28 Aug 24 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features
On 1 April, less than a month before India went to the polls, a young YouTuber named Dhruv Rathee released a video calling India’s Hindu nationalist prime minister a dictator. Speaking in a loud, declamatory style, Rathee delivered fact after fact, laying out how Narendra Modi had tried to throttle Indian democracy. The video ended with an appeal to vote against the Prime Minister.
At the time of writing, Rathee’s harangue had garnered an incredible 37 million views on YouTube. This number does not capture the fact that many Indians would have viewed this video as a “forward” on WhatsApp. With an incredible 24.6 million subscribers, Rathee is the person Indians increasingly turn to when they want to consume current affairs. And he’s not the only one. Ravish Kumar, one of India’s most well-known journalists, now broadcasts on YouTube with nearly 12 million subscribers. These one-person YouTube channels frequently garner more views and subscribers than corporate-funded mainstream media channels.
For a decade now, India’s mainstream media has stopped doing the job it’s meant to do – holding the powerful to account. Using a mixture of carrot and stick, Modi has ensured his government has little to fear from traditional broadcasters or newspapers. The result: Indians are now increasingly turning to the internet for news and opinion. This trend is so significant that Modi is making increasingly desperate attempts to control what takes place online.
Throttling the press
As a wave of autocratic strongmen sweeps the world, arguably Modi leads the pack. The power he commands in India and the ideological changes he has made to the country have few parallels either globally or in India’s own history. The tactical keystone of this politics? Control over the country’s media.
In 2014, India’s Congress-led liberal coalition crashed to a defeat, bringing Modi to power. This loss was portended by loud television debates bashing the government over corruption, women’s safety and, most of all, so-called Muslim appeasement. Once he came to power, Modi had digested that hard political lesson and was determined to ensure that it would not happen to him.
This was relatively easy to do given the Indian media’s structure. Owned by large corporations who looked to curry favour with the government, India’s powerful national television channels bent over backwards for Modi. In 2022, NDTV, India’s last news network not seen to be pro-Modi was acquired: a billionaire who is not only seen as Modi’s close ally but one whose remarkable rise has been facilitated by his government. The change of NDTV’s ownership was like flipping a switch: the network simply stopped doing any critical reporting, leading to an exodus of its top journalists.
If not directly controlled through a proprietor, the Modi government can also influence media houses through ad spending. Oddly enough, the main source of advertising income for legacy media houses in India is the government. Previously, the Modi government has withheld ads from media houses seen as being critical of the government.
Carrot to stick
What happens if a media house does not bend to Modi? In that case, Indian law provides massive powers to the federal government to regulate and even ban television networks. In 2022 the Modi government peremptorily shut down a Malayalam-language news channel, MediaOne, citing “national security” as a reason. While the ban was later reversed by the Supreme Court, the action had a chilling effect on news networks, which simply cannot afford to be yanked off air overnight.
Starting in 2020, the Modi government employed even harsher provisions against a small, left-wing website called NewsClick. First, India’s severe money-laundering laws were deployed against the media outlet. Not satisfied, the government then charged it under India’s draconian terror legislation, which provides for long prison terms even before a court pronounces on the guilt of the accused. Newsclick’s founder, Prabir Purkayastha, found himself spending more than seven months in jail before the Supreme Court granted him bail.
Modi has not been shy of using similar tactics against the BBC. In 2023, the government launched income tax raids against the British broadcaster’s offices in Delhi after the network aired a documentary that was critical of Modi’s role as chief minister in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat.
All this creates a climate where outright violence against journalists is common. Since Modi took power 28 journalists have been killed. Reporters without Borders calls India “one of the world’s most dangerous countries for the media”.
