Censorship in the Hindu Nationalist’s India

November 4, 2022: “Censorship in the Hindu Nationalist’s India,” Kayla Malcy

2021 saw the Swedish V-Dem Institute downgrade India from an “electoral democracy” to an “electoral autocracy” and the U.S. based Freedom House downgrading India from a “free democracy” to a “partially free democracy.” Currently, India’s 2022 Freedom House score sits at 66/100. India only scored 2 out of 4 points on issues such as free and independent media, freedom of religion, academic freedom, and freedom of assembly. These areas have been deliberately attacked by Hindu nationalists and are a key part of India’s recent democratic backsliding.

Since the BJP came to power in 2014, Hindu nationalist political parties and civil organizations have challenged the validity of minority rights and the freedom of expression. Their focus on anti-Muslim rhetoric and censorship of political opposition encompasses many fields. PM Narendra Modi’s government and organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its student branch, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), among others, have engaged in censorship of academics, journalists, filmmakers, and protestors alike. Across the various fields, the reasoning and justification for censorship has been the same.

Much of Hindu nationalist censorship relies on the Indian Penal Code which was drafted by the British Colonial Government in 1860. Section 295A of Indian Penal Code, in particular, is used to justify censorship. Section 295A states:

            [Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of an class of [citizens of Indi]), [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.]

Section 295A leaves the definition of “outraging the religious feelings” wide open for interpretation. In addition to a broad definition for “outraging religious feelings”, these cases are not civil but criminal, creating severe and wide-ranging consequences for those found to be guilty.

Academia

In academia, cases resulting in book bans have been brought against many prominent scholars. Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: an Alternative History and On Hinduism were both targeted by Hindu nationalist activists. Doniger’s publisher, Penguin Books India, struggled with a lawsuit filed by Hindu nationalist educational activist Dinanath Batra for 4 years before relenting and suspending sales of The Hindus: an Alternative History in India. Many publishers will not even fight the lawsuits and some even go so far as to self-censor due to the prevalence of threats of violence. Hindu nationalist student group ABVP vandalized and attacked history department staff at the University of Delhi over the inclusion of ‘Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three thoughts on Translation’ by A.K. Ramanujan on the university reading list. All the above books were targeted for having content that conservative Hindus did not agree with.

Other targets of censorship include Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India by James W. Laine, One Part Woman by Perumal Murgan, From Plassey to Partition and After: A History of Modern India by Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, and Communalism and Sexual Violence: Ahmedabad since 1969 by Megha Kumar. All of these were either targeted by Hindu nationalist advocates or by publishers afraid of the reactions of these activists. The majority of the banned or censored texts here cover Indian history, which Hindu nationalists wish to mold to better fit their ideology, or sensitive social issues such as gender and sex.

Film

Similar censorship can be seen in films. In India every film must pass the Central Board of Film Certification to be viewed in theaters and released in stores. Anything that is considered as “outraging religious feelings” or addressing a sensitive social issue may be banned either country wide or in a specific state, often through Hindu nationalist activism. Gujarat in particular has banned films such as Parzania and Firaaq. Both films center on the 2002 Gujarat Riots, in which somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mainly Muslims, were killed. This widespread communal violence carried on for 3 days. At the time current PM Modi was the Minister of Gujarat. This event is both a sensitive social issue and one that puts the current political party in poor light. As such local Hindu nationalist groups petitioned successfully for its ban.

Films are not just banned for portraying religious and ethnic violence but a plethora or other social issues that “outrage religious feelings”. The 2016 film Lipstick Under My Burkha was banned for displaying young women’s sexuality. In 2005 Water was banned for its focus on difficult topics such as child marriage and a widow’s status in society. A year later the film The Pink Mirror was banned for its portrayal of drag performers. One genre often targeted, with mixed results, is historical dramas. These films become targets of violence and smear campaigns for their portrayal of historical Hindu women and Hindu and Muslim kings. Rajput Hindu nationalist group Sri Rajput Karni Sena (SRSK) attacked the set of Bajirao Mastani in Jaipur over an alleged romantic dream scene between a Rajput noblewoman and a Muslim king. The set was later attacked again by another group in Kolhapur. Despite this the film was still one of the highest grossing in its year.

Social media

One of the BJP’s biggest and most volatile battlefields for censorship is social media platforms. In addition to censoring content that does not align with the party’s beliefs, the BJP must combat rampant misinformation which can lead to mob violence. The Government has been consistently increasing the pressure on social media companies to comply with censorship. In February of 2021 the Government unveiled the new IT Rules as part of the IT Act. The new rules require social media companies to report on misinformation monthly, comply with quick content removal requirements, and investigate first originators of misinformation. This spurred concerns that companies would be required to perform what essentially amounts to mass surveillance. In order to find first originators, companies would need to trace every message sent and thus end-to-end encryption would not be viable for messaging platforms. Additionally, the new rules make executives of social media criminally liable for noncompliance.

One of the companies that had the most intense issue with the new IT Rules was Twitter. Twitter has been a recent target of both crackdowns on misinformation and for Government directed censorship. In 2021, Twitter labeled some BJP official tweets of a fake “media toolkit” supposedly used by the National Congress party as “manipulated media.” When asked by the Government to take this label off, Twitter refused and soon found its New Delhi office the target of a police raid. Additionally, Twitter was asked by the Indian government to block over 500 accounts, many of which belonged to political opposition, activists, and journalists.

