Screening a documentary on a university campus is usually a trivial exercise, but on January 25, it was not so for the students of Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi.
They realized it wasn't that easy when the government detained at least a dozen students for allegedly trying to screen the film.
A group of students decided to screen the documentary in the courtyard of a university department that is one of the best institutes for filmmaking and journalism in India.
Meanwhile, the university administration issued a statement that any gathering in the campus is prohibited. A few people also claimed that internet speed has also been slowed down in the area.
It should be noted that this two-part documentary details the track record of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These include the account of the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat when he was the chief minister. However, the Indian government has declared this film a 'propaganda'.
Before the students could screen the film, the police detained several students. Other students protested against this and then more students were detained.
Some of them were released within hours, but about a dozen students had to spend the night in detention.
Some of them were the organizers of the film screening, some were mere spectators, while some were those who were talking to the media about the issue.
Although all the detained students have been released so far, it seems that the objective of such action has been achieved to some extent. The documentary could not be screened in the Jamia and the students are avoiding talking to the media about it.
Although the documentary has been screened in a few other campuses and places in India, India has tried hard to question the film or block its distribution in India through social media users.
Human rights organizations and activists have expressed concern over such restrictions on speech and freedom of expression.
Senior journalist Sagarika Ghosh told BBC that 'India is a liberal democracy and in a democracy such documentaries should be shown, young people should watch such documentaries.'
He pointed out that this documentary raises questions that Indian journalists have raised many times before.
According to him, 'Suppressing questions like this, suppressing open debate, blocking the documentary, cutting off the electricity in Jawaharlal University, arresting the students of the university is a very extreme reaction, a kind of madness. '
He said that such restrictions will have a long-term negative impact on democracy.
Speaking on this issue, a student, who did not want to be identified, said that these incidents raise questions in her mind as to why this is happening and what freedom of expression means in this country.
"I've noticed in conversations that people are censoring themselves."
Why does the Indian government object to its screening or sharing on social media?
The subject of this documentary is Prime Minister Modi. Its first part discusses his performance in the Gujarat riots of 2002 when he was the chief minister of the state.
It shows when the BBC's Jill McGovern asks Modi during an interview if he thinks he could have done anything differently to deal with the riots.
The second part of the film mostly covers the activities since 2014, when Modi has been Prime Minister. This includes issues such as violence against Muslims, abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir and citizenship laws, which have led to nationwide protests by Muslims.
All these are topics that the BJP-led government and its supporters avoid discussing. But if it was not for the strong reaction of the BJP government and its supporters, the film might not have been seen by most people in India because the BBC did not telecast it in India. Is.
After his film was screened in the UK on 17 January, a spokesperson for India's Ministry of External Affairs described it as 'a propaganda film designed to push a discredited narrative'. While he also mentioned that he has not seen this movie yet.
However, the BBC responded that the film was based on excellent research.
The statement added that the Indian government was offered the right to reply but did not respond.
Supporters of the government also criticized the BBC's policy of making a documentary on former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, whose policies allegedly led to famine in India before independence. (The BBC has written and produced videos on Churchill's policies numerous times).
At the same time, the government ordered social media companies using an emergency law under the IT Act to remove links to the film shared in India.
Twitter removed more than 50 posts that shared a link to the film, while other platforms also removed several links. (However, several links to parts of the film are still available on social media).
However, the government's response to this film is just an example but it would not be wrong to say that freedom of expression in India faces a new challenge every day.
Internationally, the International Press Institute (IPI) on Wednesday described the use of emergency laws to block the documentary as a 'danger', saying the country's 2021 IT laws would allow the government to restrict online content. and allow 'extensive and extraordinary powers' to control and censor the media.
"The Modi government is clearly abusing emergency powers under IT laws to punish or stifle any criticism of its policies," said IPI Advocacy Director Amy Brouillette.
What does this mean for Indian democracy?
According to the 2022 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, India is ranked 150th out of 180 countries in the press freedom ranking. And such reactions raise further questions about India's record on freedom of speech and expression.
However, on the legal front, the Supreme Court of India has recognized that 'the right to receive and impart information is inherent in freedom of expression'.
Apar Gupta, head of the Internet Freedom Foundation, a think-tank and advocacy group that works on Internet-related issues, says that any ban usually requires a show-cause notice, giving the author an opportunity to defend. Must provide, and publicly list these reasons.
He wrote in a recent editorial that 'So was such a procedure also adopted for the 45 people whose tweets were blocked? Were they given an opportunity of hearing or a copy of the blocking order? Has it been made public? has not been done'.
It should be noted that no official statement or press release has been issued to block the BBC documentary online. However, an adviser to the Indian government has said that the government has ordered Twitter to block tweets related to the film, while YouTube has been instructed to stop its 'uploads'. On Monday, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said ordering social media platforms to block the documentary was an "attack on the free press" and a clear violation of the country's democratic ideals.
CPJ India correspondent Kunal Majumdar told the BBC that the government's order to block the BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi on various social media platforms violates the democratic right to freedom of the press. There is a mirror'.
He said, 'The authorities should immediately restore this documentary on the Internet without any hindrance. Indian IT Act rules should be changed. Because such a decision poses a great threat to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Human Rights Watch also said in a statement that the Indian government's blocking of a BBC documentary on anti-Muslim riots in the state of Gujarat in 2002 was a fresh attempt to block criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government. It is the best effort.
Make it clear that the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Prime Minister Modi in several riot related cases. Referring to this, Ghosh says, 'The Supreme Court has given a clean chit, what is Modi afraid of (in allowing screening)? This has had a very negative impact on the image of India'.
What is the current status?
Apart from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi, Hyderabad Central University has screened the documentary and student groups of New Delhi University and Ambedkar University have announced screening of the documentary.
The Congress Party has screened it in Kerala and Chandigarh. But despite the government's use of emergency powers to remove links to the film from social media, its links are being shared on social media and 'BBC Documentary' has been trending on Twitter for days.
Some users have taken different approaches to identify the platforms where the documentary can be watched, such as one user wrote "Don't go to this app, this documentary is not uploaded there I repeat". You won't find this documentary there.
Congress MP Mehwa Mitra has repeatedly shared its link. In one of her tweets, she said that 'I apologize, I was not elected as a representative of the world's largest democracy to accept censorship. Here is the link (of the movie). See it while it lasts.' (This video has now been removed from this site).
Several users have shared an old clip of Modi in which he can be heard talking about the BBC's reputation.
He says in these videos that 'Until our country had Akash Vani (government radio channel), Doordarshan (government TV channel), there were limited newspapers, what was the conversation between the common man? They used to say that I heard this on BBC. That is, our Desh Ki Akashwani is saying it is not trusted, Doordarshan is saying it is not trusted... No man, I have heard it on BBC'.
He adds, 'This reputation, the loss of trust from government institutions, I think is a very big risk'.
0 Comments