During a debate on the freedom of Social
Media (March 23), where Corporate Affairs minister Sachin Pilot and BJP's
senior leader Ravi Shankar Prasad also participated, the key speaker appears to have been Foreign
Minister Salman Khurshid. See Rediff report. Here’s what
Khurshid had to say:
“Social media is
effective today because we are equal. It is the equality of social media and
your ability to manipulate and use technology that gives you the freedom -- a
freedom which then, perhaps, needs to be regulated. It needs to be regulated
because every freedom has to be regulated" and he adds “Please read the Constitution and if you are a true Indian,
please bow to the Constitution which says reasonable restriction on all your
freedom - on your freedom of speech, freedom of work, freedom of action”.
The UPA has so far already made many
restrictions by stringent laws in attempting to curb social media. They have
gone as far as making even hitting the “Like” buttons punishable by law. As
draconian a section as 66A has been used to arrest cartoonists and ordinary
folks content that have upset some politicians. Khurshid even speaks of an “Equal
opportunities commission” although it’s not clear if that was in relevance to
social media or a general statement. Here’s the problem though. The govt seems
unwilling or not necessary to first look into and revamp the existing
regulatory bodies. The PCI Chairman appears to be more busy in making legal appeals
and political statements rather than improving the functioning of the PCI or
the print media.
Contrary to fear-mongering that SM may
cause communal riots or violence on the streets there has not been a single
instance where content from SM has led to any such incident. The closest that
comes to mind are the Azad Maidan
riots of August 2012 and those had little to do with SM. People on the ground
used morphed images to provoke protesters in to violence. And yet, SM seems to
the high priority for controls. In the other case of violence over a Facebook
post it was members of a political party who indulged in violence and not
ordinary people from the SM or the ground.
As for the Congress party itself, having
realised it’s better to deal with the SM productively instead of a constant
conflict they decided to make a major investment to enhance their image on the
SM. Many sites have been blocked, banned or selectively blocked by govt ISPs
without assigning reasons or without a process for appeal or reversals. This
blog was blocked for a month by BSNL in July 2012 without assigning any reason.
Then they lifted the block on their own. The number of requests to Google and
others to remove content or block sites are one of the highest in India.
The best part of the story is that there
is yet no regulatory body or watchdog for the Television media. The news
channels have an absolute free run in their conduct and airing of content. What
they have is a “union” which is neither a statutory body (like the PCI) nor a
watch dog. This Union called the “NBA”
acts more as a censor and makes decisions of what to telecast and not to
telecast on behalf of its members. They collectively make these decisions which
the members accept and follow. The other body they have created for themselves
is the Indian Broadcasting Foundation.
If you take a look at the list of people heading this body it would be
absolutely clear that these are the same people from some media form or the
other. In short, this too is a body for protection of the media groups and not so
much the consumers. The IBF has not even published a full list of its members.
That’s how transparent they are. It’s only the SM that is currently acting as
an unofficial watchdog.
There is a shocking incident of actress Deepti Naval being maligned with
sensational headlines by some newspapers and news sites. For a minor quarrel
with residents of her society over some interview recording, the newspapers
misused conversation with the actress to create horrible headlines to imply Deepti
Naval was in some prostitution racket. It is the PCI Chairman’s job to take
cognisance of such spurious reporting and invoke harsh punishment for the
culprits. It remains to be seen what he or the PCI does.
In the meantime more attempts will be
made to curb the freedoms of social media which is relatively far less
harmless. They have already made many botched attempts to do so. While the
opinions of the speakers are being passed of “Personal opinions” these same
opinion do go into making laws. That even the Opposition hadn’t challenged the
provisions of 66A is an indication how politicians become a “family” in making
such laws. All this comes not so much out of concern for “regulating” freedom
but gently creating and moulding opinions for more gagging of SM.