Broadcast Bill
With the traditional media subdued, Modi is now swivelling his guns towards the internet. In 2023, the government released a new Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill looking to regulate television and OTT internet broadcasters. However, in 2024 a new draft significantly expanded the bill’s scope to include internet content creators, apparently driven by the critical role social media had played in the 2024 general election where Modi sustained considerable losses.Copies of this bill were circulated privately by the Modi government and then, just as abruptly, withdrawn.
Even as the exact status of the bill remains unclear – is this truly a withdrawal or a tactical retreat before the final charge? – the provisions in the 2024 draft version are a good pointer as to the scope of Modi’s ambitions when it comes to controlling India’s internet.
The 2024 draft bill, for example, demanded that content creators subject themselves to a draconian regulatory regime designed expressly to stifle free expression. The bill called for content creators to set up “content evaluation committees” which would need to approve the majority of content before it was broadcast (certain programmes such as news and current affairs programmes were exempt), appoint a grievance officer and join a government-approved “self-regulatory organisation” to address grievances as well as ensure compliance with the relevant codes that would be drafted by the government alone. A new Broadcast Advisory Council would have been created by the Indian government which would, in turn, sit above, these self-regulatory organisations.
The entire edifice is a marvel of Orwellian “red tape-ism”, not only bringing content creators under government regulation but making them pay for it themselves. This is significant since adherence to the relevant provisions in the bill would represent a significant, even crippling, cost for small outfits or individual content creators.
How successful has Modi been in his desire to curb free expression in India? While he has achieved a substantial number of his goals, it is credit to India’s democratic traditions that the country’s media has not bent in its entirety. While major media houses are unlikely to play their role as watchdog, independent media and even individual content creators have stepped in to do the job. In fact, the fierce criticism Modi faced when he released the draft of the Broadcast Bill is a fine example of how India’s democratic traditions are trying to push back against curbs to free speech. It is not insignificant that Modi withdrew the draft bill and has gone back to the drawing board on trying to control the internet.
19 Aug 24 | Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Germany, India, Iran, Magazine Contents, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Volume 53.02 Summer 2024
Contents
The Summer 2024 issue of Index looks at how cinema is used as a tool to help shape the global political narrative by investigating who controls what we see on the screen and why they want us to see it. We highlight examples from around the world of states censoring films that show them in a bad light and pushing narratives that help them to scrub up their reputation, as well as lending a voice to those who use cinema as a form of dissent. This issue provides a global perspective, with stories ranging from India to Nigeria to the US. Altogether, it provides us with an insight into the starring role that cinema plays in the world politics, both as a tool for oppressive regimes looking to stifle free expression and the brave dissidents fighting back.
Up Front
Lights, camera, (red)-action, by Sally Gimson: Index is going to the movies and exploring who determines what we see on screen
The Index, by Mark Stimpson: A glimpse at the world of free expression, including an election in Mozambique, an Iranian feminist podcaster and the 1960s TV show The Prisoner
Features
Banned: school librarians shushed over LGBT+ books, by Katie Dancey-Downs: An unlikely new battleground emerges in the fight for free speech
We’re not banned, but…, by Simon James Green: Authors are being caught up in the anti-LGBT+ backlash
The red pill problem, by Anmol Irfan: A group of muslim influencers are creating a misogynistic subculture online
Postcards from Putin’s prison, by Alexandra Domenech: The Russian teenager running an anti-war campaign from behind bars
The science of persecution, by Zofeen T Ebrahim: Even in death, a Pakistani scientist continues to be vilified for his faith
Cinema against the state, by Zahra Hankir: Artists in Lebanon are finding creative ways to resist oppression
First they came for the Greens, by Alessio Perrone, Darren Loucaides and Sam Edwards: Climate change isn’t the only threat facing environmentalists in Germany
Undercover freedom fund, by Gabija Steponenaite: Belarusian dissidents have a new weapon: cryptocurrency
A phantom act, by Danson Kahyana: Uganda’s anti-pornography law is restricting women’s freedom - and their mini skirts
Don’t say ‘gay’, by Ugonna-Ora Owoh: Queer Ghanaians are coming under fire from new anti-LGBT+ laws
Special Report: The final cut - how cinema is being used to change the global narrative
Money talks in Hollywood, by Karen Krizanovich: Out with the old and in with the new? Not on Hollywood’s watch
Strings attached, by JP O’Malley: Saudi Arabia’s booming film industry is the latest weapon in their soft power armoury
Filmmakers pull it out of the bag, by Shohini Chaudhuri: Iranian films are finding increasingly innovative ways to get around Islamic taboos
Edited out of existence, by Tilewa Kazeem: There’s no room for queer stories in Nollywood
Making movies to rule the world, by Jemimah Steinfeld: Author Erich Schwartzel describes how China’s imperfections are left on the cutting room floor
When the original is better than the remake, by Salil Tripathi: Can Bollywood escape from the Hindu nationalist narrative?
