On January 16, 2024, the social media account of ‘HindutvaWatch’ was withheld on ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter) in India. A message on the platform says that their handles were suspended following a “legal demand”. The said account, which has a massive following of more than 78,000, showed that as “withheld in IN in response to a legal demand’. The withholding of X account of HindutvaWatch comes as no surprise as they have been openly critical of the fringe far-right elements creating havoc in the country. Their main work involves documenting the instances of crimes and hate speeches against minorities that take place in India. The team of HindutvaWatch has come under attack by the Indian authorities’ multiple times for speaking against the ruling Modi government and the culture of impunity under the banner of Hindutva that has been currently prevailing in the country. The videos made available by them ensure that the crimes that take place, along with the perpetrators, do not remain hidden. Their extensive monitoring and reporting on hate speeches being delivered by the extremist fringe elements forms the basis of many reports and complaints.
It is essential to note the responsibility behind the withholding of the HindutvaWatch account has been claimed by one Indian Cyber Defender (ICD). Through their X profile, ICD took to X to inform his followers that the withholding of HindutvaWatch has allegedly resulted due to the proceedings initiated by his legal team.
Their post can be accessed here:
Case no : 96
Accounts Withheld : @HindutvaWatchIn
78.9K Followers🔥🔥🔥
INDIAN CYBER DEFENDER legal team proceedings & Reporting done for mentioned account and now withheld in India. pic.twitter.com/A3uDEmoUZX
— INDIAN CYBER DEFENDER (@IndianCDefender) January 16, 2024
An update by Raqib Hameed Naik, founder of HindutvaWatch, came a few hours after the account got withheld. Naik took to X and stated that three hours after the withholding of the HindutvaWatch account, an email was received by the team from X which notified them of this action. The notification provided that “X has received a legal removal demand from the Government of India regarding the HindutvaWatch account on claims that the following content violates India’s Information Technology Act, 2000.” No other information about the legal demands, which would have enabled the HindutvaWatch team to approach the court, have been provided yet.
Their post can be accessed here:
🚨 Update from Hindutva Watch
Today, our @X account was withheld in India following a legal demand from the Government of India.
Three hours after the withholding of our account, we received an email from X notifying us of this action. pic.twitter.com/YPAwBl1QdP
— Raqib Hameed Naik (@raqib_naik) January 16, 2024
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”.
During that time, Internet Freedom Foundation, an organisation working for digital rights, had hit out at the government’s methods of censorship and control by releasing a statement which said, “Of late, we have seen an increase in the instances of entire accounts being blocked on Twitter in India. This is a disproportionate measure, and may be potentially unconstitutional. Further, in nearly all cases, copies of the blocking orders are not made available publicly or even to the owners of the Twitter account. This lack of transparency is illegal, and perpetuates an environment of zero accountability.”
Related:
Self-censorship threat to free speech: Navroz Seervai
India’s 2023 bad laws: Impact on Individual Freedoms and Indigenous Rights in a weaponised state
Broadcasting Bill adverse to freedom of speech & freedom of press: EGI