When arguments lead by advocate Richarson Wilson were advanced by the petitioner, strangely, union of India’s MeitY were silent and left the response entirely to the corporate giant YouTube. This when it was at the behest of MHA-MeitY that the channels had been clocked/removed in the first place!

Now for the detailed timeline.

First, eight videos of RootsTamil were blocked (geographically) in India on May 16, 2023. Within a month on June 15, 2023 the entire channel was (geographically) blocked in India. Immediately thereafter, Karikalan and his team created Roots 24X7 on June 15, 2023 and on the next day, June 16, 2023 appealed to YouTube requesting information about the blocking of RootsTamil. Within five days they were simply informed –on June 21, 2023 that Roots 24X7 was terminated (permanently removed). [Reasons later given revealed that Karikalan was wrongly charged with “impersonation” of another channel when, in fact, it was that channel that had come in later impersonating Roots 24X7. On the same day, Karikalan and his team appealed to YouTube to restore 24X7 when on the same day they receive a reply that the channel cannot be restored. 

Then, on June 26, 2023, the team appealed to MeitY to restore RootsTamil and the very same day, unsurprisingly the Ministry replied confirming the complaint received from Union Ministry of Home (MHA) and asserting their action directing, to block the Roots Tamil. Undeterred, another channel on YouTube was created called Tribes but this time it took MeitY four months to block Tribes on October 6, 2023. This was when the feisty team filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Madras High Court on October 18, 2023 demanding a restoration of their right to free speech! By November 2023 when the final order in their favour was delivered by the Madras High Court, huge resources and a substantial viewership had been sacrificed by this young journalist and his team. 

The six-month long saga meant that Tamil news channels were unilaterally removed, two others also blocked that were created in the wake of the blocking also blocked. Finally, both YouTube and MeitY went on the backfoot only after the Madras HC stayed the last censorship order (October 6, 2023) blocking Tribes and MeitY was forced to unblock all channel(s).

The devious role of MeitY extended even during the hearings in the High Court. When the stay was first granted in October 2023 and Tribes channel restored, Karikalan the editor in chief received a call from MeitY asking them to “apologise” for the content that had been removed! When he refused saying he had merely reproduced, reported on speeches and press conferences of social and political leaders, against whom no action had been filed, no cases lodged why should his news channel as communicator be penalized (victimized)? Undeterred the MeitY official tried to push harder asking him for a letter assuring that no such content against “National security” or “sovereignty” would be used in future. Again. Karikalan declined stating that when he did not accept the allegation, where was the question of such a pre-emotive note. Finally, MeitY had to give in to the impending proceedings in the High Court.

The Saga of a Fight for Free Speech –A Timeline:

16-May-2023: 8 Videos were blocked in India.

15-June-2023: “Roots Tamil” was blocked in India.

*15-June-2023: New Channel “Roots 24×7” was created.

16-June-2023: Appeal to YouTube Team, requesting the information about the blocking of “Roots Tamil”.

*21-June-2023: “Roots 24×7” was terminated (permanently removed).

21-June-2023: Appeal to YouTube Team to restore “Roots 24×7”.

21-June-2023: YouTube Team replied that the channel cannot be put back.

26-June-2023: Appeal to MeityY to restore “Roots Tamil”.

26-June-2023: MeitY replied, confirming the complaint received from Union Home Ministry and asserting their action directing, to block the “Roots Tamil”.

July 2023: Created new channel for third time, Tribes” 

06 Oct 2023:  MeitY initiated the process to block Tribes” 

18 Oct 2023:  Case Filed at Madras High court

Nov 2023:    All 3 channels were restored 1) Roots Tamil 2) Roots24X7 3) Tribes

Justification for MHA-MeitY-YouTube’s covert action

YouTube a mega corporation owned by Google clearly does as it is ordered by the union government of India. One-line responses to reasons for disappearances of content –without prior notice – are all that the service provider gives to YouTubers and Editors of YouTube channels. The much-abused section 69A empowers the Union Government to block the public from accessing “any information” on the internet when: (1) the Government believes it is “necessary or expedient”; and (2) it is in the interests of the defence, sovereignty, integrity, or security of India or its relations with foreign states, public order, or the incitement of a cognisable offence relating to these categories. When the government decides to block content, it must follow the procedure set out under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009; however scant procedure was followed here.

In this instance too, it was when Karikalan appealed to MeitY, from June 2023 onwards that the reasoning of sorts, citing section 69(A) of the IT Act 2000 for eight videos in question was provided. MeitY, in its response stated that, as per a “complaint received from Ministry of Home Affairs, repeatedly videos have been by you (RootsTamil, Roots 24X7) which are “strongly advocating dissolving of India and fight for Tamil Independence, burning of constitution and inculcating separatists’ sentiments among people about ideology of Tamil Nationalism, separate Tamil nation etc have been reported.” Moreover, since “these kinds of posts are definitely against the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India”, accordingly “the inter-ministerial Committee has recommended blocking the YouTube channel. Based these recommendation and approval of Competent Authority, directions for blocking have been issued.”

The saga does not end here. In its appeal for a hearing before MeitY, Karikalan and team explain in detail the unreasoning behind the hasty and unilateral decision.

In their reasoned response to the MeitY they point out specifically that, only eight (eight) videos have been identified by MeitY as reasons behind the punitive action. All eight videos relay Coverage and News Reporting of various Political Public Meetings by Political Parties concerning their official stand on various current issues, Protests by Political Movements in Tamil Nadu, and the interviews of the Members and Participants. None of those actually making these speeches have been acted against, no cases filed. 

This is a classic case of “Shooting the Messenger”.

