As Assam, Kerala, and Puducherry head into the April 9, 2026 elections, a troubling picture of India’s democratic landscape emerges from “Censorship and the Drumbeats of Hate,” a report by the Free Speech Collective (FSC). Drawing on documented incidents from the past five years, the report examines how freedom of expression has been shaped, and in many instances curtailed, through censorship, criminal proceedings, media intimidation, and the strategic deployment of hate speech in political discourse.
Combining detailed regional overviews with independent commentaries by Anjuman Ara Begum and N P Chekutty, along with insights from academics and activists on Puducherry, the report offers a layered account of how dissent, media, and electoral processes intersect in contemporary India. It locates the upcoming elections within a broader pattern of shrinking civic space, contested electoral practices, and increasingly polarised public narratives—raising fundamental concerns about the conditions necessary for free and fair democratic participation.
The report situates the 2026 elections within a larger context: a shrinking space for dissent, increasing use of censorship, and the growing normalisation of hate speech. Across all three regions, it identifies a pattern where free expression is not only challenged through formal legal mechanisms, but also through intimidation, institutional pressure, and political messaging that reshapes public discourse.
It also highlights the controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, which has raised concerns about exclusion, transparency, and voter confidence—placing the very foundation of electoral participation under scrutiny.
Assam: Systemic curtailment and the centrality of hate speech
The report’s coverage of Assam is extensive and sharply critical, documenting a sustained pattern of restrictions on free speech alongside the institutionalisation of polarising rhetoric.
It details how journalists and media workers faced criminal cases, arrests, and direct intimidation. A prominent editor was charged with sedition in 2025, while earlier instances included the detention of journalists for reporting on communal violence and the arrest of reporters investigating corruption. Physical attacks and coercion—such as forcing journalists to delete recorded material—further reinforced an environment of fear.
The report also points to more subtle forms of suppression, including the discontinuation of critical columns addressing human rights violations, indicating a climate where self-censorship becomes necessary for survival.
A significant episode cited is the complaint by the CPI(M) alleging that state broadcasters censored portions of its election speech critical of the government, raising concerns about electoral fairness and the misuse of public broadcasting platforms.
At the centre of the report’s Assam analysis is the pervasive use of hate speech. Political rhetoric targeting Bengali-speaking Muslims—particularly the “Miya” community—is described as sustained, deliberate, and electorally mobilising. Statements invoking economic boycotts, branding individuals as “traitors,” and linking communities to national security threats are documented as part of a broader narrative strategy.
The report further highlights the role of technology and disinformation, especially the circulation of AI-generated videos depicting violent and dehumanising imagery aimed at Muslims. These instances are presented as evidence of how digital tools are being deployed to intensify polarisation.
Legal responses, including petitions before courts, are noted—but the report underscores that such interventions have not significantly curbed the continuation of hate speech.
Additionally, it records attacks on media institutions, including the burning of newspaper bundles, and raises concerns about attempts to influence journalists through state-sponsored distributions, such as the gifting of smartphones.
Taken together, the report presents Assam as a case where free speech is constrained both structurally and atmospherically, with fear, lawfare, and polarisation reinforcing each other.
Kerala: Contestation, censorship, and civil society pushback
In contrast, the report’s examination of Kerala presents a more layered and contested environment. It acknowledges that free speech conditions in the state remain comparatively stronger, supported by a vibrant media ecosystem and an active civil society. However, this relative openness coexists with increasing instances of censorship and legal pressure.
The report documents the use of legal mechanisms, including FIRs and defamation case, against journalists, activists, and protestors. It also recounts the ban on a Malayalam news channel by the Union government, later overturned by the Supreme Court, as a key example of institutional censorship.
Cinema emerges as a major site of conflict. The report details:
- Judicial interventions affecting film reviews
- Controversies around propaganda films released in the run-up to elections
- Attempts to block screenings at international film festivals
These developments are framed as indicative of a broader struggle over narrative control in a state where cinema plays a central cultural role.
The report also examines the delayed and redacted release of the Justice Hema Committee report on the film industry, highlighting how even institutional inquiries into gender justice faced forms of informational control.
On the electoral front, it notes the emergence of communal rhetoric—traditionally less dominant in Kerala politics—and the legal challenges that followed, including court scrutiny of campaign speeches. At the same time, the report emphasises the role of public resistance. Civil society interventions, media plurality, and a politically aware citizenry have consistently pushed back against attempts to curb free expression.
However, it also flags emerging concerns: increasing corporate influence over media, declining investigative scrutiny, and growing public dissatisfaction—particularly among younger populations.
Kerala, therefore, is portrayed as a space of ongoing struggle, where democratic safeguards remain active but are under pressure.
Puducherry: Suppression of dissent and structural pressures
The report’s coverage of Puducherry highlights a different but equally significant pattern—where free speech is shaped by administrative control, campus politics, and broader structural inequalities.
A central focus is the curtailment of student expression. The report documents:
- Disciplinary action against students protesting fee hikes
- Disruption and criminalisation of cultural performances
- A controversial university code of conduct that triggered widespread protests
It further records police intervention in student movements, including lathi-charges, detentions, and arrests—underscoring the use of state force in response to dissent.
Journalists in the region also faced violence and intimidation, including physical attacks and verbal abuse during reporting.
Electoral processes come under scrutiny through the report’s discussion of the SIR exercise, which led to significant deletions of voters before partial corrections were made, raising concerns about disenfranchisement.
Beyond censorship, the report situates free speech within a broader political economy. It highlights:
- High levels of youth unemployment
- The dominance of wealthy candidates in elections
- The prevalence of candidates with criminal cases
These factors, it argues, shape the environment in which speech and dissent occur, often limiting meaningful participation in democratic processes.
The report also draws attention to the influence of centralised political power in the Union Territory, suggesting that local democratic autonomy is constrained.
Conclusion: A fragmented but converging crisis
Across Assam, Kerala, and Puducherry, the report does not present a uniform decline—but rather distinct trajectories of constraint.
- In Assam, free speech is undermined by criminalisation, intimidation, and the centrality of hate speech in political discourse.
- In Kerala, it is shaped by institutional pressures and censorship, countered by strong civil society resistance.
- In Puducherry, it is limited through administrative control, suppression of student activism, and structural inequalities.
Yet, despite these differences, the report identifies a common concern: the erosion of the conditions necessary for meaningful democratic participation. Free and fair elections, it argues, depend not only on the act of voting, but on the ability of citizens to speak, question, and dissent without fear. The persistence of censorship, the spread of hate speech, and the controversies surrounding electoral processes together signal a deeper challenge—one that extends beyond any single state or election cycle.
The complete report may be read below:
Related:
AERO dies by suicide in Kolkata, family alleges extreme election duty pressure and humiliation
No Hearing, No Notice, Just Deletion: How Bengal’s SIR Erased a Decorated IAF Officer
Rights group files complaint over electoral roll purges in North 24 Parganas