Significantly, the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) documented and analysed 128 X posts targeted at Indians broadly within the Western context. According to the key findings in this study, these posts (in their dataset) received a total of 138.54M views on X as of January 3, 2025. 36 posts received over a million views, 12 of which claimed Indians to be a demographic threat to white America. The analysis further shows that these posts, that originated from 85 accounts, three-fourths of which were (64 accounts) displaying blue verification badges.

As pertinently, the posts, the report states, violated X’s own policies on Hateful Conduct. Violations included Incitement through ‘inciting fear or spreading fearful stereotypes about a protected category,’ slurs and tropes, and dehumanization. As of a week ago, January 3, 2025, 125 posts remained active, eight posts have been marked as sensitive, and one post remains active with limited visibility due to potential violations of X’s rules against Hateful Conduct.  Only 1 of 85 accounts in our database has been suspended by X.

What is the anti-Indian hate directed at?

The analysis in CSOH Report also shows that these attacks were not exclusively aimed at Hindus of Indian or American origin but extended to all those perceived as being of Indian descent, including Sikh community members.

Finally, the CSOH has put out a set of “Recommendations” that may be accessed here: These recommendations, crucial to understanding how hate expressions can be curtailed include: first, the recognition of anti-South Asian slurs, the need for expanded definitions, the requirement of an Establishment Advisory Council, an external stakeholder engagement framework the use of community notes proactively, counter-speech, transparency among many others.

X, formerly Twitter has been full of a barrage of anti-hate campaign that can be traced back to far-right Trump supporter Laura Loomer targeted Indian-Americans on X, following the appointment of Sriram Krishnan as an adviser on artificial intelligence to the incoming Trump administration. After this, the situation escalated when former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy in his own style (sic) criticised American culture for allegedly failing to produce enough skilled tech workers. This was followed by the multi-billionaire X owner Elon Musk, a Trump ally, weighing in by supporting the H1B visa program, noting that he himself had come to the US decades ago, through this same program.

Since then, the posts have spiralled, swamping the X platform. The report has subbed this as “an unequivocal and deeply troubling expression of anti-Indian racism.”

“With Musk and Trump both expressing support for the H1B program, the racism and hatred showed no signs of abating. If anything, it only ramped up in intensity and spread. While it may be easy to label such viral hatred as ‘spontaneous,’ the prominence of certain racist themes and tropes, along with their repeated affirmation, presents a compelling case for seeing it as a form of organised, systematic hatred, fanned by powerful actors,” the report further elaborated.

The analysis crucially analysed how the discourse deteriorated and how the “speed with which the distinction between legal or ‘good’ immigrants and ‘illegal’ or ‘bad’ immigrants collapsed in the discussion about Indians and H-1B visas on X is further affirmation of the clear presence of white supremacist ideology on X.” Of the 128 sampled posts, the most viewed post, with 17.4 million views, was shared by the account @leonardaisfunE. It featured a video of a white man mimicking Indian street food vendors, with the user commenting that it was “the funniest shit” she had seen all year. Another post by the account @callistoroll and viewed 12.3 million times, included a video in which a Japanese man described Indian factory workers as incompetent and stupid.

‘Perpetuated stereotypes about Indians’

Deeper analysis showed that 47 of the 128 posts expressed xenophobic sentiments about replacing white workers. Additionally, 35 posts perpetuated the stereotype of Indians being dirty and unhygienic, while 25 focused on public defecation, cow dung, and cow urine.

Of the posts, some claimed claimed that Indians were “inferior to citizens of Western countries, particularly the United States.” Many alleged that Indians had lower intelligence quotients compared not only to white people but also to other immigrant groups. Others juxtaposed images of the interior of a cathedral with Indian slums to promote the supposed superiority of Western civilization.

“The ranking of IQ among groups has a long history in the alt-right white movement: the obsession with IQ is rooted in longstanding eugenicist and social Darwinist ideas that claim that different races possess different IQs. White people are assumed to be at the top of the IQ ladder,” the report stated.  The report has also noted that verbal attacks extended beyond Hindus of Indian or American origin, targeting all those perceived as being of Indian descent, including members of the Sikh community.

Related:

Facebook, Twitter suspend Trump’s accounts

Twitter acts against hate speech, locks hate monger’s account

Twitter deletes trending casteist slur, terms it hate speech

The post ‘Surge in Anti-Indian Hate on X by supporters of Trump is organised, ampflies racism and xenobia’: CSOH Report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

While stating on record that the blocking order was unjust, X supported HW’s request that the social media account be unblocked, objecting the Centre govt order to blocking the account on multiple grounds. ‘X’ has also expressed willingness to restore Hindutva Watch’s account. X in its reply before the Delhi High Court stated that the impugned order of qualify the requirement of section 69A of the IT Act, 2002.

X also submitted before the court that the Central govt’s order also violates the Supreme Court’s decision in the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, relating to restrictions on online speech, held as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Background

This year in January, 2024, the ‘X’ account of Hindutva Watch, a hate-crime tracker in India, was blocked by the social media giant ‘X’ after the Ministry of Electronics and Information technology (MeitY) issued a notice listing several accounts that the government intended to block as it had the “the potential to incite violence and disrupt public law.” This list also included the account of HW (@HindutvaWatchIn).

In compliance with the government’s direction, in January, 2024, ‘X’ withheld the account of Hindutva Watch, stating that the action was being taken in response to a legal demand.

Raqib Hameed Naik, Founder of Hindutva Watch filed a writ petition Raqib Hameed vs Union of India, [Writ Petition (Civil) 6023/2024] in the Delhi High Court in April, 2024 against the blocking of account @HindutvaWatchIn and challenged the MeitY blocking order.

According to Bar and Bench, X said that it objected to MeitY notice, claiming that @HindutvaWatchIn’ did not fall within the grounds specified under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and that the MeitY flagged the posts as inciteful without basis.

X said that despite their objection, the Ministry issued a blocking order directing ‘X’ to block HindutvaWatchIn. X reverted with an objection letter, stating that the blocking order was issued in violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution and Section 69A of the IT Act. In objection letter, ‘X’ mentioned that the blocking order would disproportionately affect the user’s rights. But the Ministry not responded on this.