For example:

1. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gDxd2eP8UA displays Mr. Thiyagu’s speech at a Public Meeting held on behalf of Periyar EVR’s 144th Birth Anniversary (Social Justice Day) organized by ‘Podhumai Sei Study Circle’ at Porur, Chennai. In this speech, Mr. Thiyagu criticizes the Tamil Nadu DMK Government and Dravidian Model. He compares Periyar EVR’s perspective of the Dravidian Model with the DMK-led government’s Dravidian Model. He also explains the Periyar EVR’s dream of a casteless, religionless Dravidian Society and criticizes Chief Minister MK Stalin-led DMK Government.
   
2. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRe5dWYL8dE displays Mr. Jayaraman’s speech at a public meeting at Arangam, Adyar, on Feb 12th of 2023, held on behalf of the 200th Anniversary of Saint Vallalar. The topic discussed was, knowing Vallalar through the words of Valluvar. He explained the history of Vallalar, How Vallalar fought against the discriminatory the Caste system. He also criticized those who wish to create a casteist ecosystem with the name of Tamil and Tamilnadu.
3. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV-Z6zARBUM displays Mr. Pozhilan’s speech at a Seminar on 02nd April 2023 on the topic ‘Who are Tamils’, at Pavalareru Tamil Kalam, Medavakkam, Chennai. This was organized as there are debates in Tamil Political Scenario (e.g.: Naam Tamilar) reg Tamil People and their Castes. Mr. Pozhilan insisted that no one should be discriminated against by birth and that No caste should be a prefix or suffix to Tamil.
4. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd4VwWAdg3k displays Mr. Praveen’s speech at a public meeting held at MGR Nagar Market, Chennai. The meeting was about Manu Smrithi which had created controversies in Tamil Nadu (Also at that time Honorable MP Mr. A. Raja’s speech related to Manu was widely commented on and debated). He explained why Dr. Ambedkar resigned from the Ministry and why Periyar EVR called the cadres to burn the Constitution and also recalled the incidents and historical reasons stated about these events. He quoted Periyar’s speech, wherein he asks that, if the law protects the castes, then why shan’t we burn those laws? In the same way, why shouldn’t we burn the constitution/law? The ultimate intention is nothing but the critical approach towards the caste system and historically how the Tamil people and Periyar handle any law which supports caste system.
5. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaj7gfjtyW8 displays Mr. Kondalsamy’s speech at a public meeting held at MGR Nagar Market, Chennai. The meeting was about critical analysis of Manu Smrithi which had created debate in Tamil Nadu in recent days (Also at that time Honorable MP Mr. A. Raja’s speech related to Manu was widely commented on and debated). He highlighted since 1989, around 30 judgments issued by the court of laws of different jurisdictions which quoted Manusmrithi. Also, he spoke regarding how Manusmrithi was and irrelevant and injustice on par with modern Constitution and Rule of Law.
6. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC43eyts4Mc displays the Interview with Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, Spokesperson and Student wing chairperson of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. In this video, he explains the Speech of Honourable MP A. Raja about Manusmrithi. He also explains Hindu Code Bills, the usage of the word Sudra, and the odds of caste discrimination. Also, he explains how Sethupathi Chieftains/Kings went to the Privy Council against the then-existing laws/Hindu laws and got their rights of succession and their properties.
7. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC43eyts4Mc displays Hon’ble Justice GR Swami Nathan’s speech at a book release function about the demography and constitution, of Tamil language activists. Professor and Researcher Mr. Mani Ko Panneerselvam gave an Interview reg the above speech. In this, Prof explains what were the view of Sankaracharya and a few of his supporters. He compared Bhagavad Gita and Thirukural. Also, he explained how the views of Manu Smrithi followers and Thirukural followers differ.
8. The following https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gJtOP3tMac Mr. Viduthalai Arasu and Mr. Kali Poongundran’s speech at a Public Event about the fundamental right under article 15. This public conference’s core motive was Equality and Social Justice. It was organized by association of Priests trained by the Govt of Tamil Nadu scheme. The dismissal of Priests appointed by (the Govt of Tamil Nadu) at Vayalur Murugan Temple, by the High Court order has been taken for discussion. Both Mr. Seeni Viduthalai Arasu of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam and Mr. Kali Poongundran of Dravidar Kazhagam spoke about the social justice movement and Periyar EVR’s Social Contribution in that arena. No person should be banned from performing Pooja based on race or caste was the core insistence of their speeches. Also the Judge’s remark and judgment were quoted all along the speech and critically analysed with the relevant Judgments of Apex Court in the same subject matter.

This was when finally, they are called to Delhi for a meeting at MeitY. On arrival there, Karikalan who is fluent in Tamil and other south Indian languages urges that he be assisted by his counsel since officials only spoke English! When initially they refused the advocate entry, Karikalan – a journalist who had already expended considerable resources for travel and stay from Chennai to Delhi—insisted on getting this refusal in writing. At this, MeitY officials disappear, confer, then return and inform him of relenting, accepting his advocate’s presence but –ironically—stating that this would now be a meeting not physical, but online. Which means that the entire effort was further postponed and their trip wasted.

Detailed documents of this fascinating and tragic case study are available with the channel but cannot be published as MeitY has decreed that their “Orders are confidential as per rules of procedure”

During the arguments in the Madras High Court, Karikalan the Petitioner submitted succinctly that since as of date, “no penal action has been initiated against any of the political parties, Members or Movements, Speakers, etc. of the aforesaid concerned identified videos. Therefore, the channel by itself has not transmitted any information against the interest of the Sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the State, Friendly relations with foreign States, Public Order, etc. The channel has not violated the intermediary guidelines and digital media ethics.” 

Besides, he argued that “the wholesale blocking of an account is not only disproportional and excessive, but it impedes a user’s right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a). It effectively assumes that the future speech of the user would also fall within the four corners of the grounds under Section 69A of the IT Act and renders the user incapable of voicing themselves. Initiates a prior restraint on speech as well as a chilling effect that prevents users from posting anything in fear of losing access to their accounts.”