Selected screenings, by Maria Sorensen: The Russian filmmaker who is wanted by the Kremlin
A chronicle of censorship, by Martin Bright: A documentary on the Babyn Yar massacre faces an unlikely obstacle
Erdogan’s crucible by Kaya Genc: Election results bring renewed hope for Turkey’s imprisoned filmmakers
Race, royalty and religion - Malaysian cinema’s red lines, by Deborah Augustin: A behind the scenes look at a banned film in Malaysia
Comment
Join the exiled press club, by Can Dundar: A personalised insight into the challenges faced by journalists in exile
Freedoms lost in translation, by Banoo Zan: Supporting immigrant writers - one open mic poetry night at a time
Me Too’s two sides, by John Scott Lewinski: A lot has changed since the start of the #MeToo movement
We must keep holding the line, by Jemimah Steinfeld: When free speech is co-opted by extremists, tyrants are the only winners
Culture
It’s not normal, by Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: Toomaj Salehi’s life is at the mercy of the Iranian state, but they can’t kill his lyrics
No offence intended, by Kaya Genc: Warning: this short story may contain extremely inoffensive content
The unstilled voice of Gazan theatre, by Laura Silvia Battaglia: For some Palestinian actors, their characters’ lives have become a horrifying reality
Silent order, by Fujeena Abdul Kader, Upendar Gundala: The power of the church is being used to censor tales of India’s convents
Freedom of expression is the canary in the coalmine, by Mark Stimpson and Ruth Anderson: Our former CEO reflects on her four years spent at Index
12 Jun 24 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi readies for his third term, he formally took the oath of office on Sunday, casting a shadow over the nation's landscape of free speech and press freedom. With each successive term, Modi's administration has faced criticism for tightening control over the media and curbing dissenting voices, with instances of journalists and activists facing harassment, intimidation, and even legal action for criticisng the government or expressing views contrary to the official narrative.
India's extensive six-week election period concluded with a tally of 640 million votes on 4 June. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP-led NDA (National Democratic Alliance) secured an outright majority by winning 292 seats out of the 543 seats, surpassing the 272 seats required for a clear majority in India's lower house of Parliament.
Meer Faisal, a 23-year-old journalist and the founder of The Observer Post, an online news portal based in Delhi, holds little optimism regarding Modi’s government when it comes to censorship and freedom of expression in India. He has faced significant censorship in the past during Modi's tenure for his coverage on atrocities against Muslims in India. In October last year, his Twitter account faced restrictions in India due to his reporting.
"As a journalist, especially being a Muslim, it invites more censorship and trouble. The Modi government aims to silence every voice that speaks against them. They want to build a narrative in the country and label everyone who criticises government policies as anti-national,” said Faisal.
Faisal is among many in India who express fear concerning Modi's third term, citing concerns beyond censorship to include threats to freedom of speech.
Since August 2019, the Modi government has also barred many Kashmiri journalists from travelling abroad, offering no explanation for restricting their fundamental rights.