Blocking order was “without basis” and “disproportionate”

The social media giant X has submitted in its reply that the Modi government’s blocking order against Hindutva Watch is without basis and disproportionate. X further added that the blocking of the Petitioner’s entire Account, as opposed to specific posts, was disproportionate and did not constitute the “least intrusive measure” as mandated under law.

X notes that the blocking order “disproportionately affect the user’s rights” because it prevents the user from using X in India at all and blocking HW’s entire account does not meet the four-part proportionality test.

 X said ready to restore account but not ‘the State’ under Article 12

While objecting the Centre’s blocking proposal, X also asserted that Hameed’s petition was not maintainable against X, as the company is not “the State” under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, nor does it perform a public function. However, X Corp. also states that, without prejudice to those objections, it does not oppose Hameed’s request to restore the account and will comply with a court order to that effect.

“It is admitted that Respondent No. 1’s (Union of India) blocking of the Petitioner’s (Hindutva Watch founder) entire social media accounts on the basis of certain alleged offending posts is contrary to Section 69A of the IT Act, disproportionate, and exceeds the limits prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It is admitted that a possible and less rights-infringing approach would involve the removal of specific posts, if found to be in violation of the law … Without prejudice to the Preliminary Objections, Answering Respondent (X/ Twitter) does not oppose Petitioner’s request to restore Petitioner’s X Account in India, and will comply with such an Order if this Hon’ble Court grants it,” X stated before the court through its reply. Reported Bar and Bench

In support of its Position, X cites the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Sanchit Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5880 in which the Court held that X Corp. does not perform a public function and is therefore not amenable to the Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Violates right to freedom of expression

The central government’s blocking of Hindutva Watch’s Twitter account constitutes a blatant violation of freedom of speech. By censoring the account, the government suppresses critical voices and stifles the documentation of hate crimes and hate speech by right-wing outfits and leaders. This arbitrary action undermines India’s democratic values and the fundamental right to expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The blocking order lacks transparency, proportionality, and judicial oversight, setting a chilling precedent for online speech, as no prior notice was served to the HW, before or after the action. It highlights the government’s growing tendency to silence dissenting voices, compromising the safety of minority populations and undermining accountability towards rising in motivated hate crimes and hate speeches.

What is Hindutva Watch?

As per its website, Hindutva Watch (HW) is a media and research initiative committed to documenting hate crimes and hate speech targeting India’s religious minorities and marginalized groups, including Dalits. The project has been described by the Washington Post as “one of the most robust real-time data sets of human rights abuses in the world’s largest democracy.” The LA Times has described HW as “a thorn in the side of Hindu nationalists who have been provoking anti-Muslim sentiment for years.”

However, the blocking of X accounts of those critical of the Modi government is not a new phenomenon. Many reports have highlighted the complicity that X has shown, or has been pressurised to show by the Indian government, in regards to mass censorship of its users. In October 2023, accounts of two U.S. based non-profits that frequently criticised Indian political leaders’ record on minority and caste rights issues in India, namely The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and Hindus for Human Rights (HFHR), had also been withheld owning to “legal demands”.

The next date of hearing in the matter is October 3, 2024

Related:

‘X’ account of HindtuvaWatch withheld in India owing to “legal demands”

The breakfast table at a well-to-do Hindu household

Hate Watch: Twitter suspends Kreately Media’s account after CJP complaints

The post Govt order to block Hindutva Watch account unjustified: X tells Delhi HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The said statement comes on days after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), at the behest of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued emergency order directing top social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X and Snapchat to block 177 accounts and links related to the farmers’ protest in order to maintain ‘public order’. Notably, these blocking orders were issued on February 14 and 19 and demand that specified accounts be suspended for the duration of the protest and be restored after the same is over. The statement released on the X account of Global Government Affairs touches upon the issues of the issuance of these executive orders, the writ petition against the powers of the union and the lack of transparency, which has been provided and discussed below.

Issuance of executive orders of blocking by the union government:

The statement released by the social media platform stated that “The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.  In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts.”

Section 69A of the Information Act, 2000 (IT Act) empowers the union government to issue take down orders or blocking orders in India. The said legal provision states that the Union government can issue blocking orders to platforms in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of the country, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and so on. These powers are being increasingly used by the Modi-led government to clamp down on any critical voices against his government and policies.

The writ petition by X Corp against these blocking orders:

In the statement released by X, it is further stated that “Consistent with our position, a writ appeal challenging the Indian government’s blocking orders remains pending. We have also provided the impacted users with notice of these actions in accordance with our policies.”

This sheds light on the ongoing legal proceedings taking place in the Karnataka High Court against the blocking orders being issued by the Union government by invoking Section 69A of the IT Act in complete darkness. On July 1, 2022, X Corp filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court after having complied with blocking orders issued by the Union government “under protest”. Through the petition, X had contested the blocking of 39 URLs out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets. According to the platform, the directive to block all accounts violated Section 69A and that the banning orders “demonstrate an excessive use of powers and are disproportionate” and are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision”. The platform had further argued that the Central government lacked the authority to issue general orders requesting the disabling of social media accounts and that such orders must include justifications that should be made known to users. Moreover, it also specified that only when the nature of the content complied with the requirements set forth in Section 69A of the IT Act could a blocking order be issued.

On June 30, a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the said petition brought in by X Corp (then Twitter Inc.) by holding the company’s argument to be “devoid of merits.” Interestingly, the bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit had also imposed the company with a 50 lakh rupee fee to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 45 days of the judgement.

In October of 2023, the appeal preferred by X Corp against the dismissal of its plea by a single judge bench was accepted by the division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil after MeitY had informed the court that the government will not be reconsidering the blocking orders. As the appeal was accepted, the bench indicated that it would consider the issue of whether reasons of the blocking orders passed by the Ministry are to be communicated to the platform, users of the accounts. It remarked that recording reasons is mandatory.