The judgement of the Madras High Court may be read here

Detailed documents of this fascinating and tragic case study cannot be published or made public because MeitY Orders are “confidential” as per their “rules of procedure”

Postcript:

Section 69A (a product of the 2009 Rules) was applied to ensure this draconian mode of censorship even as the controversial 2021 changes to the IT Rules had been notified on April 6, 2023. Communicator comedian, Kunal Kamra filed his petition challenging these amendments on April 10, 2023 and on April 24, 2023 the Union of India gave an undertaking to the court not to notify the amendments stayed. A split verdict was delivered in the Bombay HC in January 31, 2024 and now the case will be heard afresh. 

A brief legal analysis of the present situation may be read here

The post EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Broadcasting Bill blurs the distinction between journalism and content creation. The definition of news and current affairs has been deliberately left so broad that all sorts of online media can be controlled through it. It clubs together both broadcast and digital media, although broadcast media includes the big channels while digital news media channels are often small outfits run by one or two persons. Many clauses, particularly those relating to self-censorship, are completely impractical given the nature of small news media. Some dangerous clauses include the power to seize electronic devices including studio equipment. There are apprehensions that the Bill could muffle independent voices including those of YouTube journalists, news analysts and digital websites.

In the opinion of these journalist associations, such a bill could wait till the formation of a common body like a Media Commission of India comprising experts and stake holders who could look into all aspects of self-regulation rather than inviting government control. Today there exists a wide spectrum media, ranging from print, broadcast, digital to TV and other media and it is not possible to regulate it through such measures. Instead, it is necessary to organize extensive consultations with all stakeholders, look into the common grievances’ and seek common solutions. Decisions made without democratic consultations could smack of authoritarianism.

The statement states that the NAJ, the APWJF and NWMI also apprehend that the Broadcast Bill is being pushed in a hurry and could be yet another attempt to curb independent thinking, protest and dissent. Therefore the demand is that it should be immediately rolled back. The statement by Sujata Madhok, general secretary, DUJ, AM Jigneesh, DUJ, G Anjaneyulu, Predient, and APWJF and N.Kondaiah, Secretary General, NAL and SK Pande, Presdident, NAJ also notes that the Bill is ominously, inexplicably silent on concentration of media ownership in big corporate hands which is itself a big threat to freedom of expression and diversity of opinion.

Related:

Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI

Passing of Telecommunications Bill amid suspension of 97 opposition leaders sparks fears of rights infringement & surveillance

The post Gateway to Censorship: caution and concern over the proposed Broadcasting Bill, 2023 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The New Indian Express reports today, January 10, that the Shankaracharya of Jyotishpeeth, Swami Avimukteshwaranand Sarswati has set up a ‘Dharam Censor Board’ to review and analyse the content of films and web series on OTT. The objective is to ensure no “hurting religious sentiments in the name of entertainment.”

This “Board”, the constitution of which was announced in Prayagraj, last week, was formally set up in Haridwar on Sunday, June 8.

The religious preacher said that the central office of the ‘Dharam Censor Board’ also known as ‘Dharam Shodhan Sewalaya’ would be inaugurated in Delhi, the national capital, on January 15. The guidelines that the Board would follow would be released on Magh Mela premises of Prayagraj on January 19. The censor board has come up amidst the ongoing controversy over the song ‘Besharam Rang….’ of Shahrukh Khan and Deepika Padukone starrer ‘Pathan’. The movie is set for theatrical release on January 25.

Significantly, the “outrage” and controversy over the Pathan song which features Deepika Padukone in saffron attire. A number of far right-wing organisations objected to it while threatening to boycott the film in theatres.

According to sources, the 10-member Dharam Censor Board would even set up its offices in different states. According to Swami Avimukteshwaranand, the Dharam Censor Board would delve deep into the content of films, web series, TV serials, and the school curriculum being offered. “It will also look into the characters, their dialogues and delivery, colours being used and sequences being shown in the name of showbiz. 

The Board will “recommend action” on finding the distortion of content related to Hinduism, Vedas and Puranas in the films and serials,” said the cleric.  He added that the board would also act under the ambit of law against those found mocking the Sanatan way of life or chanting the mantras wrong.

The board “would also help the filmmakers”, who will be interested in making religion-based films, said the Shankaracharya, with content and script.  Swami Avimukteshwaranand has been appointed the patron of the Dharam Censor Board and Suresh Manchanda its media in charge.

The other Board members include a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court Dr PN Mishra, Sanatan Dharm preacher Swami Chakrapani, litterateur Dr Neerja Madhav, actor Mansi Pandey, vice president, UP Film Development Corporation, Tarun Rathi, social activist Capt Arvind Singh Bhadauria, Sanskrit litterateur Preeti Shukla, an expert on Sanatan Dharm, Dr Gargi Pundit and former director of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Dr Dharmveer.

Related:

Saffron brigade manufactures hateful controversy around SRK’s ‘Pathan’
Censor Board’s Actions Have Moved From Farce to Tragedy: Intellectuals Condemn Censorship of Amartya Sen’s Film
Government to amend Cinematograph Law, may alter Censor Board’s role

The post Censorship: Jyotishpeet Shankaracharya sets up ‘ Dharm Censor Board ‘ to review films, web series on OTT appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The podcast takes a panoramic view on the early years of laws and discussions on censorship of theater and contains delightful (ominous?) small nuggets that paint a picture not unlike the times we are living in. Like the deliberations on the Dramatic Performances Bill 1876 where theater was deemed detrimental to the prestige and character of the British rule in India (does this rings a bell ?). Or how the traveling theaters of 1875  achieved enough popularity for the British Government to take note and depute policemen to watch the plays and report back (a bell is surely ringing somewhere!) and how dramatic performances accompanied public Ganpati celebrations and the fervor they caused with young people memorizing lines, enough to cause consternation in official circles. 
 