Journalism

Twitter bans are not the only form of censorship that journalists have encountered. Many have been arrested and investigated under false pretenses for offenses such as “receiving stolen digital resources” under the IT Act. Journalists also face travel bans, harassment by the authorities, and have been attacked at Hindu nationalist rallies. On April 7, journalists were attacked at a Hindutva rally in Delhi. Members of the crowd took the journalists equipment while they conducted interviews, called them “jihadis,” and physically accosted them. Journalist Arbab Ali stated that he and other journalists were forced to delete recordings of the event. When police tried to intervene, they too were attacked by the rally members. Stories like this are increasingly common as the BJP and Hindu nationalist groups continue their efforts to censor media.

Internet Outages

In addition to censoring online content, the BJP has impeded the creation of content and community communication through the implementation of extensive internet and mobile service blackouts. The most prominent examples of this are blackouts put in place during the 2020-2021 Farmers Protests and right before the removal of article 370, which gave Jammu & Kashmir its autonomy. During the Farmers Protest the government shutdown mobile internet services in various locations around Delhi “to maintain public safety.” This only angered farmers more. In August 2019, internet, mobile, and landline services were cut to Kashmir in anticipation of the removal of article 370. The BJP aimed to keep public unrest to a minimum, however this prolonged suppression of people’s voices did not help. Despite the Indian Supreme Court ruling that internet services could not be suspended indefinitely in early 2020, internet services were not completely restored for 18 months. This delay impeded communications, business, and created more contempt for the Indian government and the BJP.

BJP and Hindu nationalist censorship has cast a wide net. The Government and Hindu nationalist activists have covered everything from academia to film to social media. Journalists continue to struggle to freely report on pertinent issues within the country and political opposition is censored. With recent laws like the IT Rules and the archaic remnants of colonial law, such as the Indian Penal Code, the Government has many options to justify its censorship. The ever-increasing crack downs on journalists, social media, and political opposition will need to halt if India wants to regain its title as an electoral and free democracy. It remains to be seen whether or not the BJP will be able to, or is even interested in, addressing the freedom of religion and freedom of speech issues that have degraded India’s democratic standing in the world.

Citations

Biswas, Soutik. “’Electoral Autocracy’: The Downgrading of India’s Democracy.” BBC News. BBC, March 16, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944.

Express Web Desk. “Restoration of Internet Services in Jammu and Kashmir: A Timeline.” The Indian Express, February 5, 2021. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jk-4g-internet-mobile-timeline-7176408/.

Frayer, Lauren, and Shannon Bond. “India and Tech Companies Clash over Censorship, Privacy and ‘Digital Colonialism’.” NPR. NPR, June 10, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1004387255/india-and-tech-companies-clash-over-censorship-privacy-and-digital-colonialism.

Gettleman, Jeffrey, Vindy Goel, and Maria Abi-Habib. “Https://Www-Nytimes-Com.proxygw.wrlc.org/2019/12/17/World/Asia/India-Internet-Modi-Protests.html.” The New York Times, December 17, 2019. https://www-nytimes-com.proxygw.wrlc.org/2019/12/17/world/asia/india-internet-modi-protests.html.

“Indian Authorities Arrest 2 Journalists over Coverage of Leaked School Exams; Reporters Attacked Covering Delhi Demonstration.” Committee to Protect Journalists, April 7, 2022. https://cpj.org/2022/04/indian-authorities-arrest-2-journalists-over-coverage-of-leaked-school-exams-reporters-attacked-covering-delhi-demonstration/.

“India: Freedom in the World 2022 Country Report.” Freedom House, 2022. https://freedomhouse.org/country/india/freedom-world/2022.

“India: Media Freedom under Threat.” Human Rights Watch, May 3, 2022. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/03/india-media-freedom-under-threat.

Panda, Aditya Kumar. “CASE STUDY: FILM CENSORSHIP IN INDIA.” Scholedge International Journal of Business Policy & Governance ISSN 2394-3351 4, no. 2 (2017): 7–.Taylor, McComas. “Hindu Activism and Academic Censorship in India.” South Asia 37, no. 4 (2014): 717–725.

Scroll Staff. “Journalists Attacked at Hindutva Event in Delhi as Mob Calls Muslim Reporters ‘Jihadi’.” Scroll.in. Scroll.in, April 3, 2022. https://scroll.in/latest/1020989/seven-journalists-attacked-at-hindutva-event-in-delhi-as-mob-calls-muslim-journalists-jihadi.

Soni, Paroma. “Online Censorship Is Growing in Modi’s India.” Columbia Journalism Review, December 14, 2021. https://www.cjr.org/investigation/modi-censorship-india-twitter.php.

Taylor, McComas. “Hindu Activism and Academic Censorship in India.” South Asia 37, no. 4 (2014): 717–725.

V-Dem Institute. “Democracy Report 2022: Autocratization Changing Nature?” 2022. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://v-dem.net/media/publications/dr_2022.pdf

Leave a Reply