Notably, during the January 30, 2024 hearing of the case, X Corp had argued against the Union Government review committee’s non-disclosure of its orders upholding the blocking of several posts on the platform. A Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Dinesh Kumar and Justice Shivashankare Gowda was hearing the said case. The counsel for X Corp, Sajjan Poovayya, had informed the court that with several of the blocking orders having been upheld by a review committee, the appellants were yet to be provided with a copy of the orders as they were deemed to be “secret”. It was further submitted by the counsel that as contesting such the emergency blocking orders is not easy, which is even the case in issuance of regular blocking orders, around 1,500 pieces of content were removed with a one line order. With regard to the same, the counsel questioned how the orders could be kept secret when the relevant statute stated that reasons had to be recorded. The social media giant had also raised concerns that the Review Committee had never actually met as required under Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules (IT Rules).  Based upon these arguments, an Interlocutory Application (IA) had been moved by the appellants to gain access to the orders issued by the review committee upholding the blocking orders of the government, by deeming the same to be crucial to their case in contesting these government orders.

Ironically, on February 21, the union government had argued against the IA moved by the social media platform to gain access to the review committee reports by stating that they had no right to access to the same since X Corp is merely an intermediary and not the author or creator of the blocked content.

As per the government, a review of the decisions to block internet content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act serves as a safeguard against arbitrary usage of power and only the creators of the accounts or tweets can invoke this safeguard. The government further contended that review under Rule 14 of the IT Rules is an internal and independent safeguard mechanism and there exists no requirement to hear any party before passing the review orders.

“A party aggrieved by the blocking orders has the option of seeking judicial review, and has no right to insist on access to the proceedings of the Review Committee. The appellant (X Corp), being an intermediary, certainly has no locus standi to seek access to the proceedings of the Review Committee,” the counsel for the union stated as per Bar and Bench.

Lastly, during the said hearing, the government also highlighted that in the writ petition, X Corp had only challenged the blocking of 39 URLs, while through the IA it is now questioning 1,096 blocking directions. The government had also challenged this move, terming it an attempt to widen the scope of X Corp’s challenge.

The next hearing in the X Corp’s writ appeal is slated to be held by the High Court’s division bench in March 2024.

Non-publishing of the executive orders by X Corp

The statement further specifies the legal restrictions prohibiting them from publishing these executive orders and stated “Due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders, but we believe that making them public is essential for transparency. This lack of disclosure can lead to a lack of accountability and arbitrary decision-making.”

It is pertinent to highlight here that since 2023, pursuant to the takeover of the social media platform by Musk, X had stopped sharing takedown notices issued by the Indian government with Lumen Database, a website that collects and analyses legal complaints and requests for removal of online material. The same had been specified by Lumen Database who had said “As of April 15, 2023, Twitter has not submitted copies of any of the takedown notices it receives to Lumen. According to Lumen’s persons of contact there, Twitter’s 3rd party data sharing policies are under review, and they will update Lumen once there is more information.” 

The complete statement uploaded on Global Government Affairs can be read here:

The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.

In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however,…

— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) February 21, 2024

It is also essential to point out here that while the said statement has been made public by X Corp, no list with specific names against whom actions based on the executive orders have been taken is provided.

Legal provisions required compliance by X Corp to government orders

Releasing the statement while distancing itself from the oppressive censorship tactics being followed by the government marked X’s first confrontation with the Indian government since Musk took ownership of the micro-blogging platform. The existing legal structure of India is such that the social media giant can face serious consequences in case it does not comply with the orders being issued by the government in taking action, including suspension, withholding and taking down of accounts, against certain accounts or content.

The infamous section 69A of the IT Act provides that “The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” In simple words, if any intermediary, in this case X Corp, refuses to comply with the orders of the government, they may have to bear monetary fines as well as be subjected to a significant jail term. It is in this regard that in April 2023, Musk had deemed the social media laws in India to be ‘quite strict’ and that the company could not go beyond the laws of the country. Being compliant with India’s laws is better than having employees go to jail, Musk had stated as per the Economic Times.

Prior to Musk, Dorsey, who quit as Twitter CEO in 2021, had in an interview claimed that during his tenure as CEO, Twitter received requests from the Indian government to block accounts covering the 2020-2021 farmers’ protests and those critical of the government. Dorsey had also alleged that the Indian government had threatened the social networking platform with raids if it did not take down critical content during the farmers’ protests against the three farm laws.

“It manifested in ways such as: ‘We will shut Twitter down in India’, which is a very large market for us; ‘We will raid the homes of your employees’, which they did; and this is India, a democratic country,” Dorsey had said. It is important to highlight here that in the year 2021, Delhi Police’s special cell had ‘visited’ the Delhi and Gurgaon offices of Twitter, as was then known as, to serve notice to India’s managing director about an investigation into the social media giant’s tagging of a post by a ruling party spokesman, namely Sambit Patra, as “manipulated media”. While the aforementioned investigation had been used as a guise, the ‘visit’ had been a result of the current dispensation in 2021 asking Twitter to block certain provocative hashtags and the then Twitter initially gave in to the demand but it rolling back its decision citing ‘insufficient justification’.

In addition to this, the union government could also revoke X’s safe harbour that is granted to the platform under Section 79 of the IT Act. The said status protects intermediaries from being held responsible for “any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted” on its platform.

Pressure building on social media platform to bow before the Modi government

The current regime has applied increasing pressure on social media platforms to control the information as well as the criticism that circulates on social media. With mainstream media already under control, and the independent media facing cases and suspension of licences,  the right to speech and expression as well as the right to information, both guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, are threatened. By employing these repressive and oppressive steps, the Modi-led government is following the path of other autocratic countries, such as Russia, that is trying to control how and where messages can spread on social media. One should not forget that in March of 2021, the Russian government had provided that it would slow access to Twitter and in turn control one of the few places where Russians openly criticise the government.

Recently, privacy advocate Apar Gupta had taken to X to write on this issue. He had stated:

“Blocking orders for Twitter accounts of farm leaders have been issued in advance. This form of pre-censorship is without any transparency or natural justice.”

Twitter under new ownership will no longer disclose the URLs to the Lumen Database taking away any transparency. It also lost the Karnataka High Court case which employed theocratic (as opposed to constitutional) reasoning. I wrote on this separately, but that’s an aside.