The post Theater: Threatening Those in Power Since 1876 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The whole incident took place after a local  newspaper report misrepresented the theme of the play stating that the “play depicted Army men in poor light.”  

Along with the cancellation of the play, the protesters also demanded that sedition charges be slapped on the director.

Written and directed by Abhishek Majumdar, the play has been performed several times in India and abroad without any censoring in the past two years. Since the play takes up a currently sensitive topic, Kashmir, it has received a lot of criticism. Yesterday, the situation worsened when the director was forced to leave Jaipur due to safety concerns.

Majumdar is one of the finest writer and director of the country and has always been vocal about his views. Through his work, he brings to light, the issues relevant to our society , culture and democracy. The well acclaimed play stresses on the need for a dialogue in Kashmir. The whole play raises certain relevant question in our society which the government has failed to take a stand on.  It sends a message highlighting the importance of having a dialogue on Kashmir along with the need to understand what motivates these young people to take up arms. The play neither portrays army men in bad light not does it condone any act of terror.

Apparently, the protesters gathered to threaten the organisers and crew members at the Navaras festival had not even watched the play. The whole denouncement of the performance happened following a newspaper report.

Speaking to the Indian Cultural Forum, managing editor of Leftword and performing artist of Jana Natya Manch, Sudhanva Deshpande said, “It is extremely unfortunate  that it happened in a Congress ruled state. The administration should have protected the cast and director of the play. They should have ensured that the performance happen and not let miscreants and hindutva forces to get away with the censorship. I wish the authorities, the administration, the police and the state government had moved in such a way that the play could have been performed. The miscreants should be booked and there should be cases against them. This is not unexpected and it happens again and again, but it is really sad that it happened under a Congress ruled state.”

Censorship in Rajasthan

Last year, the Bollywood film Padmavat went through a series of hindrances ahead of its release. In the name of Rajput pride, even before the movie was screened, the state witnessed violent protests. The title of the movie was changed from Padmavati to Padmatvat following the protest organised by the Karni Sena. Along with demands on banning an unreleased – unseen movie, this fringe group also threatened both the director and the actors of the film.

A similar crackdown was witnessed yesterday when an unleashed Hindutva group wreaked havoc even before the staging of the play Eidgah ke Jinnat.  As Deshpande said, “They don’t know what are they protesting against and why they are protesting. This whole thing is about censorship. The protesters have no clue about the text of the play. There were two performances that were lined up and it’s really terrible that the the second show of the play couldn’t be staged.”

Over the past four years, censorship has become a standard pattern that is being normalised by the present right-wing government.  Ironically, in both the cases, the “angry” protesters had neither watched the play nor the movie and staged protests on the basis of some false assumptions.

Extending solidarity to the director and the actors, a group of artists have come up with an online petition to the Rajasthan government seeking to protect artists’ freedom of expression. 

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum
 

The post The Censorship Saga: Play on Kashmir cancelled after protests appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Image Courtesy: The Hindu

Lourdes M Supriya (LMS): Could you talk a little about how censorship is an impingement on the rights of the writer? What does it say about our society?

Mridula Garg (MG): I was arrested by the police in 1982 for my novel Chittacobra, which was published in 1979. I The censorship of my novel was an impingement on my rights not only as a writer but also as a citizen. I was deprived of not just the freedom of expression but my liberty to live as a citizen. Of course, even in cases where the authors are not arrested but hounded in other ways by the society—having their effigy burnt; publicly abused; tormented at work; having their books banned—the authors are deprived if their liberty as a citizen. They are deprived of the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution.

    The worst result such censorship can have is to provoke the writer into practicing self censorship,

shying away from writing the truth as he or she sees it. In fact, I was told by some of my female colleagues that my being censored had frightened them off writing their novels. This did not happen to me. In the very next year,  I wrote another controversial novel, political this time, Anitya (1980). In 1997, a well-known journalist and writer dissuaded Penguin from publishing the book in English, claiming that it was too “philosophical” (read political). It was only in 2010 that it’s English translation was finally published by Oxford University Press. So, the censorship did have an indirect effect on my work. In fact, Hindi scholars keep harping on about the arrest to date, using it to disparage me and my writing. My decision to write the novel, The Last Email, in English (with no intention of rendering it in Hindi) might have been partially influenced by this.

Incidents like these paint an ugly picture of our society. It shows that out so called intellectuals are intolerant, regressive, and bigoted. Hardly any of them had spoken up against the censorship when I was arrested.

LMS: Do you think things are different now? Or, do you think censorship of this kind has increased again in the last couple of years

MG: Are things different now? Well, yes and no.

In 2014, nearly three decades after the incident, when I read out the “objectionable” excerpt from Chittacobra for a Doordarshan’s serial Kitabnama, it was never telecast. However, the interview in which I mentioned the book was. Ironically, it was the interviewer who insisted that I read that particular excerpt, even though I wanted to read from another book. Interestingly, that episode was called ‘Women Writers Uncensored’ while the original title was supposed to be ‘Mridula Garg Uncensored.’ At least that’s what I was told.

As far as depiction of female sexuality or any sexuality is concerned, much more leeway is allowed now. But,

things have become worse on other fronts.

Caste bias, religious dogma, provincial politics, narrow definition of Hinduism as Hindutva, these are all playing havoc with writers’ lives and works. The goons in the street have taken over the censorship of literary activity with full support of the government. Dissent is as little tolerated here as in China. The means of quelling it might be different but not always, as the recent murder of Gauri Lankesh demonstrated once again.

LMS:  Are there other books (both in Hindi and English literature) that explore relationship, love, and desire in aging individuals, or is your book an exception?

MG: I do not know of any such book in Hindi but in English there is the celebrated novel, Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Actually, it was originally written in Spanish. But, since then, it has been translated in all European languages including English. In the book, the elderly protagonists, in love in their youth, get married fifty years nine months and four days but after they were first separated. The man, Florentino, has had 622 affairs in the intervening period. The woman, Fermina, is widowed. Fifty years nine months and four days.

