Censorship: THE INFORMATION FREEDOM QUESTION

Prologue

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

Censorship is the act of controlling, limiting, or prohibiting access to information, media, or content. It can take many forms, such as governmental or institutional censorship, self-censorship, and even peer censorship. Censorship has been a topic of debate for centuries, with supporters arguing that it is necessary to protect the public from harmful or inappropriate content, while opponents argue that it violates freedom of speech and the right to access information.

Censorship often does not run alone. It is a very elaborate, concise, and deliberate act of suppression. Layering an event and its knowledge with falsehoods and using sleight-of-hand techniques to deflect past the main cause of concern is one of the most commonly used methods to enable censorship. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” This quote is often wrongly attributed to the French philosopher and writer Voltaire because of the Mandela Effect caused by a US senator to hide the neo-Nazi affiliation behind the quote.

This sort of layering is so efficient it often bends and breaks the truth. Talking about something closer to home we see how censorship is being used to effectively mobilize the masses for so many different causes and causing distinct differences between them just so that the government is able to run aloof with whatever they want to do in lieu of the majority of masses.

Censorship in India

The recent proposal by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to amend the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, has caused concern among those who value free speech and media freedom in India. This amendment is part of a broader trend of increasing internet censorship in India, which has been growing since 2014.

Organizations like the Internet Freedom Foundation have criticized the proposal, stating that it would severely impact freedom of speech, expression, and information online. The amendment proposes a new category of takedown for social media and news media content, targeting information deemed fake or false by new enforcers. These enforcers include the fact check unit at the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or other authorized agencies by the Central Government for fact-checking.

If the amendment is adopted, it will have a significant impact on all providers of digital news content in India, including legacy media. This amendment is unconstitutional and violates the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). It is expected that the higher courts will reject it.

The MODI QUESTION

The proposal followed a concerning event in which the first episode of the BBC's two-part documentary, India: The Modi Question, was censored. The episode was released on BBC 2 in the UK on January 17th and was quickly uploaded to unauthorized websites. The Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson accused the documentary of bias, lack of objectivity, and perpetuating a colonial mindset without actually watching it. On January 20th, the Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an order to deny Indian viewers access to the documentary. Kanchan Gupta, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, tweeted that the ministry had issued directions for blocking multiple YouTube videos and Twitter posts about the documentary. Gupta claimed that the documentary was found to undermine the sovereignty and integrity of India and had the potential to adversely impact India's relations with foreign countries and public order within the country. The documentary focuses on the Narendra Modi government's approach towards India's Muslim population and the tensions and conflicts that arise from this, examining Modi's record as both Chief Minister of Gujarat and Prime Minister.

The Kashmir Factor

Recently, the media environment in Kashmir has been marked by violence, censorship, intimidation, and restrictions. Independent and freelance journalists from Kashmir continue to document these repressive measures, despite attempts to silence them. This is not a new phenomenon, as the state has a long history of using violence and narrative control to maintain power. However, recent measures to restrict the media, such as the arrest of Aasif Sultan, the use of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act against journalists, and physical violence, raids, harassment, and travel restrictions, are some of the most severe actions ever taken against journalists in Kashmir. The Media Policy 2020 has institutionalized this state conduct, by dictating what information can be included and excluded in media content. The policy also seeks to address issues of fake news and plagiarism, but it requires journalists to undergo robust background checks and prohibits media content that questions India's sovereignty and integrity. The policy has been extended to prevent journalists from covering encounters in Kashmir, citing national security concerns.

Epilogue

“The only difference between a revolution and a mutiny is that a fight that is won is a revolution and a struggle that is lost is called a mutiny.” This quote should not hinder our spirit to push against the government. While unrestricted access to every bit of knowledge is bad for the government and its people, for example, defense resources of the country et cetera it does not mean we should let the government use that excuse to censor anything and everything. The integrity of a country isn’t what the government thinks it should be but it is much larger and much deeper than what is conspicuous. Holding them accountable and letting free speech is not only our duty and our responsibility but also our camaraderie to people that are being treated unjustly. The Modi Government’s tough clasp on information and misguiding news has made it so clear that – India is overdue for a revolution.

Censorship is the act of controlling, limiting, or prohibiting access to information, media, or content. It can take many forms, such as governmental or institutional censorship, self-censorship, and even peer censorship. Censorship has been a topic of debate for centuries, with supporters arguing that it is necessary to protect the public from harmful or inappropriate content, while opponents argue that it violates freedom of speech and the right to access information.

Censorship often does not run alone. It is a very elaborate, concise, and deliberate act of suppression. Layering an event and its knowledge with falsehoods and using sleight-of-hand techniques to deflect past the main cause of concern is one of the most commonly used methods to enable censorship. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” This quote is often wrongly attributed to the French philosopher and writer Voltaire because of the Mandela Effect caused by a US senator to hide the neo-Nazi affiliation behind the quote.

This sort of layering is so efficient it often bends and breaks the truth. Talking about something closer to home we see how censorship is being used to effectively mobilize the masses for so many different causes and causing distinct differences between them just so that the government is able to run aloof with whatever they want to do in lieu of the majority of masses.