NAGA MUNCHETTY should feel secretly pleased that after Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, she has become the number one hate figure in the media, especially for white women feature writers who earn less than her £360,000.
Naga apparently gets cross with junior staff who don’t do her toast right – it apparently has to be burnt the way she likes it.
Naga, a presenter on BBC Breakfast, is accused, among other things, of bullying staff. If her critics have their way, she will soon be toast herself.
Last week, following the resignation of Rushanara Ali as a junior housing minister, I drew attention to other Asian women politicians – among them Tulip Siddiq, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Baroness Pola Uddin and Rupa Huq – who have got into trouble for one reason or another.
Is something similar happening in the media?
Samira Ahmed
Apart from Naga, I can think of other Asian women journalists in television or radio who have not seen eye to eye with the employers.
I will come to the others – Mishal Husain, Sangita Myska, Ritula Shah and Lisa Aziz – but Naga first.
Annabel Denham, columnist and deputy comment editor in the Daily Telegraph, had a piece, “It’s not easy to defend Naga Munchetty, but workplace wokery is out of control”, which said: “This generously paid cultural arbiter once called Boris Johnson a ‘useless tosser’, liked disparaging tweets about Robert Jenrick and bizarrely scolded Kemi Badenoch for failing to watch that tendentious Adolescence series – prompting the Tory leader to reply, rather neatly: ‘In the same way that I don’t need to watch Casualty to know what’s going on in the NHS, I don’t need to watch a Netflix drama to understand what’s going on.’
” Her colleague, Liam Kelly, wrote: “Her on-air behaviour has also occasionally caused controversy. She was censured in 2019 for criticising Donald Trump for telling a group of non-white Democrat congresswomen to ‘go back’ to their ‘crime-infested’ countries. ‘Every time I have been told, as a woman of colour, to go back to where I came from, that was embedded in racism,’ she said live on BBC Breakfast, before later adding that she was ‘absolutely furious’ about the US president’s comments.
“The Corporation partially upheld a complaint that her remarks had breached editorial guidelines before Tony Hall, then the directorgeneral, intervened to reverse that decision. Some two years later, Munchetty apologised after liking ‘offensive’ tweets that disparaged Robert Jenrick, then the housing secretary, for being interviewed on Breakfast with a large Union Flag and a portrait of the late Queen behind him.”
Pointing out she tied for 11th place on the BBC’s high pay list, Kelly added: “It is a far cry from her childhood growing up in Streatham, south London. Her Indian mother, Muthu, and Mauritian father, David, moved to Britain in the 1970s and worked as nurses while they brought up Munchetty and her younger sister, Mimi.”
Mishal Husain left the BBC earlier this year for Bloomberg TV after 11 years as a presenter on Radio 4’s flagship Today programme.This was after Andrew Marr was replaced by Laura Kuenssberg as presenter of the Sunday morning politics slot.
Sangita Myska
Last year, LBC removed Sangita Myska as a presenter after she was a little too robust in questioning the Israeli government spokesman, Avi Hyman.
In 2000, Samira Ahmed took the BBC to an employment tribunal, after protesting she was paid £440 for Newswatch, which is shown on the BBC News Channel and BBC Breakfast. But Jeremy Vine was getting £3,000 per episode for the similar BBC One’s Points of View. The tribunal agreed with Samira: “The difference in pay in this case is striking. Jeremy Vine was paid more than six times what the claimant was paid for doing the same work as her.”
In 2023, Ritula Shah left the BBC after 35 years, having been lead presenter of the World Tonight on Radio 4 since 2013. She said she was upset to discover she was being paid tens of thousands of pounds fewer than her male colleagues. She now has a late night slot on Classic FM, but misses the urgency of current affairs: “It’s a really painful episode in my life and I still can’t quite get over it, even though it’s now behind me.”
Liza Aziz, once the glamour girl among TV presenters, joined ITV in 2006 after 10 years with Sky News. But after four years she fell out with ITV West in Bristol after her employers accused her of financial irregularities and she considered taking legal action for race, sex and age discrimination. Lisa left after a settlement was reached.
Each case is different, and I am not taking sides. But Asian women with high profile jobs in the media have to be extra careful about not giving offence. Quite often in order to fit in, they have to buy a bottle of wine to share with their male white colleagues after work. In the workplace culture, they have to go with the flow.
Ritula Shah
Sheela Banerjee, author of What’s in a Name? Friendship, Identity and History in Modern Multicultural Britain, told Eastern Eye a couple years ago when her book came out: “I gave up TV. As a state school educated, nonOxbridge, brown woman, it is hard. There are not that many of us. If you were trying to make documentaries, it was virtually impossible. We’d get shunted off into light entertainment and stuff like that. Which is fine. But that’s not what I wanted to do. And also, it’s just rife with discrimination. That’s the problem. And it’s really stressful. It’s still the same.”