Unlike this,

    in my novel, the protagonists re-open contact and re-affirm their love via email, while continuing in their marriages to others. What they celebrate is a union of spirit and memory without an actual physical meeting.

The extent of trust and empathy that the protagonists have for each other is well demonstrated in this excerpt. The woman, Maya is able to talk to her lover Kevin frankly about her intense affection and affinity for a young boy, and he can appreciate it.

There are some other novels in English where the protagonists are elderly men and women but usually they are husband and wife. A celebrated one is Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Buried Giant. It is an allegorical tale with an elderly couple at its centre. It’s a tender love story which deals with the nature of memory and forgetfulness, much like mine. However, in this book, the couple have been married for a long period of time.

Some other English novels about long marriages I know of are The Tree of Man by Patrick White, The Rainbow by DH Lawrence, and the Rabbit series by John Updike. All of these follow a marriage from beginning to end, allowing the reader to see the shifts and fascinating complexities in old relationships.

But, as you can see, my book is a departure from that kind of text. It does not deal with a married couple but lovers estranged for 40 years and reuniting through words that invoke the intense memories of sexual intimacy without trying to meet again.

LMS: What made you write a novel about old lovers reconnecting again?

MG: I did not make a conscious decision to sit down and pen a story about old people. It was an essential part of my psyche that was bound to come to pass one day. What happened was that,

    as I grew older, I realised that as far as longing and love were concerned, age was no barrier.

All it did was teach patience without dissipating the passion. In fact, I had voiced this sentiment in my novel Chittacobra in 1979. Its young lovers took a pledge to meet after 30 years when they were old and free of social dictates. Here are a few lines from it which clarify what I am saying.

“Thirty years more… then I’ll be with you.”
“Only thirty.”
“They will stop feeling threatened if we don’t meet for thirty years.”   
“Time stretches on when no moment is precious.”
“For me each minute will be precious because I’ll know you are there”
“Thirty years, only thirty. Then we will have our honeymoon.”

These lines presaged The Last Email.

It had to happen sometime. Poetic justice demanded that it wait for 30-40 years and that was exactly how it came about.

Read an excerpt from the novel here.

Mridula Garg is an Indian author who writes in English and Hindi. She has authored over 30 books. She has been awarded the Sahitya Akademi Award, among others.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Mridula Garg on writing, censorship, and her latest novel appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Glen Greenwald’s Intercept has noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.” The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.

Has FB been on a Censorship Rampage Since? And is this confined to US and Israeli influence alone or does it extend to other Zionist partners like the Hindutvawaadis are well known to be?

Since these questionable meetings, there are allegations of a range of censorship moves by FB. According to Intercept reports, Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders:

Soon after news of this controversial ‘agreement’ between the Israeli government and Facebook had become public, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.” There’s more: Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

The New York Times put it in December of last year, “Israeli security agencies monitor Facebook and send the company posts they consider incitement. Facebook has responded by removing most of them.”What makes this censorship particularly consequential is that “96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of Facebook was for following news.” That means that Israeli officials have virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians.

In the weeks following those Facebook-Israel meetings, reported The Independent, “the activist collective Palestinian Information Center reported that at least 10 of their administrators’ accounts for their Arabic and English Facebook pages — followed by more than 2 million people — have been suspended, seven of them permanently, which they say is a result of new measures put in place in the wake of Facebook’s meeting with Israel.” Last March, Facebook briefly shut down the Facebook page of the political party, Fatah, followed by millions, “because of an old photo posted of former leader Yasser Arafat holding a rifle.”
A 2016 report of the the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms detailed how extensive the Facebook censorship was:

Pages and personal accounts that were filtered and blocked: Palestinian Dialogue Network (PALDF.net) Gaza now, Jerusalem News Network, Shihab agency, Radio Bethlehem 2000, Orient Radio Network, page Mesh Heck, Ramallah news, journalist Huzaifa Jamous from Abu Dis, activist Qassam Bedier, activist Mohammed Ghannam, journalist Kamel Jbeil, administrative accounts for Al Quds Page, administrative accounts Shihab agency, activist Abdel-Qader al-Titi, youth activist Hussein Shajaeih, Ramah Mubarak (account is activated), Ahmed Abdel Aal (account is activated), Mohammad Za’anin (still deleted), Amer Abu Arafa (still deleted), Abdulrahman al-Kahlout (still deleted).

Needless to say, Israelis have virtually free rein to post whatever they want about Palestinians. Calls by Israelis for the killing of Palestinians are commonplace on Facebook, and largely remain undisturbed.

Switch to India. Dalit Bahujan activists who are known critics of the Modi regime have found their FB pages ‘blocked’ while inciteful material stays and flourishes including Videos of Mob Lynching. Activists and news portals who are run by professionals who are targets of this majoritarian regime at the centre in Delhi and also in 19 states are facing similar censorship blockages by FB and even twitter.
 

The post Facebook Functioning at the Behest of US & Israeli Governments? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The account never posted any content which espoused hate but was known for sharing and writing about issues which went partially or at times completely unreported. It was also a useful resource for journalists to get additional information and contacts and has helped websites such as The Hindu, Sabrangindia Scroll.in, amongst others.

One of the owners of Un-fair Web made the following post on his personal account following Facebook’s block:
https://www.facebook.com/
Un-Fair Web is designed as an Identity – a ‘Skin’ that discusses issues relating to prejudice and discrimination based on Skin, Colour, Race and Caste.
https://www.facebook.com/

On September 17, 2017, Narendra Modi’s birthday, Un-Fair received a private ‘direct message’ with an image – a screenshot of a ‘WhatsApp’ message. This was a death threat post the murder of Bangalore journalist Gauri Lankesh. Maintaining the student’s anonymity and verifying the messages authenticity, Un-Fair Web began posting about this on September 18, 2017. It is after this initial post, that Un-Fair Web began receiving similar image-messages from various other journalists, activists and students. Various concerned people began tracking these cell phone numbers and began sharing the finds. It appeared as if some sort of a joint complaint and FIR through the Cyber Investigative Cell, TRAI, etc (web-links were shared)… was taking shape.

