The New York Times has recently brought out a sensational investigative story on global Chinese propaganda and the interlinkages of a network of activists’-groups, non-profit organisations, and shell companies in such operations. At the heart of this network is an American millionaire, Neville Roy Singham, a pro-left businessman having close links with the propaganda arm of the Communist Party of China (CCP). The New York Times highlighted, “In New Delhi, corporate filings showed that Singham’s network had financed a news site, News Click, that sprinkled its coverage with Chinese government talking points”. It may be recalled that in 2021, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigated the alleged Chinese links of the News Click and the fraudulent infusion of Rs 38.05 crore during 2018- 21. The News Click, which was initially started as a social media site in early 2009, was incorporated as a registered company, PPK News Click Studio Pvt Ltd, on January 11, 2018 by Prabir Purkayastha, as an online news portal covering both Indian and international news. In the wake of the New York Times revelations, the ED has stepped up its investigations, including the attachment of assets and properties of Purkayastha in New Delhi, worth many crores. The agency is likely to quiz certain political leaders and Left-intellectuals who were in touch with or had frequent digital communication with Neville Roy Singham.

The New York Times story unfolds China’s innovative techniques for pushing pro-China narratives at the international level so as to deflect international criticism of its hegemonistic designs or abuses of human rights. According to the Times story, China used ‘global ecosystem of activists and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) to build a network that subtly promotes the Chinese nation and parrots the government’s stance’. These groups ‘echo one another and are echoed in turn by the Chinese State media’. Thought Works, a Chicago-based IT consulting firm founded by Singham in the 1980s played a crucial role in floating these networks of non-profit bodies and in channelizing huge funds for pro-China propaganda and campaigns across the world. Some of these non-profit organisations run by pro-left activists in the US have been tied to Neville Singham’s network through domain registration records etc. in order to scuttle the mandatory registration and other procedures under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (of US). Notable among them is ‘No Cold War’, which was at the forefront of vituperative attacks from the West for its rhetoric against China that has made her distancing from issues like climate change and racial injustice. Another outfit was ‘Code Pink’, formed at the instance of Singham’s wife, Jodie Evans. Once a strident critic of China’s authoritarian regime, Code Pink has now become a blind supporter of China, casting it as a ‘defender of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war’. On many geopolitical issues such as the China-Taiwan conflict, the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, Covid- vaccine diplomacy, human rights violations by Uyghur-rebels, etc., ‘Code Pink’ operated like a mouth-piece of Chinese media. Elated by such blanket support, the Chinese state media liberally retweeted the posts/tweets of bodies like ‘Cold Pink’ and ‘No Cold War’ across the world, obviously to galvanise international opinion in favour of China.

Of course, the ‘propaganda game’ or ‘lobbying’ is not a new phenomenon in international politics or the power struggle among the comity of nations.  During the Cold War era, both the Soviet Union and the US and their allies went to great lengths to portray the virtues of the good life offered by their socioeconomic systems and to reveal the alleged deficiencies of their rivals’ systems. In many instances, truth or hard realities were suppressed; instead, rosy pictures of affluence and development were presented with much rhetoric and fanfare to attract the nations to their alliances or blocs. But power equations had drastically changed after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the sporadic geopolitical developments that had virtually changed the complexion and polity of many East European countries.  An interrelated development was the emergence of China as a major power with global ambitions to out-beat the US as a super- power. 

Though the evolution of China’s sprawling propaganda system can be traced to the post 1978 reform era, the country has fully geared up its propaganda machine in the present millennium, greatly influenced by such geopolitical factors. The negative image of China, by   virtue of its ‘closed door policies’ for many decades and blatant negation of international conventions and protocols on issues of common concern and interest for humanity, has hindered international acceptance of its rise as a global great power. Thus, one of the priority tasks of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was to “gain face” (‘yao –mianzi’) in the international arena, for which it has adopted various strategies and mechanisms – both traditional and modern – with heavy investment, ‘ranging from US$7 billion to $10 billion’, (Ann Marie Brady, ‘China’s Propaganda Machine’- Wilson Centre- October 26, 2015). 

In the formulation of an aggressive pro-China propaganda strategy, Xi Jinping played a pivotal role. In his address at the national meeting on Propaganda and Theoretical work in April, 2013, Xi underlined, “We should enhance our foreign-oriented publicity work through trying methods and with new concepts, domains and expressions that are understood by both China and the rest of the world, telling the story of our country and making our voice heard”. Later in 2014, while addressing the party’s PolitBuro, he pushed his agenda holding that China should be portrayed as a civilized country featuring a rich history, ethnic unity, and cultural diversity, and as an Eastern power with good government, a developed economy, cultural prosperity, national unity, and beautiful scenery. He further highlighted that China should also be projected as a responsible country that advocates peace and development, safeguards international fairness and justice, makes a positive contribution to humanity, and as a socialist country which is open and friendly to the world, full of hope and vitality. With such announcements and concerted moves, China’s foreign-propaganda efforts have taken on a new level of assertiveness, confidence, and ambition with several new- themes and slogans such as ‘tell a good Chinese story’, ‘Chinese Dream’ and ‘rich country, strong military”, etc.