The government on its part will not disclose or submit to accountability. Why block entire accounts in advance? Is the account itself illegal? It will not bother asking these questions for fewer people will ask them today than two years ago. As its march towards total power becomes menacing it commands greater levels of social compliance. Either by discipline, despondency or indoctrination. This is not surprising, what does provide anguish is the vile commentary against farmers on social media. How easy it is to forget that close to 750 protestors who lost their lives? Have we as a society lost all civility in disagreement?”

His post can be read here:

Twitter was a reliable and timely medium for farmers during their protests in 2020-21.

They issued official press releases, documented police excesses, built community and sympathy for their cause with hashtags. It became a vital informational pipeline for farmers to convey…

— Apar (@apar1984) February 13, 2024

To know about the farmers’ Protest, read here.

Related:

Farmers protest: Death of a farmer after teargas shells dropped by Haryana cops, protests intensify as 77 SM accounts banned by MEITY/MHA

EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle

Police Case Filed Against Woman Editor Of Magazine In Kerala

The post ‘X’ distances itself from the clampdown on freedom of expression by blocking accounts on the executive orders of the Union government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident allegedly took place over the blocking of a vehicle’s path carrying some goods.

Hubballi-Dharwad City Commissioner of Police Renuka Sukumar confirmed to an independent news portal, South First that it was merely a quarrel between two groups. She did however state that the groups indulged in fisticuffs, but clarified that the incident was not communal in nature.

The police have registered a case against four persons belonging to the minority community over the incident. They have been booked under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 34 (common intention), 504 (intentional insult provoking breach of peace), and 323 (assault) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was registered based on the complaint by Manjunath Udakeri of Lokuru in Dharwad. He is the brother of Irappa Rudrappa Udakeri, the victim.

“We have secured two people involved in the assault and are investigating further into the case,” Renuka told the media.

The quarrel

According to the police, the incident occurred at around 6:45 am on Saturday, February 3. Irappa and his driver had just arrived at the market with their goods vehicle loaded with vegetables.

Injured Irappa Rudrappa Udakeri in Dharwad

It is reported that when Irappa actually entered the market, another vegetable vendor Asfak’s son and son-in-law Abdul Rehman had spread their vegetables on the road to sort them, hampering movement. An irritated Irappa, who knew Asfak, apparently demanded they move the vegetables so that his vehicle could pass through.

The response he got from the two was that if he wanted to pass by with his vehicle, he would have to drive over their vegetables. The exchange quickly turned ugly, with the assembled people taking sides. The duo allegedly hurled vulgar abuses at Irappa and then started assaulting him after two others restrained him.

According to his brother’s complaint, Irappa was repeatedly punched in the face. He sustained injuries to his mouth and could not speak, said the police, adding that he also bled from his nose.

Witnesses informed the cops, who rushed to the spot and shifted Irappa to a hospital.

No communal angle, say cops

“Irappa could not speak to the police officers as he had injuries to his mouth. His friend Nadaf (belonging to the minority community), who was at the spot and an eyewitness to the incident, gave a statement to the police on Irappa’s behalf,” CP Renuka Sukumar told South First.

However, rumours started spreading on social media that a farmer was attacked by four men belonging to the minority community just because he was a Hindu.

The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) Karnataka unit spokesperson Mohan Gowda posted on X, “Yesterday radical Muslims vendors beaten to Hindu poor Farmer in Dharwad APMC market for selling vegetables. Hindus farmers seviourly injured and admitted Hospital. It shows how Hindus are unsafe in Karnataka. [sic]”

However, the Hubballi-Dharwad police clarified that there was no communal angle to the incident.

“In fact, a friend of Irappa from the minority community named Nadaf helped him by communicating to the police about the incident,” the CP also added in their conversation with  South First. However, this has not stopped HJS from continuing with its communal diatribe.

Related:

Temple fairs and the saga of economic boycott: Dakshina Kannada

Don’t stop at Muslim-owned dhabas, VHP, Bajrang Dal warn buses in Gujarat

Provocative poster in Delhi’s Brahmpuri calls on Hindu landlords to not sell to Muslim buyers

2023: Muslims speak up on life amid targeted hatred

The post Ultra right-wing outfit gives Dharwad market brawl communal colour; police counter with facts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That the arrest was of an opposition leader, Chaudhary –and this anchor has acted as an arm of the present union government –he left no stone unturned to make accusatory comments against Soren, leader of the Jharkand Mukti Morcha (JMM). In his 50 minute ‘Black and White’ show on Aaj Tak, Chaudhary targeted the tribal minister for his purported wealth, cars and lifestyle, and was seemingly less concerned with the charges of money levied against him. Even the title of the show was “Soren परिवार का विश्लेषण (examining the Soren family)”. The show concentrated on “examining” the wealth of the Soren family. While criticising Soren, Chaudhary uses casteist language with regards to Soren based on his tribal (Adivasi) identity. For example, he says in one controversial remark that has generated a sharp response that the former Tribal minister will find it difficult in jail, as he is more used to live (just) 40 years back in the jungle (forest) as Adivasi, but now he is used to a luxurious life!

An uproar followed on social media as a clip from the said media show, wherein Chaudhary could be heard making the said statement, did the rounds. In the said clip, Chaudhary can be seen referring to his colleague and making the following statement: “Chitra aap hume ye bataiye ki Hemant Soren bahar aaye ya nahi aaye aur ab Aaj ki raat unki kaha betegi.. unhe toh shandar lifestyle ki aadat hai aur wo private planes me chalte Hain.. badi badi gadiyon me chalte Hain…Aaj unke liye ek tarike se waise hi hoga jaise woh bees tees chalis saal pehle wapis apne kisi Adivasi ke taur par kisi jungle mei chale jaye. Aaj ki raat kafi mushkil hone wali hai. (Chitra, tell us whether Hemant Soren will come out tonight, where will he be spending the night? He has become so accustomed to such a lavish lifestyle where he travels in private planes, he gets to travel in big cars. Tonight will be like one of those days from 20/30/40 years ago when he (and his tribe) lived in jungles as Adivasis. Tonight is going to be very difficult.)”

The video can be viewed here:

आदिवासी जल,ज़मीन,जंगल के रक्षक है जंगली नहीं। #ArrestSudhirChaudhary pic.twitter.com/CzWnUXITyo

— Tribal Army (@TribalArmy) February 2, 2024

These statements, which are both ethically problematic also attract criminal sections of the Indian Penal law as standalone statements too, especially when adjudged with the accompanying offensive words used by Chaudhary. The tone and tenor of these statements show that Chaudhary’s targeting on Soren was due to his enjoyment of wealth *despite* his marginalised identity. More details of the show are provided below. 