She quoted some diversity figures from television. “The number of black, Asian and minority ethnic directors in factual television in 2018 – not that long ago – was like three per cent. I mean it’s absurd. And most of the productions are in London or Manchester, hugely diverse cities. And most programmes are now made by independent production companies, even for the BBC. If you go on to their websites and then ‘meet the team’ pages, there’s a sea of Hannahs and Lucys and Elsas and Charlottes. It makes me so angry. There are lots of industries that are exactly the same – for example, academia and publishing. But television is still really important because lots of people watch it and get their information from it.”
US president Donald Trump gestures next to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Ben Gurion International Airport as Trump leaves Israel en route to Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, to attend a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a US-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Lod, Israel, October 13, 2025.
‘They make a desert and call it peace’, wrote the Roman historian Tacitus. That was an early exercise, back in AD 96, of trying to walk in somebody else’s shoes. The historian was himself the son-in-law of the Roman Governor of Britain, yet he here imagined the rousing speech of a Caledonian chieftain to give voice to the opposition to that imperial conquest.
Nearly two thousand years later, US president Donald Trump this week headed to Sharm-El-Sheikh in the desert, to join the Egyptian, Turkish and Qatari mediators of the Gaza ceasefire. Twenty more world leaders, including prime minister Sir Keir Starmer and president Emmanuel Macron of France turned up too to witness this ceremonial declaration of peace in Gaza.
This ceasefire brings relief after two years of devastating pain. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. More of the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas are returning dead than alive. Eighty-five per cent of Gaza is rubble. Each of the twenty steps of the proposed peace plan may prove rocky. The state of Palestine has more recognition - in principle - than ever before across the international community, but it may be a long road to that taking practical form. Israel continues to oppose a Palestinian state.
The ceasefire will be welcomed in Britain for humanitarian relief and rekindling hopes of a path to a political settlement. It offers an opportunity to take stock on the fissures of the last two years on community relations here in Britain too. That was the theme of a powerful cross-faith conversation last week, convened by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to reciprocate the expressions of solidarity received from Muslims, Christians and others after the Manchester synagogue attacks, and challenge the arson attack on a Sussex mosque.
Jewish and Muslim civic voices had convened an ‘optimistic alliance’ to keep conversations going when there seemed ever less to be optimistic about. The emerging news from Gaza was seen as a hopeful basis to deepen conversation in Britain about how tackling the causes of both antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice could form part of a shared commitment to cohesion.
This conflict has not seen a Brexit-style polarisation down the middle of British society. Most people’s first instinct was to avoid choosing a side in this conflict. The murderous Hamas attack on Jews on October 7, 2023 and the excesses of the Israeli assault on Gaza piled tragedy upon tragedy. The instinct to not take sides can be an expression of mutual empathy, but is not always so noble. It can reflect confusion and exhaustion with this seemingly intractable conflict. A tendency to look away and change the subject can frustrate those whose family heritage, faith solidarity or commitments to Zionism and Palestine as political ideas make them feel more closely connected.
Others have felt this conflict thrust upon them in an unwelcome way - including British Jews fed up with the antisemitic idea that they can be held responsible at school, university or work for what the government of Israel is doing. Protesters for Palestine perceive double standards in arguments about free speech - as do those with contrasting views. The proper boundaries between legitimate political protest and prejudice are sharply contested.
Hamit Coksun is an asylum seeker who speaks somewhat broken English. He would seem an unusual ally for Robert Jenrick. Yet the shadow justice secretary went to court to offer solidarity, after Coskun had burned a Qu’ran outside the Turkish Embassy, while shouting “F__ Islam” and “Islam is the religion of terrorism”. He had been fined £250, but the appeal court overturned his conviction. The judgment was context-specific: this specific incendiary protest took place outside an embassy, not a place of worship, in an empty street, and did not direct the comments at anybody in particular.
The law does not protect faiths from criticism, and indeed offers some protection for intolerant and prejudiced political speech too, though the police can place conditions on protest to protect people from abuse, intimidation or harassment on the basis of their faith.
So it can be legal to performatively burn books - holy or otherwise - though this verdict makes clear it does not offer a green light to do so in every context.
But how far should we celebrate those who choose to burn books? Cosun advocates banning the Qu’ran, making him a flawed champion of free speech. Jenrick is legitimately concerned to show that there are no laws against blasphemy in Britain, but could anybody imagine that he would turn up in person to show solidarity to a man burning the Bible, Bhagvad Gita or Torah, shouting profanities to declaring religion of war or genocide? The court’s defence of the right to shock, offend and provoke is correct in law. Those are hardly the only conversations that a shared society needs.
Sunder Katwalawww.easterneye.biz
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.