There is an old saying, that once you fail, try a thousand times and a day will come, when you will succeed. It seems that the present government of India and as well as the previous governments of the country have taken the saying really seriously. They have been carrying out a massive drive to curb “free speech” through hook, or if necessary, by crook. While the UPA government had shelter in 66A, the present government suffered a setback in its abolition and instead had to take shelter in 69A.
It is recent news, the abolition of the article 66A of the IT act. The government, at the very onset was unhappy regarding the proceedings of the abolition. The final outcome is a result of many sacrifices and hardships of the numerous free speech activists and the progressive masses of the country and it is by dint of their hardships that we have a free internet today, or at least, we think it to be free. But along with the 66A, there was another law of the IT act, the 69A, which gives the government the supreme power to ban any URL within the Indian Territory if it considers it to be harmful towards the country as a whole on the grounds of defence, integrity, etc. Additionally, there is also an icing on the cake saying that if the government indeed bans a URL, it is to be done in utmost secrecy (Rule 16).
The government has been exploiting this very law, which grants them an impenetrable cover of secrecy to ban URLs indiscriminately and without citing any valid reasons. Numerous RTIs have returned unanswered regarding the number of URLs blocked or the reasons for the blocking. The government states that under the law 16 it is not bound to expose the reasons for the ban and even if in some cases it has, the traditional Indian reasons of communal violence, social obligations, etc have been reiterated. According to a national magazine, as many as 255 such URLs were blocked in 2014 while already 143 have been in 2015 and the list is likely to increase. The government’s escalating frenzy to block anything that does not conform to its standard ideologies has come into sharp focus of the progressive masses.
The Rule 8 of the IT act also states that the writer of the content who’s URL has been blocked has to be heard, that is his viewpoint has to be taken into account before any action is taken on the written or published piece, but such norms have remained in black and white only. While it is an uphill (or rather impossible) task for the government to find out and investigate each and every writer of the content it blocks, the unconstitutional and dictatorial stance of the government in blocking URLs violates the citizens’ right to information . This has all resulted in a total abolition of logic and rationality of the rightist forces that continue to rule the country. Indiscriminate and unquestioned banning of online materials, videos and e-books violate a person’s individual rights and also his right to justice and expression.
Such erratic activity of the government is common is many states, which are largely and mostly purely based on religion. But India, being a secular country, has no reason to behave as such. While the detailed list of URLs blocked has not been released by the government, with the present BJP government at the centre, it can be expected to contain a lot of materials based on the religion and free thinking. Such bans on contents, seriously affects the country’s growth as a global acceptor of ideas and feelings. While the masses are paralysed with the strict rule-adhering content they have to view, the progressive writers, who could have shown the country the next step towards development, are silenced with a single click of the button without any valid reason.
Instances of violence relating to one’s activities on the internet are also not new to the present society infested by the mongers of violence funded by the rightist forces.
The time is ripe, as Charles Dickens had said, “It is the best of time, It is the worst of times”, we have the best with us with the abolition of the 66A and the time has come to raise up the voice of protest against the 69A. In any case, we can never have the natural justice of a person violated just because he or she does not believe in the same set of ideologues that the government believes in. The judicial system, in addition, to the laws already stated should also try looking up the cases of violence that follow once something , which is a totally individual and private opinion, has been posted on the internet disregarding the acceptance of the statement or opinion among the ruling classes.