Not to be. About 10:00 PM on the 18th, Un-Fair Web was blocked and expunged by FaceBook. All posts, data and messages from Un-Fair Web either as private ‘Direct Messages’ or ‘comments’ on FaceBook walls have been censored, made invisible and erased.

WhatsApp Death Threats In The Wake Of Gauri Lankesh Murder
http://raiot.in/whatsapp-

As requested by FaceBook, persons connected with the project have submitted PAN Card and Passport Scans yet Un-Fair Web and the data collected through public sharing, now remain inaccessible.
Un-Fair began documenting cases of violence against the African diaspora for over two years. Since August 2015 we began tracing the initial event: the beating up and two-year long coma, of YANNICK NIHANGAZA.

In our attempts to understand similar and multiple events of violence, we continued research on issues of Skin, Colour, Race and Caste. It is this sharing of research, data and finding that gave rise to a Blog and the Identity on FaceBook – Un-Fair Web. Further given the non-sponsorship or funding by any institution or individual this became the only medium available to share in a non-ownership mode, since January 2017 (how can one profit on images, texts and videos of people being beaten up, shamed and tortured or by even professing one’s own ignorance of their existence) with responsibility.

Un-Fair Web has been a community platform and voice for people that mainstream media and citizens of this country reject, obliterate and socially discriminated against, daily through every waking and conscious moment 24×7, 365 days of the year. This could be stripping of an innocent Tanzania girl in Bangalore, beating to death a boy in Kishangarh, Delhi, or having an entire community raided in the middle of the night by an elected government labelling them prostitutes and drug dealers – at Khirkhee Extension; today this means mid-night knocking on their doors asking for papers by men in uniform, as in Hyderabad, frivolous activities of smacking people in the back of their heads with cricket bats as you go down the road on your motorcycle in Jaipur, calling them cannibals and murderers, confiscating their passports and publicly beating them across an entire city of Greater Noida. These are only a few of the incidents. Add to this the various name-calling, solicitations, Metro Train incidents, etc… as one walks down the road to buy over-priced food, transport and rent and further telling Africa about this wonderful thing called the Green Revolution of Punjab that can feed the world.

While most of our near acquaintances question our intentions, as we are all not ‘black’ or ‘Dalit, Bahujan or Adivasi’ and we constantly find ourselves being ‘black-balled’ by friends and society for sharing and professing these views and now faced with a societal ostracization affecting our means and modes of daily sustenance. Immense pressure is being constantly applied to make the work and voice copyrightable and owned and taken away from a community of people. Today we find all that a community has spoken – ERASED.

Our friends, journalists, artists, performers, curators still silent and with claims to be not political and objective. All we say is with every ‘WORD’ you write and profess a politic, there are a million, nay a billion you do not say, erase, obliterate and annihilate.

The post Censorship on Facebook: One More Account, Un-fair Web, Blocked appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Some people (especially journalists) have started rationalising the murder of Gauri Lankesh by calling her an activist not journalist and thus not protected by the tag of ‘Press Freedom’. At RAIOT we too engage with that old chestnut called objectivity and bias (and getting a press card from local Directorate of Information & Public Relations). So this pirated extract reprinted from “The New Censorship: Inside the Global Battle for Media Freedom” by Joel Simon helped us to partially assuage activistic journalistic heart.

At a March 2013 meeting in Doha, Qatar, in which press freedom activists gathered to develop a strategy for responding to the violence in Syria, a heated discussion broke out about what constitutes journalism in an environment in which professional reporters work alongside a new generation of online communicators who dub themselves “media activists.” Using social media and public platforms like YouTube, these activists have provided firsthand accounts of the fighting, the toll, and daily life in a war-ravaged country but make no claim to objectivity. Some are fairly journalistic in their approach and others essentially propagandists for the rebel forces. A few are armed and participate in combat.

To give a few additional examples from other parts of the world, in China, a leading blogger, Zhou Shuguang, who uses the online moniker Zola (a nod to the French writer-journalist), has traveled around the country with a video camera documenting injustice but insists, “I don’t know what journalism is. I just record what I witness.” In Vietnam, a blogger named Nguyen Van Hai who took a similar approach was given a 12-year jail sentence. In Turkey, while mainstream media ignored the Gezi Park protesters, activists using Twitter and other social media became the essential source of independent news. Even New York police seeking to control access to the Occupy Wall Street protests struggled to differentiate between accredited journalists and sympathetic citizens who used smartphones to disseminate information to the public.
In an era in which technology has changed everything about the way news is gathered and delivered, is it possible to draw a line between journalism, activism, and other kinds of speech? And is it necessary to do so? The answer is extremely significant for several reasons. First, because it directly affects the way journalists themselves understand their role. Are the rights of journalists distinct from others who provide information and commentary? Is the ability of journalists to perform their role as media professionals dependent on preserving some sort of distinction? Second, because it goes to larger questions about the kind of global information environment that would best preserve and even expand the accountability, oversight, and transparency that have historically been the function of independent media.
The advent of blogs and online media raised new questions. As the volume, complexity, and speed of information increased, the process of defining journalism has become more and more unwieldy. The trend has accelerated in the last several years, with the explosion of social media and its increasing use to accomplish basic journalism: documenting events and disseminating information to the public.
Some traditional journalists are deeply uncomfortable with the blurring of lines, which they feel undermines the integrity of the profession while also making coverage of conflict more dangerous. NBC’s chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel told the U.N. Security Council during its July 2013 briefing on journalist security, “Protecting journalists these days is hard, perhaps harder than ever, because one has to tackle the question of who is a journalist and who is an activist in a way that never existed before.”
Engel lamented the ways in which the advent of social media has eviscerated the special status that international correspondents once enjoyed, eliminating distinctions between professional journalists, activists, and “rebels with cameras” and “state broadcasters” who are “fundamentally different from journalists.” “If one cannot or will not write an article that goes against one’s cause, then one is not a journalist and does not deserve to be treated like one,” Engel explained. He proposed that the diplomats on the Security Council make a distinction between the broad defense of freedom of expression and the defense of “dedicated and trained professionals who take risks to deliver the kind of information council members need to make their decisions.”
 