"In Modi's third term, I fear that there will be more harsh policies against journalists and more tactics will be employed to intimidate us. This will directly impact our reporting abilities and help authorities in curbing the voice of people,” said Faisal.
In the 2024 edition of the Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, India is ranked 159th out of the 180 nations considered. “With violence against journalists, highly concentrated media ownership, and political alignment, press freedom is in crisis in “the world’s largest democracy”, ruled since 2014 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and embodiment of the Hindu nationalist right,” RSF stated while releasing the data.
Asif Mujtaba, 34, an advocate for people's rights and director of the Miles2smile Foundation—which works with survivors of mob lynching, communal violence, and selective communal demolition—believes that the space for dissent has significantly decreased since Modi came to power, and public participation in protests has also diminished.
"It's become a tough task for social and political activists, regardless of any religion, to work for people's rights under Modi's regime. The government can use any stringent law to frame you and silence your voice,” saidMujtaba.
According to Mujtaba, many people in India are apprehensive about openly criticising Modi because they are aware of the potential repercussions. A significant number of individuals who were once vocal against the regime have now become quiet..
"Modi's administration is aware of the escalating dissent and the potential for increased protests against their policies in the third term. The growing public dissent will force Modi to resort to heavy-handed tactics to silence the people," said Mujtaba.
In the first four months of 2024, India has experienced at least 134 instances of free speech violation, impacting journalists, academics, YouTubers, and students, according to a report published by the Free Speech Collective in early May. The organisation tracks and categorises free speech violations and offers support to those affected.
Niranjan K S, 22, a fourth-year law student at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi, and a member of the All India Revolutionary Students Organisation (AIRSO), argues that the suppression of dissent is driven by the corporate-Hindutva fascist nexus, which aims to transform the country into a fascist dictatorship. As a result, free speech will be stifled, and only those who support the ruling forces will retain their right to free expression.
"The surge in the enforcement of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the uptick in political detentions, particularly aimed at students and activists like Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, who were involved in the anti-CAA protests of 2019, demonstrate a systematic use of these draconian laws to quash all forms of dissent," said Niranjan.
During the protests, students played an active role in amplifying the voices of the oppressed within the country. However, the BJP regime labeled these students as "anti-national" and "terrorists," attempting to delegitimise their activism and dissent.
Niranjan emphasised that secularism and communal harmony are already under significant threat due to the Hindutva ideology of the current regime, which could further hinder free speech. “In this third term of the Modi government, the non-state elements of fascism will be more utilised to advance their offensive than the state elements,” said Niranjan.
Index on Censorship sought a response from a BJP spokesperson regarding censorship as Modi embarks on his historic third term. Answer came there none.
06 Jun 24 | Asia and Pacific, India, News and features
In India, the largest practical exercise in electoral politics the world has ever seen has just come to an end. Narendra Modi and his BJP party has been returned to power for an unprecedented third term, although without an outright majority. While there are many priorities facing the new administration, one of them will undoubtedly be modernising India’s outdated online regulatory framework.
The growth of internet access in India has been exponential. According to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), in 2000 5.5 million Indians were online; last year that number was 850 million. To look at India’s increasing economic and geopolitical clout is to also see a country willing to take on the tech giants to control India’s image online. The Indian government has not tiptoed around calling for platforms such as X and YouTube to remove content or accounts. According to the Washington Post, “records published by the Indian Parliament show that annual takedown requests for posts and accounts increased from 471 to 6,775 between 2014 and 2022, with those to Twitter soaring from 224 in 2018 to 3,417 in 2022.”
India’s online regulatory regime is over 20 years old and with the proliferation of online users and the emergence of new technologies, its age is starting to show. India is not alone in wrestling with this complex issue - just look at the Online Safety Act in the UK, the Digital Services Act (DSA) for the EU, as well as the ongoing discussions around Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the USA. Following the election, the current government has confirmed its intention to update and expand the regulation of online platforms, through the ambitious Digital India Act (DIA).
