By K Raveendran
When we hear about China debarring BBC from airing its world news in the country, we feel sorry for both the broadcaster and indignation at the challenge to the cherished freedom of expression. This is very much the same when the world hears about attempts by our own government to arm-twist social media platforms. Obviously, Beijing has a grudge against the British for the revocation of the licence grated to state-owned state-owned broadcaster China Global Television Network’s (CGTN) to broadcast in the UK. But it has attributed the drastic action to the violation of China’s reporting guidelines, just as we have justified the threat to social media giants for failure to follow Indian laws.
“You have millions of followers in India, you are free to do business and make money, but you will have to follow the Indian constitution,” Electronics and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad warned Twitter and other social media platforms, while answering questions in parliament. Ravi Shankar Prasad is not known for poise in his responses when the ‘laws’ are violated. As a matter of consolation, the minister said the government was in favour of freedom of speech and expression.
The crucial question here is what exactly are the laws. Unfortunately, in most such cases, it is the violation of the interpretation of the laws, rather than the laws themselves that often constitutes the offence. The interpretation offers a field wide enough to include anything and that is what causes worry.
There are certainly grave issues with the way social media is being misused to spread hate, incite violence and promote disaffection, all of which need to be curbed. But this is no reason to shut the platforms, as the minister threatens to do every time there is a problem. The sheer size of the Indian market does give the Indian authorities to browbeat the internet and social media giants. At the same time, the action has to be based on probity and natural justice.
The stand-off with Twitter followed the violence during farmers protest on the Republic Day, for which the government had asked the micro blogging platform to block over 1,300 handles for allegedly spreading misinformation and provocative content. The accounts included those of journalists, activists, and politicians, some of them now facing police cases. Twitter complied with the directive, but suspending only a limited number, refusing to delete all accounts as it held such action was not warranted by the Indian laws. That is what infuriated the government.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has complained against foreign destructive ideology, the new FDI that the country is attracting
Apart from his penchant to coin popular sounding acronyms, he has a point that the farmers agitation has been used by elements inimical to India to foment trouble. But to describe every criticism as FDI is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.
The government has clearly allowed the agitation to drift for these elements to get access. It is similar to the climatic condition when low pressure zones attract ‘western’ or ‘eastern disturbance’ into the weather system. In the same manner, the government has allowed the agitation to linger and lead to a vacuum, which naturally pulls in pressures from various quarters. Such situation has a bigger appeal for FDI than all the rhetoric Modi has made at Davos and other global forums in support of the more familiar variety of FDI. And the government has only itself to blame for creating the situation.
There has been a clear lack of application in dealing with the agitation. Initially, it made the folly of underestimating the inherent strength of the agitation and the cause that the farmers have been promoting, while at the same time over-valuing its own ability to manipulate its course. Effective intervention in the early stages would have enabled the government to negotiate an honourable exit for both parties.
But instead of doing that, it persisted with the sabotage route, hoping to break the ranks of the farmers and causing a split so that the agitation would lose its momentum. But in actual practice, the opposite of all that happened. The ground realities have changed so drastically that both sides have worked themselves up to a point from where a return has become impossible, even if they desire. And there is no point blaming the social media platforms for this, because the situation was simply asked for. Having reached such a point, it is now entirely for the government to come up with a credible solution. (IPA Service)