Modi regime’s growing influence over media leaves less room for free speech
UPDATE – Mon 03 Apr 23 12:39am
Arun Sinha
Hyderabad: In democracies, people enjoy not only the freedom to elect a government of their choice, but also other freedoms, such as freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of religion. The government elected by the people is bound by a constitutional oath guaranteeing them other liberties as well.
In recent years, the Modi regime has repeatedly denied other freedoms. Peaceful assembly is prohibited. Individuals who adhere to Islam or Christianity are subject to criminal persecution because their choices are believed to have been influenced by force, fraud, or seduction. Marrying a Muslim invites similar persecution.
freedom of speech
This column discusses only one freedom under attack: free speech. The preamble of our Constitution guarantees “freedom of thought.” Section 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of expression. In decision after decision, the Supreme Court has held that free speech is a fundamental value of our Constitution and inviolable. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, our Constitution does not grant any special protections for free speech in the media. Free speech in the media is only an extension of the free speech of citizens.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. It is subject to certain conditions. This freedom cannot be used to prejudice the sovereignty and integrity of India, national security, friendly relations with foreign countries and public order; incite crime, incite hostility between religious groups or castes, insult any religion, violate decency or morality, defame any person or contempt of court. These conditions are referred to as “reasonable limitations” by Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. These restrictions attract lakshman rekha which cannot be crossed by citizens or journalists when exercising their freedom of expression. If they did, they would be legally liable for what they said.
Constitutional guarantees of free speech prohibit the state from imposing any prior censorship. Pre-censorship of Indira Gandhi’s state of emergency is a distortion of the Constitution. The constitution is very clear: any legal action can be taken against material only if it is made public and violates “reasonable limitations”. This applies both to citizens’ posts on social media platforms such as Facebook or Instagram, and to journalists’ words or pictures in newspapers, television or news websites.
high wall protection
The Constitution thus erected two high walls to protect freedom of speech. A wall prevents the state from enforcing pre-censorship. Another lakshman rekha that prevents it from restricting free speech unless it crosses “reasonable limits”.
In recent years, the Modi government has tried several times to bring down both walls. Because the Constitution prohibits pre-censorship, it does so indirectly. It uses both overt and covert methods—ad rejections, raids by central investigative agencies, criminal prosecutions—to coerce journalists and citizens into self-censorship. Pre-censorship and self-censorship are two sides of the same coin: one is the head and the other is the tail. In pre-censorship, it is the system that keeps “adverse” material out of the public domain. In self-censorship, it is journalists or citizens who suppress material “bad” for the regime out of fear.
The regime has also been using manipulation to bring down walls of “reasonable limits”. One of its methods is to extend the scope of “reasonable restrictions” to infinity, as it did when it blocked the BBC documentary “India: The Modi Problem”. It blocked it for violating “reasonable restrictions.” If you watch this documentary, it doesn’t do that kind of thing. The film takes a sharp, critical look at Modi’s political career from 2002 as chief minister of Gujarat to the present as prime minister. This is a documentary about a great Indian statesman and his politics. It contains no material that may “undermine” India’s sovereignty and integrity or “adversely affect” India’s friendly relations with foreign countries or public order.
political plan
The growing influence of the Modi regime on the media means that there is less and less room for free speech. The regime is promoting a culture of monologues to replace a democratic culture of open dialogue. The blocking of BBC documentaries is part of the same political project.
During farmers’ protests in 2020-21, the government forced Twitter to block the accounts of farmer leaders, journalists and a news magazine, citing violations of “reasonable restrictions”. Governments keep asking social media intermediaries to block accounts or delete posts by citizens, journalists, and organizations for similarly plausible reasons.
Government orders on social media intermediaries show a pattern. First, they are too broad, vague and disproportionate. They did not provide credible evidence that users of the platform violated any “reasonable restrictions.”
Second, they deny users natural justice. The government ordered accounts blocked or posts deleted without giving users a chance to defend themselves. Social media platforms are like Hyde Park in London, where anyone can express themselves freely. This is a place for open dialogue. The state must deter or punish anyone who violates “reasonable limits” in expressing his or her mind, but cannot deny that person a position.
Three, eccentricity. The government has never ordered the blocking of accounts or removal of posts by users who violate “reasonable restrictions” day after day, who “sow the seeds of division among various Indian communities”, “foment hostility among religious groups” and “Insulting religious groups”. religion” because they promote an agenda that fits the regime’s political program.
Governments are using other means to replace public dialogue with monologues. One is to amend the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Code of Ethics in Digital Media) Rules 2021 to make the government the final arbiter of blocking accounts or deleting posts. The other is for the News Information Bureau to be the arbiter of “fake news” to decide what can stay on social media platforms.
With the regime showing a clear tendency to criminalize its critics for “spreading fake news” while allowing pro-regime online militias to go unpunished for peddling fake news, you can see whose content will Disappear, whose content will remain.