It is essential to note that a complaint has been filed against Chaudhary under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the indecent and derogatory comments made by him against Hemant Soren. The said complaint has been filed by the Aadivasi Sena in Ranchi. At the time of writing this report, the First Information Report (FIR) is yet to be registered.

What the show entails

The show begins with Sudhir Chaudhary commenting on the resignation of former CM and leader of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) Hemant Soren by Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the nomination of party loyalist and state transport minister Champai Soren as his successor. It is essential to note that during the show, visuals of Hemant Soren being accompanied by the a few people in a car and entering the Raj Bhawan to submit his resignation keep playing on loop. At one point, Chaudhary points to the smile that can be seen on Soren’s face, referring to the same as a new scene that can be noticed now where leaders of the opposition who are accused of corruption seem proud of themselves and think of themselves as ‘sher (lion)’.

The discussion in the show then goes on to discussing the resignation move of Hemant Soren and the case of ED against Soren. A separate reporter, namely Satyajit, can be heard explaining the “water-tight” case that ED has against Soren, the proofs and evidence that have been accumulated by the state agency linking Soren with the scams and investigation by ED. As per the report, when Soren was asked by the crores worth benaami wealth he had, Soren was left with no answer. It was at this point that Chaudhary began targeting the now arrested leader for his lifestyle. He can be heard saying that “Soren is known for his lifestyles, big cars and private planes.” (Time stamp- 16:00) 

At the 29-minute mark of the video, Sudhir Chaudhary starts “dissecting the history of the corrupt Soren family”. The host starts detailing the “cash for vote” scam allegations that had been put against Hemant Soren’s father, claiming that this family has always been in news for their corrupt practices. It is essential to note that these allegations are yet to be proven, something which the host also mentions, however it did not stop Chaudhary for deeming the whole family corrupt. Pursuant to this, the host shows the family tree of the Soren family and the different allegations that have been put forth against each of them, claiming scams to be a “normal thing” for the family.

At 31:43 minutes in the video, Chaudhary trivialises the whole Adivasi movement led by the Soren family and the struggle behind the formation of the state of Jharkhand by saying, “It is important to note here that this family makes the issues of poor and Adivasis their politics. First, they started a movement for separate state and separate identity.  They say that they want to come into politics for the welfare of the Adivasi community, formed their stated and formed their party. But what they deem as ‘Bhalai’ is actually ‘malai. These politicians stay in big houses, travel in luxurious cars, travel in private planes and live a lavish life. But when they go out, they say that they are an Adivasi politician, they are fighting for the cause and for the upliftment of the Adivasi community.”

Continuing with his diatribe against the Soren family and his Adivasi identity, Chaudhary says “the Adivasis in Jharkhand vote for the Soren party so that Hemant Soren becomes their CM, and this is what they get. Just think, this family who calls themselves as Adivasi and have even filed a case against ED under the SC/ST Act, do you think they have the right to call themselves poor? Or do you think they should get the right to demand reservation for themselves? Do you think this family should get the benefit of reservation? Do you think that their power should be allowed to be increased under the SC/ST Act?” (Time stamp- 33:05- 33:48)

“These people are not Adivasi, these people are the residents of big bungalows. These people are not working for the benefits of Adivasis, they are just reaping the benefits.” (Time stamp- 33:54- 34:01)

Again, after a gap of three minutes, Chaudhary repeats his anti-caste slurs and stance and stereotypically targets the tribal identity of the Soren family by stating “In reality, the Soren family has nothing that can deem them to be an Adivasi (Soren family mei Adivasi jesa kuch bhi nahi hai)”

He further states “Soren family leads a luxurious life. If you look at the Soren family, especially Hemant Soren, you will not be able to see the Adivasi touch.” (Time stamp- 37:18-37:28)

After this, Chaudhary continues with his obsession with dissecting the salary of Hemant Soren and his lifestyle. At the 45-minute time stamp of this programme, Chaudhary utters the aforementioned offensive and derogatory statements, wherein he compares former CM Hemant Soren spending the night in jail to him staying in a “jungle” as an Adivasi. 

The complete video of the programme can be viewed here:
 

Stigmatising caste- the new “journalistic” duty?

While dragging minorities and marginalised communities is an everyday thing for “journalist” Sudhir Chaudhary, who enjoys support from the ruling party, this is a new low for even him. Not only has he trivialised a whole Adivasi movement and struggle for their identity and basic rights, he has declared a family to not have the “Adivasi touch” owing to the wealth they enjoy and the cars they travel in. In a country where caste plays a major role in the position you acquire, Chaudhary has declared an Adivasi family of not be “Adivasi” enough to demand reservation and own their tribal identity in view of the power they hold and the private plane rides they apparently. The question that these statements leave us with are- would the same line of questioning of identity would have taken place had the accused not been from a marginalised community? 

The true image that Chaudhary holds of the Adivasi community comes out towards the end as he states that Soren will be “going back by 20/30/40 years, by spending the night in jail, when an Adivasi used to live in the jungle.” The obsession with the wealth acquired by the Soren family since the beginning of the show depicts the “shock” that Chaudhary feels at an Adivasi family enjoying some luxury. To him, these luxuries require for the Soren family to “shed” their caste. 

Many politicians, eminent leaders, powerful businessmen and others have allegations of corruption against them in India- this is not a new phenomenon. According to the recent Transparency International report, India ranked 93 on the global corruption perceptions index for 2023 out of a total of 180 nations. It is also not a new pattern for India to see opposition political leaders being targeted by the ruling political parties by state agencies, more so in the recent ten years. But, does the arrest of a political leader based on certain allegations, the constitutionality of which has already been challenged in the court, gives the right to a journalist to target the caste and identity of the accused? Has Sudhir Chaudhary totally forgotten his journalistic duties, in his journey of being a Bharatiya Janata Party mouthpiece?

