By Mahesh Rathi
A recent report by The Indian Express on government control over social media has raised a serious question. According to the report, between March and July, the Central Government sent a blocking order to social media platforms approximately every 68 seconds—an average of around 1,275 per day. In the past five years, the number of such orders has reached around 1.95 lakh, and a large share of them is reported to be related to Instagram.
This is not merely a matter of figures. It is an indication of the direction in which the conflict between fascist power and information is moving in the digital age.
Certainly, action against illegal, violent or seriously harmful content is necessary. But the problem arises when the boundary between objectionable content and criticism of the government begins to become blurred. This entire development has to be viewed in the broader context of democracy and power.
Governments with right-wing and fascist tendencies have historically sought control not only over power but also over the flow of information and ideas. In Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the independent press was suppressed and a propaganda apparatus was established. Conditions today are not the same, but the fundamental conflict between power and information remains.
The difference is that today the medium of information is not limited to newspapers, radio and television. The internet and social media have completely transformed the structure of the production and dissemination of information.
The new information revolution has considerably weakened the monopoly of large media institutions over journalism. An ordinary citizen with a mobile phone can also become an independent reporter of an event. Many times, a photograph or a video itself becomes the entire report. In traditional media, information used to flow from the top downward; on social media, the people themselves are both producers and consumers of information. This is its democratic power.
If governments increase control over existing platforms, models such as Web3, decentralized networks and peer-to-peer communication may rapidly gain importance. Web3 is not a guarantee of freedom, but decentralization can make it difficult for any single company or government to control the entire flow of information. In other words, the greater the censorship, the greater may also be the search for alternative technological avenues.
There is also a dual attitude of power visible in this entire development. On the one hand, the government wants large-scale control over social media, particularly Instagram; on the other hand, Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself is trying to reach Gen Z through the same platform. This shows that those in power are fully aware of the power of social media. They know that Instagram is not merely a platform for entertainment, but also a medium for youth dialogue, political expression and mobilization.
This is precisely the hypocrisy of the present-day Right—controlling critical voices while building its own image on the same platform. But young people cannot be influenced for long merely through attractive videos. Trust is created not by changing platforms, but by changing policies and intentions. If the actual experience regarding employment, education, social security and democratic rights does not match the government’s claims, digital propaganda cannot bridge that distance.
Social media is not a one-way broadcasting medium. If the Prime Minister speaks, citizens will respond; if the government tells its story, the people will also put forward their own story. This is its real power.
Therefore, the struggle of the future will not merely be about deciding which social media platform will continue to exist. The real question will be who will own and control information—the State, corporate capital or the people?
The real test of democracy is not how much freedom a government gives to the voices of its supporters. The test is how much freedom it gives to its critics.
The government has the right to take action against illegal content, but in a democracy, no government has the right to turn criticism into a crime. Along with the growing governmental power to remove online content, transparency, judicial review and protection of citizens’ fundamental rights are equally necessary.
Ultimately, technology cannot be completely shut down, and information cannot be imprisoned forever. Once control is established over one medium, another medium will emerge. Restrictions and pressure may narrow the path of information for some time, but they cannot eliminate the people’s desire for expression. Ultimately, the victory will not be that of censorship, but of freedom; not of power, but of the people. (IPA Service)
Courtesy: New Age
Modi Govt grip on social media is hardening by the day