The DIA is intended to plug the regulatory gap and while the need is apparent, the devil will be in the detail. MeitY has stated that while the internet has empowered citizens, it has “created challenges in the form of user harm; ambiguity in user rights; security; women & child safety; organised information wars, radicalisation and circulation of hate speech; misinformation and fake news; unfair trade practices”. The government has hosted two consultations on the Bill and they reveal the sheer scale of the Indian government’s vision, covering everything from online harms and content moderation to artificial intelligence and the digitalisation of the government.
Protections against liability for internet intermediaries hosting content on their platforms - often called Safe Harbour - has long defined the global discussions around online free expression and this is a live question hanging over the DIA. During an early consultation on the Bill held in the southern city of Bengaluru, Minister of State for Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar posed the question:
“If there is a need for safe harbour, who should be entitled to it? The whole logic of safe harbour is that platforms have absolutely no power or control over the content that some other consumer creates on the platform. But, in this day and age, is that really necessary? Is that safe harbour required?”
What would online speech policy look like without safe harbour provisions? It could herald in the near total privatisation of censorship, with platforms having to proactively and expansively police content to avoid liability. This is why the European safe harbour provisions included in the EU eCommerce Directive were left untouched during the negotiations around the DSA. With the Indian government highlighting the importance of the DIA in addressing the growing power of tech giants like Google and Meta, with Chandrasekhar stating in 2024 that “[t]he asymmetry needs to be legislated, or at the very least, regulated through rules of new legislation”, gifting tech companies power to decide what can and can’t be published online would surely represent an alarming recalibration that appears to run at odds with the Bill’s stated aims.
The changing approach to online expression is also evidenced in the slides used by the minister during the 2023 Bengaluru consultation. For instance, the internet of 2000 was defined as a “Space for good – allowing citizens to interact” and a “Source of Information and News”. But for MeitY, in 2023 it has curdled somewhat into a “Space for criminalities and illegalities'' and a space defined by the “Proliferation of Hate Speech, Disinformation and Fake news.” This shift in perception also frames how the government identifies potential online harms. During the consultation, the minister stated that “[t]he idea of the Act is that what is currently legal but harmful is made illegal and harmful.” A number of harms were included in the minister’s presentation, highlighting everything from catfishing and doxxing, to the “weaponisation of disinformation in the name of free speech” and cyber-fraud tactics such as salami-slicing. This covers a universe of harms that each would require distinct and tailored responses and so questions remain as to how the DIA can adequately address all these factors, without adversely affecting internet users’ fundamental rights.
As a draft bill is yet to be published, there is no way of knowing what harms the DIA will contain. Without this, speculation has filled the vacuum. To illustrate this point, the Internet Freedom Foundation has compiled an expansive list of what the Bill could regulate collated solely from media coverage of the Bill from July 2022 until June 2023. This included everything from “apps that have addictive impact” and online gaming to deliberate misinformation and religious incitement material. What is also shrouded in darkness so far is how platforms or the state are expected to respond to these harms. As we have seen in the UK and across Europe, without clarity, full civil society engagement, and a robust rights framework, work to address online harms can significantly impact our right to free expression.
For now, the scope and scale of the government’s ambition can only be guessed at. For Index, the central question is, how can this be done while protecting the fundamental right of free expression, as outlined in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and international human rights law? This is an issue of significant importance for everyone in India.
This is why Index on Censorship is kicking off a project to support Indian civil society engagement with the DIA to ensure it is informed by the experiences of internet users across the country, can respond to the learnings from other jurisdictions legislating on the same challenges and can adequately protect free expression. We will be engaging with key stakeholders prior to and during the consultation process to ensure that everyone’s right to speak out and speak up online, on whichever platform they choose, is protected.
If you are interested to learn more about this work please contact [email protected]
Last year, we published an issue of Index dedicated to issues related to free expression in India. Read it here.