Sudhir Chaudhary and the contentious Black and White Show

In 2023, two favourable orders of the NBDSA had been delivered on complaint made by CJP against Sudhir Chaudhary and his show. In both of these complaints, Sudhir had indulged in communal diatribe. In one instance, on one of his ‘Black and White’ shows that aired in October 2022 he had raised the issue of “Muslim participation in Garba festivals”. The show contained projections of prejudice against Islam, manipulated facts of the matter and was presented by a host with a distinctly communal slur and an anti-Muslim bias. On the other show, Sudhir had made unfounded claims about illegal mazaars being found on government land in Uttarakhand, especially on forest land, and had thereby stigmatised the whole Muslim community. 

CJP had complained against both of these shows for spreading communal discourse, stigmatising a minority community and spreading bias. Based on the complaints raised, the NBDSA reprimanded the channel for using the term ‘Mazhaar Jihaad’ unnecessarily and loosely in the latter complaint and ordered the channel to remove the video of the show in former case. 

Details on CJP’s complaints to NBDSA against partisan media coverage can be found here.

Related:

CJP Impact! NBDSA orders AAJ TAK’s Sudhir Chaudhary show to be pulled down, censors second

Another Sudhir Chaudhary show under the scanner for using the term ‘Mazaar Jihad’

CJP has filed a complaint in the NBDSA urging action against the divisive narrative in Sudhir Chaudhary’s show on Aaj Tak

CJP files complaint against Sudhir Chaudhary’s show on Aaj Tak for its communal narrative

CJP files complaint against Sudhir Chaudhary’s show on Aaj Tak for its communal narrative

The post Sudhir Chaudhary’s castiest diatribe against Hemant Soren following his resignation causes uproar, complaint filed by Tribal body appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Tech companies were being accused them of not doing enough to address the dangers that young users encounter on their platforms. These dangers were detailed as ranging from exposure to sexual predators to the alarming rise in teen suicides due, according to a report by NDTV. 

Amidst the questioning, Zuckerberg tried to defend the impact of social media on the mental health of young people. He cited research claiming the boons of balance, stating that social media was not bad to their well-being if used in balance. 

Prior to the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Meta, formerly known as Facebook and now come to include Facebook and Instagram both, has shared that a dedicated workforce of 40,000 employees is going to be actively engaged in strengthening online safety measures. Moreover, the tech giant stated that a large financial sum will be allotted to enhance safety measures on the platform. According to reports, both Meta and X unveiled a series of new measures aimed at proactively addressing concerns related to online safety. 

Seated behind the five tech executives at the hearing were families who shared heart-breaking stories of their children self-harming or taking their own lives due to social media. At present, there is a proposal for a law in the US Congress which aims to make social media companies more accountable for the content posted on their platforms. The atmosphere was not one that would favour or grant leniency to the CEOs present. 

A Republican Senator Ted Cruz had asked Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg after showing him how an Instagram prompt gave users a warning that they may see child sexual abuse and asks if they would like to see the ‘results anyway.’ “Mr Zuckerberg, what the hell were you thinking?” 

Mark Zuckerberg replied saying that, “it’s often helpful to, rather than just blocking it, to help direct them towards something that could be helpful.”

Furthermore, in conversation with Republican Senator Josh Hawley, Zuckerberg was asked if he would like to apologise to the families sitting behind them at the hearing. He stood up and stated, “I’m sorry for everything you’ve all gone through, it’s terrible. No-one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered.” But onlookers and activists are not happy with these words. According to Associated Press, a former senior staff member who testified to the US Congress in November 2023, named Arturo Béjar, told the BBC that Meta is trying to put the responsibility to give a safe environment to teenagers to the parents. 

Al Jazeera reported that Zamaan Qureshi, co-chair of Design It For Us, a youth-led coalition advocating for safer social media told the publication that, “These companies have had opportunities to do this before. They failed to do that, so independent regulation needs to step in.” 

Earlier last year, Sabrang India had reported how activists in India have criticised Facebook for not being interested to undertake measures to make the platform more hate free and safe for its users. Similarly, there have also been accusations against the social networking giant of being more “lenient” to excesses done by people associated with the party that forms India’s ruling government, the BJP. 

Related

Facebook’s plans to curb online hate during Indian elections: Too little too late?

 India’s Ecosystem of Hate: Is Facebook both, a Beneficiary and an Offender?

Hate Offender: Deepak Sharma’s Hate Speeches have gone unchecked so far

Adivasi (tribal) organisations protest against arrest of Former CM Hemant Soren in Jharkhand, state wide shutdown called for

The post Social media giants summoned at US Senate hearing for internet safety appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 On December 26, in a post on X, around 10 a.m. by controversial chief minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, openly glorifying the “heroic” characteristics of the “Kshatriya” (dominant, “warrior-ruling” caste) and demeaning the Shudra (toiling, artisan sections of society) saying their duty is to “serve”  Brahmins, Kshatriyas Vaishyas has been sharply criticised.

“We strongly denounce Assam CM Himanta Biswa’ tweet claiming that “Shudras are to serve Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas” BJPs Manuvadi ideology in full play!” says another post on “X” by Communist Party of India (Marxist) while other users have also commented.

স্বয়ং ভগৱান শ্ৰীকৃষ্ণই বৰ্ণনা কৰিছে বৈশ্য আৰু শূদ্ৰৰ স্বাভাৱিক কৰ্মৰ প্ৰকাৰ

भगवान श्रीकृष्ण स्वयं वैश्यों और शूद्रों के स्वाभाविक कर्मों का वर्णन करते हैं pic.twitter.com/fg65sNFkUW

— Himanta Biswa Sarma (@himantabiswa) December 26, 2023

We strongly denounce Assam CM Himanta Biswas’ tweet claiming that “Shudras are to serve Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas”

BJPs Manuvadi ideology in full play! pic.twitter.com/TLLK7gLEQf

— CPI (M) (@cpimspeak) December 26, 2023

That this post promotes segregation of societal roles among castes, openly promotes the hierarchical valorisation and domination of the privileged sections of society, responsible for decades of oppression and exclusion of both the Shudras and Ati-Shudras is clearly not an issue of either constitutional principle or conviction by those belonging to the majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Sarma was previously a member of the Indian National Congress (INC).