But inviting governments to differentiate journalists from non-journalists would set a dangerous precedent. Many governments—Turkey, Egypt, China, and Venezuela, to cite some examples—seem to believe “journalists” support government policies while “activists” oppose them. Journalists and media freedom organizations have long resisted any effort by governments or government-controlled bodies like the United Nations to define who is and who is not a journalist, arguing that such a distinction is tantamount to licensing, which is anathema to the journalism profession.

In the last three decades, the way in which journalists define their role has evolved considerably. Defending the human rights of persecuted colleagues, once viewed as activist special pleading, is now widely accepted. But today, precisely because the distinction between journalists and nonjournalists has broken down so dramatically, journalists are confronting a new dilemma: Should journalists more broadly embrace the freedom-of-expression cause? Or should they speak out—as Engel suggests—only in defense of their professional colleagues?

Regardless of whether WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange is considered a journalist, he is part of the new global information ecosystem

This debate played out in dramatic fashion beginning in April 2010, when WikiLeaks released a video provocatively labeled “Collateral Murder.” The video showed the crew of a U.S. helicopter gunship in Iraq opening fire on a group of Iraqi men who had been identified as insurgents, some of them armed. A journalist and media assistant from Reuters who were with the group were killed. A van that tried to rescue the wounded media worker also came under fire. Two children in the van were wounded, and their father, the driver, was killed.

WikiLeaks was co-founded by Julian Assange in 2006, with the goal of making public documents of “political, ethical, diplomatic, or historical significance,” a description that of course covers just about everything. But it wasn’t until the “Collateral Murder” video that WikiLeaks garnered widespread public attention. The video—which Reuters had tried to obtain unsuccessfully from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act—was provided to WikiLeaks by a disgruntled low-level military intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning. Manning also shared with WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of confidential State Department cables that WikiLeaks began publishing in November 2010 under the heading “Cablegate.”

The response of media organizations and press freedom groups regarding Assange and WikiLeaks was confused and ambivalent. The tepid embrace by the media community was based in large measure on the fact that most professional journalists did not identify with Assange or his methods. And Assange did not help matters at all with his dissembling and obfuscation. Assange presented himself as a journalist at times, but his justifications for WikiLeaks’ actions ranged from disrupting government communications, to ending war, to “crushing bastards.” These are not necessarily journalistic motives. He also violated the most basic of journalistic ethics by failing to remove the names of human rights activists and journalists who had interacted with U.S. authorities in repressive countries, putting these individuals at grave risk.

Should Assange be disqualified from support from journalists and press freedom organizations because of his lack of journalistic ethics and his generally loathsome behavior? I don’t think so. On the other side of the equation, WikiLeaks has tried to suggest that it functions as a journalistic entity. I’m skeptical. WikiLeaks is best described as an anti-secrecy advocacy group that uses journalistic strategies to advance its goals.

Although the question of whether Julian Assange is a journalist is interesting, it’s not ultimately resolvable or even that relevant. The real question is whether Assange and WikiLeaks are part of the new global information ecosystem in which journalists operate. Here the answer is clearly yes. And the other important question is whether prosecuting Assange under the Espionage Act would threaten that system. Here again the answer is yes.

The 1917 Espionage Act makes it a crime to obtain, copy, or publicize documents relating to the defense of the United States. The language is both broad and vague and could be construed to apply to the media. However, journalists have not been previously charged for a number of reasons. The first is that legislative history suggests that Congress never intended that the law be used to prosecute the press. A prosecution would also almost certainly have to overcome a First Amendment challenge. Finally, the Justice Department has resisted prosecuting journalists because of the likely adverse public reaction and the damage that such a prosecution would do to the country’s international reputation.

Journalists may find Assange personally distasteful and generally disapprove of the reckless way in which the information was released. But WikiLeaks has in fact made an extraordinarily valuable contribution to the work of the media. The initial revelations from Cablegate were, of course, reported simultaneously in mainstream media outlets, from The Guardian to Le Monde. But the cables have also served as an invaluable resource that has enriched day-to-day coverage from Pakistan to Mali. Global citizens have benefitted tremendously as a result. Holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, Assange seems a reduced figure. But if the U.S. government should ever proceed with prosecuting him under the Espionage Act, journalists around the world should rush to his defense, and the outcry should be loud and sustained. Not only would the prosecution threaten traditional journalists, but it would erode the new system of information distribution on which global citizens all depend. In other words, Julian Assange may not be a journalist, but journalists should defend him as if he were.

As the Assange case illustrates, journalists can no longer protect their own interests by advocating solely for press freedom. Instead, journalists must embrace the broader struggle for freedom of expression and make it their own.

This does not mean that journalism is going to disappear or that professional journalists are indistinguishable from bloggers, social media activists, or human rights advocates. And it certainly does not mean that the quality and accuracy of the information is irrelevant. Precisely because the line is growing blurrier by the day, those who define themselves as professional journalists need more than ever to maintain standards and report with seriousness and objectivity. However, it is up to journalists themselves to make distinctions between journalism and other kinds of speech, and these distinctions will always be fluid and subject to debate. Governments should not be participants in these discussions any more than they should be expected to weigh in on the debate about what constitutes poetry. Governments must protect all speech, whether journalistic or not. Respect for freedom of expression is the enabling environment for global journalism.

