular case because it also involves the revocation of the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card of the journalist concerned since I was associated with the launch of the Person of Indian Origin (PIO) card that was changed subsequently into the OCI card to acknowledge and facilitate the emotional connection of the Indian diaspora and provide them easy access and facilities nearly like those available to Indian citizens.

However, some have abused this privilege. It is a kind of lifelong visa, and one should remember that a visa is not a matter of right – it is at the discretion of the issuing state. US leadership has also made it amply clear through the recent statements and revocation of visas and residencies of scores of foreigners, including Indians.

A growing controversy recently emerged surrounding Reuters and its journalist Raphael Satter, with critics accusing them of engaging in biased and propagandistic reporting against India. At the heart of the debate is Reuters’ portrayal of Appin, a now-defunct Indian cybersecurity firm, as a “hacking-for-hire” operation—a depiction that has drawn sharp criticism for relying on outdated information and lacking solid evidence.

These allegations have sparked a broader discussion about the integrity of journalism, especially when funded by entities like the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which have been exposed threadbare by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for social deception, and the actions of Satter themselves face accusations of ethical breaches and anti-India bias. Biases are personal and prejudicial, but when against a country in an organised manner, they need to be called out, as they impinge on the very sovereignty of the nation, and Satter is no exception to this rule.

Accusations against ‘Reuters’ and Raphael Satter

Reuters’ coverage of Appin has become a focal point of contention. Critics argue that labelling the firm a “hacking-for-hire” entity is an oversimplification that rests on stale data and fails to provide concrete proof. Many see this as part of a deliberate effort to damage India’s international reputation.

The involvement of USAID, which provides funding to Reuters, has intensified these concerns, with some suggesting that the reporting aligns suspiciously with geopolitical interests aimed at undermining India.

Raphael Satter, a Reuters journalist, has been singled out for particular scrutiny. He is accused of harbouring an anti-India bias. An Indian court had issued orders to stay his past article. In a recent piece for The Guardian, Satter claimed his visits to India were solely for family reasons—a statement critics dispute, pointing to a defamation case filed against him as evidence of ulterior motives.

Further complicating matters, Satter allegedly conducted journalistic work in India using an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card without the necessary approvals, raising legal and ethical questions about his activities, which are ultra vires unless a proper permission has been granted by the concerned authorities.

Critique of Satter’s Guardian Article and Conduct

Satter’s article in The Guardian has drawn fierce criticism for what many perceive as a contradictory stance: he is professing respect and affection for India while simultaneously demeaning it. Readers and analysts have described the piece as dripping with bias, arrogance, and a mercenary approach to journalism, lacking both objectivity and sensitivity toward India and its people. The tone, often characterised as condescending and patronising, has only deepened the backlash.

Beyond his writing, Satter’s actions have come under fire for allegedly flouting Indian laws. He is accused of violating the privacy policies of a job website, blackmailing citizens for information, and breaching media ethics by offering jobs to sources.

Critics also claim he conducted investigations in India without registering as a journalist—a serious legal violation. Additionally, reports of Satter inviting a former female employee to Goa and texting her late at night have raised further concerns about his professionalism and ethical boundaries.

Support from Other Media Outlets

The controversy has not gone unnoticed by other media voices. John Rossomondo, alongside, in the past, Daily Express, EU Reporter, Indian News Media and many others, have all weighed in, accusing Satter and USAID-funded Reuters of orchestrating a “hit job” on India.

They describe the reporting as “social deception journalism”, driven by geopolitical propaganda and personal vendettas, rather than a pursuit of truth. This chorus of criticism ipso facto underscores the growing unease about Reuters’ credibility in this context.

Conclusion

The allegations levelled against Reuters and Raphael Satter paint a troubling picture of modern journalism, where accusations of bias, ethical misconduct, and disregard for legal standards threaten to erode public trust. From the questionable portrayal of Appin to Satter’s alleged breaches of Indian law and professional norms, the controversy raises critical questions about accountability in the media. As voices from across the globe join the critique, the need for transparency, fairness, and respect in reporting—particularly on sensitive international matters—has never been more apparent.

The author is the former Indian Ambassador to Jordan, Libya and Malta and is currently a Distinguished Fellow with Vivekananda International Foundation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.