Related:

Political functionaries spew hate against minority: Assam

Don’t need Miya Muslim vote: Himanta Biswa Sarma

Multiple FIRs against BJP MLA Shiladitya Dev’s Hate Speech: Assam

CJP moves NCM against Shiladitya Dev for targeting the ‘Miya Muslim’ community of Assam

The post Assam: Post by chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma casteist, promotes oppression? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We’ve seen false and misleading content about the Israel-Hamas conflict spread rapidly on social media. This increases paranoia, anxiety, and violence around the world.

I’m demanding answers from major platforms about their content moderation efforts.

— Michael Bennet (@SenatorBennet) October 17, 2023

According to the Reuters report, there have been reports about how these tech companies have faced growing criticism for their handling of such content in the wake of the ongoing conflict, with older, dated visuals, video game footage, and even altered documents being shared widely since the violence has broken out in the conflicted land on October 7. An analysis by Newslaundry has highlighted that fact-checkers have been confronted with a humongous rise in unverified information in the wake of the conflict. The analysis also points out to several observers saying that the social media site X has enabled this surge.

Furthermore, Senator Bennet has asserted that, “Deceptive content has ricocheted across social media sites since the conflict began, sometimes receiving millions of views,” Bennet expressed in a letter addressed to the company top brass. He has further noted that the algorithms used by these platforms have, in many instances, further worsened the spread of misleading content, contributing to a concerning cycle of outrage, engagement, and further sharing.

In his letter, Senator Bennet has posed these series of questions to Meta, TikTok, and Google, seeking detailed information about their content moderation practices and he has requested responses from the tech giants by October 31.

According to reports, the social media giants have taken some steps in response to the conflict. TikTok has reportedly announced that it has hired more Arabic and Hebrew-speaking content moderators. Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, stated that it removed or marked as disturbing over 795,000 pieces of content in Hebrew or Arabic within the first three days following the Hamas attack. X and YouTube have also reported the removal of harmful content.

However, Senator Bennet has argued that, in light of the growing human catastrophe, these actions are insufficient. He pointed out, “The mountain of false content clearly demonstrates that your current policies and protocols are inadequate.”

“These decisions contribute to a cascade of violence, paranoia, and distrust around the world,” Senator Bennet asserted. “Your platforms are helping produce an information ecosystem in which basic facts are increasingly in dispute, while untrustworthy sources are repeatedly designated as authoritative.”

Back in February, the Indian Express reported that the IT Ministry had engaged in talks with top social media companies, like Meta and Google, to recognise network fact checkers in India. These fact-checkers would be responsible for flagging and debunking misinformation on social media platforms. However, this fact-checking, according to the report, would not pertain to information according to the Union government. The opposition alliance, INDIA, has also reportedly written to Meta and Google earlier this year about ‘communal hatred’ after an investigative piece by Washington Post highlighted alleged that social media sites took a biased approach to the content favouring the BJP.

A letter by INDIA parties to @Facebook‘s Mr. Mark Zuckerberg, highlighting the recent investigations by the @washingtonpost.

The findings expose the role of Facebook and WhatsApp in aiding the communal hatred campaign of the ruling BJP. pic.twitter.com/6z2z8Bxzbq

— Congress (@INCIndia) October 12, 2023

Similarly, according to a report by SabrangIndia, earlier this month, after the release of Meta’s second human rights report, Indian activists broadly criticised it on the basis that it lacks a concrete plan to address the issues in India. It has pointed out the report’s failure to demonstrate significant, measurable progress in addressing human rights concerns in India or presenting clear strategies to prepare for the 2024 general elections.

Furthermore, what is alarming is news of social media sites aiding this misinformation campaign inadvertently through their policies. The European Union has for instance publicly called on X, Meta, and Facebook to address the issue of false information on their platforms. EU’s Thierry Breton earlier last week made a scathing criticism of social media companies in a strongly worded letter, and has demanded more stringent measures to combat disinformation during the escalating conflict.

However, industry researchers and experts, according to this report, are sceptical and unhopeful of this being sufficient to address the task at hand. Their concern is especially related to X because while, X has been in the news for removing hundreds of accounts linked to Hamas with its CEO, Linda Yaccarino detailing the company’s efforts to combat illegal content, mentioning that they have taken action to “remove or label tens of thousands of pieces of content.” Nonetheless, a former employee who had worked with X’s team expressed doubts about the platform’s ability to effectively address this problem. Furthermore, the CBC report also pointed out that X had intentionally reduced its capacity to handle such issues, particularly after it decided to downsize its Content Moderation team. The entire content management team which looked after misinformation on the social media site was reportedly laid off in October 2022 after Elon Musk took over Twitter. “There aren’t as many people involved in the ecosystem whose day-to-day job was connected to tackling disinformation,” she said.

Senator Bennet has also criticised the four companies for downsizing their teams over the past year which have been responsible for monitoring false and misleading content. X, in particular, cut 15% of its trust and safety staff in November 2022, and further reductions were made last month. Meta reduced 100 similar positions in January, while Google scaled back a team working on countering online hate speech and disinformation by a third.

Related:

Fear mongering and misinformation galore at the Digital Hindu Conclave

Why is it that Meta tolerates hate speech on its platform?

Hindus for Human Rights (HHR) protests suspension of ‘X’ account

A swarm of fake news hits social media from India, hatred for all that is Muslim given a fillip: Hamas-Israel conflict

The post After EU, US senator raises concerns about misinformation to Google, X, Meta appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Reading the operative portion, the HC said, “In the above circumstances this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and accordingly it is. Petitioner is levied with an exemplary cost of ₹50 lakh payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru, within 45 days. If delay is brooked, it attracts an additional levy of ₹5,000 per day,” as reported by Livemint.

“I am convinced with contention of the Centre that they have powers to block tweets and block accounts,” the judge further said while dismissing Twitter’s petition.

“Your client (Twitter) was given notices and your client did not comply…Punishment for non-compliance is 7 years imprisonment and unlimited fine. That also did not deter your client. So you have not given any reason why you delayed compliance, more than a year of delay…then all of sudden you comply and approach the Court. You are not a farmer but a billion-dollar company,” the Bench further stated while pronouncing the verdict, as reported by Livelaw.

