There is no left-wing or Right-wing agenda when it comes to freedom of speech, whether it is in a newspaper or on the Internet. But the unfortunate fact is that there are increasingly different rules guiding the two
A democracy that is ruled by a woman leader, the widow of a popular and charismatic leader, who has, according to some economists, adopted ruinous economic policies which have among other things capped the inflows of foreign investors. A country with a global sporting icon but one where irate youth and workers are rioting against Government policies. Sounds familiarIJ
It is not India — this is Argentina. Yet, despite the similarities and the fact that Cristina Kirchner actually holds a constitutional office, there is one very important difference. According to a recent report by an NGO, Freedom House, despite some minor issues, the Internet is classified as ‘free’ in Argentina. This means both access to as well as content on the internet.
India, on the other hand, has seen a drop in its ranking on the issue among 60 nations — to 35 from 27 the year earlier. While India has a better ranking than any of its neighbours —after all, in Pakistan access to YouTube remains blocked and in Bangladesh Razakar goons have murdered bloggers — the fact is that laws promulgated by India’s policymakers have chipped away at public freedom. The ironic fact is that, had it been a BJP-led Government making these laws, most in the media would be crying ‘murder’. Yet the laws and its makers have been allowed to get away.
When two teenage girls in Mumbai were arrested for posting a question, all hell broke loose in the media. But the law did not change. Recently, there was a case where a car rally navigator, a video of whose made it on the Internet, also filed a case against the person who uploaded the video, because he had been ‘hurt’. The fact is that most judges throw out these cases when they come up in court, but for someone to be taken into police custody even for a few hours on the basis of a complaint using the Information Technology Act can, and often does, impact their personal and professional life.
But why are politicians so afraid of the InternetIJ This is not an Indian problem alone; leaders in neighbourhood China have been so paranoid of the internet that they have built the so-called ‘Great Firewall of China’, lest citizens find out about the atrocities committed at Tiananmen Square. The main freedom the Internet affords is that it allows people to make up their minds and not just get the Government narrative, or in the case of India, a biased narrative that several media houses put out.
It is no surprise then that some prominent media personalities have tacitly supported the Government’s laws. Harassment is one thing, but several media persons have not taken kindly to being questioned on their political biases and complain about ‘trolling’ on the Internet when questioned. Ironically, if they actually read the definition of ‘trolling’ on the Internet, they would realise that they themselves are the trolls.
Yes, there should be laws against paedophiles and those who harass people on social media. Unfortunately, online blackmail is all too common in India where usually men threaten to put up ‘compromising’ pictures of women, and there should be laws against that as well. But the anger the Government has against social media is because it allows the public to raise its frustration against those in power. Yes, the public on social media in India is but a small percentage of India’s population, and some politicians often take heart from that. But they should not, because that itself is a damning indictment of the Government and highlights their failure to enhance Internet connectivity in India.
There is no left-wing or Right-wing agenda when it comes to freedom of speech, whether it is in a newspaper or on the Internet. But the fact is that there are increasingly different rules guiding both. There are newspapers, particularly in upcountry areas, that publish inflammatory pictures and articles, often with express intent. This is how the protests against the atrocities committed on Rohingya Muslims in Burma caused riots in Mumbai. In an effort to contain the riots, the Government of India banned respectable news sites that explained what was going on.
What is more worrying is that certain people use these laws to try and ensure that unflattering articles about themselves and their companies are kept out. These are little more than attempts to airbrush the truth.
Instead of filing cases against media companies for defamation or in Press Council of India where such cases can be decided quickly, certain people have taken recourse to filing cases under the IT Act to get such articles removed. Fortunately, in most cases, they have come up against lawyers from media houses who can give as good as they get.
It is sad that we live in a world where everybody gets easily offended. The ability to offend should be protected rather than those who are easily offended. Hate speech is one thing, but one man’s offensive speech could well be another man’s comedy. Yes, there are times when the difference between offensive speech and hate speech is blurry, but these lines should be defined by the courts.
The Internet holds immense promise for a country like India where millions of people have grown up without regular access to reliable information. The Internet, coupled with the advent of low-cost smartphones, can bring about a revolution in India. Politicians are scared of this revolution because many of them have made careers and money out of ‘information arbitrage’, for lack of another term.
In an attempt to prevent change, politicians are desperate to leash the tool which will enable this change. If they love India, as they profess to do, they should unleash the Internet and not tie it down because of the problems it might bring about. Indians and India will benefit from a free and fair Internet, if we are proud of our democracy we should also be proud of our internet and the fact that we have such a forum.