In 2012, Narendra Modi, then positioning himself as opposition candidate for prime minister, changed his Twitter display picture to black. He was protesting the Congress-led government’s blockade of nearly 300 websites and some Twitter handles that were critical of the government.
“As a common man, I join the protest against crackdown on freedom of speech,” he tweeted. “Have changed my DP (display picture).
Within three years though, Modi has done a complete volte-face on the issue of internet freedom. Last month in the Supreme Court, the government’s Additional Solicitor General argued for the continuance of the draconian Section 66A that gives the state power to jail citizens for up to three years for posting “grossly offensive” content online.
And guess who decides what is “grossly offensive” — our police who have little domain knowledge and have already misused the law against citizens several times. You would be forgiven for thinking that Kapil Sibal is still our Information and Technology minister and the UPA still in power.
Power and paradox
But here is the paradox: the ‘liberal’ Congress-led government passed a blatantly illiberal law, while we expect a BJP-led government to scrap it, going against its own conservative instincts.
The reason for this apparently incongruous expectation is Narendra Modi — he is by far the most internet-vested politician that India has produced, one who has expertly exploited the power of new media to get votes.
On his official Facebook and Twitter pages combined, Modi has over 40 million followers.
His direct online communication with the middle-class and youth played a major part in creating the “Modi wave”. He clearly has the early mover advantage and the biggest political stake in ensuring rapid expansion of the internet from its roughly 250 million user base in India. This can only be hampered by his government’s stand on Section 66A.
The Congress is Luddite in comparison — it lost the social media battle not just to the BJP, but to the upstart Aam Aadmi Party as well.
Therefore the Congress, when in power, had a perverse incentive to create fear and stop the proliferation of social media: it was helping the Congress’ opponents more. It was rational then to expect that the newlyelected BJP government would want to scrap Section 66A in its own self-interest, if not as a matter of conservative principle.
So, Section 66A flies against Modi’s mantra of “minimum government” which promised to remove state interference. While the PM has often focused on ease of doing business by minimising government procedures, his efforts will come to naught if the state creeps up on us through such silly legislations.
Digital Fail India
India’s IT sector flourished in the last two decades because it faced minimum state interference, unlike other sectors. Rent-seeking government officials were ignorant of this greenfield sector, which ensured that firstgeneration, honest entrepreneurs could build organisations that created millions of jobs and put India on the world map.
Modi came up with the Digital India campaign and, in his speeches, talks about how Indians should create the next Facebook and Google. Yet, his government advocates the continuance of a law that will scare entrepreneurs, funders and innovation in the digital space.
Why would an Indian entrepreneur try to create a Facebook when he risks going to jail simply because one vigilante and one policeman may find a comment on the platform ‘grossly offensive’? How will an Indian build a Google when funders start staying away because of ill-conceived laws?
But the most lucid argument against internet censorship came from within the ranks of this government. Around the same time in 2012 when Modi’s Twitter handle was protesting against UPA’s high-handedness, Arun Jaitley gave a clairvoyant speech in the Rajya Sabha on the futility of online censorship.
“You can retrain and create an awe by censorship of print and electronic media,” he said, pointedly referring to the Emergency, “but you can never control the internet.”
A website can be built for almost no cost, by anybody with an internet connection who is willing to google ‘how to build a website’. This means that internet censors are playing a never-ending game of whack-a-mole, which they cannot win.
Jaitley, then the Leader of Opposition in the Upper House, also spelled out the problems with Section 66A in particular: words like ‘grossly offensive’, ‘menacing’, ‘blasphemous’ and ‘defamation’ could be used to curb freedom of expression.
If the top two leaders in this government are unwilling or unable to convince the additional solicitor general about their stand on internet freedom, then you have to wonder about the leadership deficit at the highest level.
All said Section 66A of the IT Act is the exact opposite of Modi’s slogans: this is Digital Fail India; and this is maximum government, minimum governance.
(Sambuddha Mitra Mustafi is the founder of The Political Indian)