As further reported by LiveLaw, the Court had framed eight issues in the matter. First, on the issue of locus standi, which has been answered in Twitter’s favour. The second issue was whether there is nexus between blocking order and the reasons behind such order, which the Bench held to be in against Twitter. “On proportionality whether blocking should be tweet specific or period specific, I have held against you,” Justice Dixit had said.

The bench also refused to issue Guidelines to Centre, as sought by Advocate Manu Kulkarni for Twitter, for exercise of its powers under Section 69A.

Arguments made by Twitter:

Twitter contested the blocking of 39 URLs out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets. According to the platform, the directive to block all accounts violates Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Twitter has argued that the banning orders “demonstrate an excessive use of powers and are disproportionate” and are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision”.

As provided in the Bar and Bench report, the platform further argued that the Central government lacked the authority to issue general orders requesting the disabling of social media accounts and that such orders must include justifications that should be made known to users. Moreover, it also specified that only when the nature of the content complied with the requirements set forth in Section 69A of the IT Act could a blocking order be issued.

Arguments made by the Centre:

The central government disagreed with Twitter’s request to have the Indian government’s blocking orders overturned, claiming that the directives were made for “national and public interest” and to “prevent incidents of lynching and mob violence.”

Speaking on behalf of the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India R Sankaranarayanan stated that the government is dedicated to “providing its citizens with an open, safe, trusted, and accountable internet and that its powers to block information have a limited scope,” as provided in the Bar and Bench report.

The judgment can be read as follows.

Background/Timeline of the case:

• Last year, after the blocking orders had been issued, Twitter argued that in accordance with section 69A of the IT Act, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted, however the Ministry failed to provide these account holders any notices.
• On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.
• On June 9, 2022, the Twitter had responded by saying that the content for which it had ignored the blocking orders did not appear to be in breach of Section 69A.
• On June 27, 2022 the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions.
• On June 29, 2022, Twitter replied asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality.
• On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on 10 account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked.
• On July 1, 2022, 10 more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.
• Justice Dixit had completed hearing the arguments and reserved the judgment on April 21, 2023. The operative portion of the judgment has now been pronounced in the court on June 30, 2023.

Related:

Twitter suspends filmmaker Ashoke Pandits account for issuing threats to Raghuram Rajan

Twitter acts against hate speech, locks hate monger’s account

False Twitter post claims Muslim man killed Hindu wife: Local News Channel Sets Record Straight

Hate Watch: Twitter suspends Kreately Media’s account after CJP complaints

‘Twitter Can’t Protect its Data’: Whistleblower Tells US Congress

Centre opposes Twitter’s plea to set aside blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act

Twitter moves Karnataka High Court against MeitY order to take down over 1,400 accounts

The post Karnataka HC: Petition by Twitter contesting centre’s blocking orders dismissed, Rs. 50 lakh fine imposed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Why account of @ashokepandit is suspended right before the release of his movie #72Hoorain ?

@Twitter Pls restore the handle immediately (sic)”, Mishra said,

Why account of @ashokepandit is suspended right before the release of his movie #72Hoorain ? @Twitter

Pls restore the handle immediately pic.twitter.com/OFfvlV5kNt

— Kapil Mishra (@KapilMishra_IND) June 14, 2023

Even TV reporter Amish Devgan tweeted, “Unfortunate right to freedom curbed  @Twitter suspended account filmmaker  @ashokepandit”

Unfortunate right to freedom curbed @Twitter suspended account film maker @ashokepandit . pic.twitter.com/JfxHeblZ1m

— Amish Devgan (@AMISHDEVGAN) June 14, 2023

The tweet that landed Ashoke Pandit in trouble was him issuing a death threat to former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan. Although the threat was aimed at Rajan, the twitter account does not belong to Rajan, but is a parody account.

Here’s a screenshot of the tweet that led to his account suspension:

The said tweet was reported by Team Saath (Stand Against Abuse Troll Harassment) on Twitter and brought it to the notice of Twitter.

Dear @Twitter,@Ashokepandit is issuing a de*th threat to @ArunSFan in full public view. This calls for an immediate suspension of his account as per your rules.

cc: @elonmusk @TwitterSafety https://t.co/kVWKd3KF8c

— Team Saath Official (@TeamSaath) June 13, 2023

Soon after, Pandit’s  Twitter account was suspended.

Thank you @Twitter for suspending the account of @ashokepandit . It was long overdue.#TeamSAATH https://t.co/iq6lhZVqlY pic.twitter.com/7F9sCM22cE

— Team Saath Official (@TeamSaath) June 14, 2023

About his new film

The teaser of ’72 Hoorain’ was released on June 4, 2023. The first clip of the teaser begins with the voiceover which says, “Tumne jo Jihaad ka raasta chuna hai, wo tumko seedha Jannat me leke jayega, kunwari, anchhui hui, tumhari hongi humesha k liye. (The path of Jihaad that you have chosen, will lead you to heaven, where 72 virgin girls will be yours forever.)”

Visuals of Osama Bin Laden, Ajmal Kasab, Yakub Memon, Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar are also showcased in the teaser video. The director has said in one of his statements that, “The slow poisoning of the mind by perpetrators turns ordinary individuals into suicide bombers. Let us remember that even the bombers themselves, with families like ours, have fallen victim to the twisted beliefs and brainwashing of terrorist leaders. Trapped within the deadly illusion (and lure) of 72 virgins awaiting them in heaven, they embark on a path of wilful destruction, ultimately meeting a gruesome fate,” reports Zee News. Co-producer Ashoke Pandit opined, “The movie will definitely make you ponder certain beliefs prevailing in the society and how they are a mere figment of imagination. It will make you think about the concepts and ideologies that are not even close to reality in any way, and how they are merely used to brainwash people to mould them into terrorists in the name of jihad.”

Related:

Modi Govt said we will shut Twitter down, raid employee houses if orders are not followed: Jack Dorsey

Twitter acts against hate speech, locks hate monger’s account

In his Twitter exchange with a journalist, Vivek Agnihotri makes Islamophobic remarks about Muslims

The post Twitter suspends filmmaker Ashoke Pandits account for issuing threats to Raghuram Rajan appeared first on SabrangIndia.