Definitely, the Chinese leadership has certain advantages to effectively pursue its global propaganda agenda. First and foremost are China’s significant advances in cyberspace and interrelated new technologies that transcend countries and continents. As rightly pointed out by Kerry Allen, China media analyst at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), ‘with more than one billion internet users, China certainly has the capability to orchestrate large-scale social media campaigns and target what it sees as anti-China voices with a wealth of opposing opinions’. Moreover, the sprawling network of hackers and fake social media profiles is pushing pro-China narratives with a view  to discrediting  those seen as opponents of China’s government. Their main aim is to delegitimize the West and augment China’s influence and image overseas. The ‘Dragon Bridge’ (‘Spamouflage Dragon’) channel, which has been engaged in systematic US-bashing, is at the forefront of posting narratives praising China’s pandemic response, criticism of pro-democracy protests, and more strident support for unification with Taiwan. Secondly, China could effectively disseminate the theme of economic cooperation and development across the world through its ambitious projects, such as the New Silk Road Initiative, that go ‘beyond ideology’.  They propagate that these projects aimed at setting new norms in international relations will not only help to put an end to the exploitation of weaker states by the affluent countries but also all other political and economic equalities of the old order. Thirdly, with a wide  network of cultural and other bodies such as the Confucius Institutes, Chinese cultural centres, Acupuncture establishments, etc., they could promote pro-China sentiments and traditional Chinese culture to a larger global audience.  

Among the diverse methods adopted by China in its global propaganda endeavours, two established approaches are the cultivation of prominent personalities in different countries to promote the Chinese line and the borrowing/acquisition of foreign electronic and print media. Chinese leaders or diplomats develop symbiotic relationships or partnerships with highly prominent foreign figures with pro-China proclivities and use them in different fields to promote Chinese interests. Almost all countries have such ‘friends of China‘. In this connection, many ‘China-watchers’ cite the examples of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger or former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Chinese government or the party extends invitations to such ‘friends’ or their delegations to visit the country as part of their familiarisation with China and the Chinese way of life. Very often, these personalities subsequently become the ‘virtual Ambassadors’ of China by promoting the interests of the country. In the case of borrowing of media, the official Chinese propaganda network establishes good rapport with reputed foreign journalists, channel promoters, and prominent think tanks and intellectuals who are politically or ideologically friendly to China. The Chinese propagandists use their services for publishing pro-China articles in leading foreign newspapers or telecasting programmes through popular foreign channels or networks. 

In this backdrop, the News Click controversy assumes considerable significance in the context of India-China relations. Ever since the 1962 India-China conflict,  relations between the two countries have remained strained, if not hostile, with occasional skirmishes, as happened in the recent past in Doklam or Galwan valley. Moreover, the border disputes remain alive with China’s refusal to accept the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and her occupation of vast areas of Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh. On many occasions, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and their propaganda set-up tried to build up a pro-China lobby within India and outside by extending tacit support to groups or movements that raised revolutionary slogans or ‘sub-nationalist struggles’ challenging the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. A historical example was the Naxalbari uprisings of the late 1960s. Describing the movement as ‘Spring Thunder over India’, the CCP and the Chinese media glorified it as a ‘historic turning point in the Indian revolution’, just on the lines of the Chinese revolution. Ironically, many Left-Wing Extremist (LWE) groups look to Beijing for guidance and moral support. Attracted by the slogans of socialism and the creation of an egalitarian society free from exploitation and suppression, sections of political leaders, youth, intellectuals, academics, and media-personnel declared solidarity with such movements and developed pro-China sentiments. In many instances, they operate as ‘proxy- soldiers’ in defending China at the national and international level, even jeopardising Indian interests. Globalisation and the spread of new technology have given them added leverage to fan out such propaganda using social media and other electronic channels. The threat emanating from such organised activities has grave national security implications. Unfortunately, sections of political leaders or policy-makers fail to visualise such developments from the right perspective. For example, in the News Click controversy, certain leaders, instead of nailing the actual perpetrators of the alleged deal, resorted to political rhetoric and mud-slinging undermining the gravity of the threat. So long as Indo-China relations remain strained, we should monitor such issues with an eagle-eye so that our national interests are fully protected.

Views expressed by the author are personal and need not reflect or represent the views of the Centre for Public Policy Research.

K V Thomas

+ posts

K V Thomas is Senior Fellow at CPPR. He has over 36 years of distinguished service in the Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs) of India where he rose to become the Associate Director. He can be contacted at [email protected]

• Lateral Entry in Civil Services: Navigating the Controversies and Challenges
• Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump: New Challenges to Personal Protection Mechanisms
• Assembly Elections 2023 | Semi-finals over? Who will win the Finals?
• 2023 Assembly Elections in 5 States - A Semi-final to Finals or Not?