Aside from the political and practical considerations, there is also a legal question. Are journalists or the press as an institution entitled to special protection under law? Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes no distinction between journalistic and nonjournalistic speech. It states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

To suggest that journalists are entitled to special legal protections is even more problematic in countries around the world where the media as an institution is historically compromised and the boundaries between journalism and other forms of expression are rapidly breaking down. In many countries “traditional” journalists who would be the beneficiaries of greater “press freedom” are hardly the most trustworthy or independent sources of news. Take Egypt during the Tahrir Square uprising. Most professional journalists in Egypt—coddled by decades of government largesse—continue to take their marching orders from the authorities. It was a relatively small number of independent journalists working with bloggers and activists who broke [former Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak’s information blockade. Throughout 2013, as street demonstrations erupted in Russia, Turkey, and Brazil, the institutional media performed woefully, forcing protesters to turn to bloggers and social media activists for independent information. Independent journalists working in these sorts of environments operate in a “freedom of expression” environment that they share with other independent voices seeking to document and disseminate information.

Historically, even if journalists did not enjoy any special legal status, they have been treated with some deference by governments because of their perceived political clout. The logic is summed up by the maxim “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,” a phrase that has been attributed by a top aide to President Gerald Ford but whose origin is in dispute. What it meant was that while governments would take on leakers and others who disclosed confidential information, they were less likely to challenge the media that published the information. This is still true, but the distinction is breaking down as the media fractures and its power diminishes. Prosecutors in the Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning case who argued that she should have been convicted of espionage and “aiding the enemy” because she knew that the documents she leaked, once public, would be accessed by al-Qaeda acknowledged that they would have presented the same argument had the materials been published by The New York Times. Meanwhile, British investigators are considering laying terrorism charges against The Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger for publishing accounts of the documents leaked by Edward Snowden.

Journalists play a unique and pivotal role in every society and must be able to do their work without interference from the state. But as the boundaries between journalists and nonjournalists continue to erode and any meaningful definition of journalism becomes more and more elusive, journalists have to recognize that their rights are best protected not by the special realm of “press freedom” but rather by ensuring that guarantees of free expression are extended to all. While it is natural and normal for journalists and press freedom organizations to give special emphasis to their journalistic colleagues, they can’t stand on the sideline of the broader struggle for freedom of expression, both online and off, and must actively defend the rights of all people everywhere to gather news, express their opinions, and disseminate information to the public.
 
Courtesy: raiot.in

The post Activism & Journalism: Is There a Difference? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

"We are shocked and angered by the recent Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) demand that certain words be excised from a film based on the work of the Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen. The movie is titled after Sen’s 2005 work, The Argumentative Indian, which was widely acknowledged for its deep and authentic explorations of India’s traditions of public debate.
 
The CBFC has reportedly demanded that certain words used by Sen and other scholars and public intellectuals interviewed in the film should be bleeped out if it is to be granted certification for public exhibition. These words include “cow”, “Hindutva view of India”, “Hindu India” and “Gujarat”.

The CBFC’s exertions under its current chair have long crossed the line from farce to tragedy. Occasional efforts to bring it to its senses, such as the stern judicial reprimand handed down in the Udta Punjab case, seem to have no more than transient effect. With its diktat on The Argumentative Indian, the CBFC shows yet again that its anxiety to protect the sensitivities of the political regime, overwhelm any manner of commitment to the Constitution and the law. At risk in this plunge into absurdity, are our most valuable traditions of free speech and debate."

Other Signatories include: Irfan Habib Ashok Mitra, Romila Thapar, Shyam Benegal, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Saeed Mirza, Anand Patwardhan, Prabhat Patnaik, Mihir Bhattacharya
Ram Rahman, Parthiv Shah, Madangopal Singh, Vivan Sundaram, Nilima Sheikh, Sohail Hashmi, Geeta Kapur, Anil Chandra, Kumi Chandra, M.K.Raina, Rajni Arora, Jahar Kanungo
Rajinder Arora, D. N. Jha, Sashi Kumar, Shireen Moosvi, K.M.Shrimali, Arjun Dev, Anil Bhatti, M.M.P. Singh, Rekha Awasthi, Amir Rizvi, P.K.Shukla, Lata Singh, Dinesh Abrol, Archana Prasad, Githa Hariharan, Kumkum Sangari, Rakhshanda Jalil, Kasim Sait, Virendra Saini, Mridula Mukherjee, Zoya Hasan, C.P.Chandrasekhar, Aditya Mukherjee, Ashok Nath Basu
Indira Chandrasekhar, Vishwa Mohan Jha, Sukumar Muralidharan, Sadanand Menon, A.J.Jawad, Ananya Vajpeyi, Malini Bhattacharya, Atlury Murali, Vikas Rawal, JavedAnand, Teesta Setalvad, K.L.Tuteja, Gopinath Ravindran, Sania Hashmi, Mohan Kumawat, IqtidarAlam Khan, Ishrat Alam, Tani Bhargav, Rajeev Bhargav, Ramesh Rawat, Nadeem Rezavi, Shamim Akhtar, Indira Arjun Dev, Mohan Rao, Jayati Ghosh, Nancy Adajania, Veer Munshi, Abhilasha Kumari, Romi Khosla, Neeraj Malik, Javed Malick, Zafar Agha, Madhu Prasad, KalpanaSahni, Amar Farooqui, B.P.Sahu, R.P.Bahuguna, Shakti Kak, Sarah Hashmi, Moggallan Bharti, Rahul Verma, N.K.Sharma
 

The post Censor Board’s Actions Have Moved From Farce to Tragedy: Intellectuals Condemn Censorship of Amartya Sen’s Film appeared first on SabrangIndia.