“The idea is not to shut down a channel. The idea is to kill the idea to question,” said Neeraj Jha, Chief Editor of Molitics, at the first session of MediaNama’s discussion on IT Rules and the Future of Online Speech in India on April 23 in Delhi.
Four content creators spoke directly about their experiences of censorship in India, describing takedowns, demonetisation, fake copyright claims, and government-initiated meetings. The session, titled ‘Victims of Censorship in India’, was held in partnership with Digipub and moderated by Adrija Bose, Editor, Decode Internet.
Molitics: MeitY called a meeting over a video, then banned the page anyway
India blocked Molitics’ Facebook page on March 28. The following Saturday, the platform suspended the Instagram account.
“No mail has come to us from the mail ID. We directly woke up in the morning. There was a notification from Facebook at 2-3 in the morning,” Jha said.
Jha has filed a writ in the Delhi High Court, with Apar Gupta from the Internet Freedom Foundation fighting the case.
The blocking came after a series of escalating interventions. Jha traced his first encounter with censorship to a video he made on the Epstein Files case in which Narendra Modi’s name appeared. “After that, a notice came to us. The notice was from MeitY,” he said. Rather than a takedown order, it was a meeting request. “There will be officials from the ministry who will tell why our content is causing them problems,” he said.
At the meeting, officials gave no specific ground for their concern. “What is your problem? He was not very clear about it,” Jha said. When pressed, the official asked what Jha could do. “I said the maximum we can do is that we can change the thumbnail,” he said. Jha changed the thumbnail. The video stayed up. But the targeting did not stop there.
Someone filed a fake copyright claim against his Instagram account, but the mail ID used was clearly fake. When Jha contacted the person in whose name the claim was filed, he confirmed he had not filed it. “You have brought down the entire problem of 10-12-15 days for the algorithm, and the person is harassed,” Jha said.
Shadow banning has also been used as a tool. “Our page was shadow-banned. Despite the short time, in 28 days, we had reached 4.1 million at home. So people are watching, people are listening. You actually want to bring this down,” Jha said.
The speed of notices is accelerating. “Even now, they are sending a lot of notices to delete. We uploaded a video on Twitter, checked after half an hour, and the video was already showing as deleted. The speed is very high,” he said. Despite the Meta ban, the channel crossed 400K on Instagram the day after the page went down.
Bolta Hindustan: How a tweet with no name triggered a police complaint
“More than 200 of my videos must have been removed in the last six months, and they don’t tell why they are being removed,” said Haseen Rehmani, Founder of Bolta Hindustan.
“Content is being restricted without any notice, without any hearing,” Rehmani said.
The censorship targeting accelerated during the 2024 elections, when YouTube suspended the channel for 34 days.
“We were reinstated after 34 days. I think the first experiment was on India itself. After that, 4 PM came, Molitics came, and many other institutions have been continuously in line,” Rehmani said. The channel was also demonetised during the election period. Monetisation was restored as soon as the election concluded. “Whenever the government is in trouble, they target journalists,” Rehmani said.
Rajasthan Police’s action on a single tweet illustrated how low the threshold for intervention has become. The tweet quoted journalist Ranvijay Singh and read: “Pakistan ka PM war rokwata hai, khee khee karne wale tweet rukwaate hain” — roughly translated, “Pakistan’s Prime Minister stops wars, while those who giggle stop tweets,” a dig at the Indian government. There was no name in it. “It is just a small tweet that the Rajasthan Police are making mute,” Rehmani said.
Lokhit India: Content flagged on a thumbnail, never reviewed
Officials from MIB’s Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) flagged a Lokhit India video for removal without having watched it.
“I was summoned by MIB’s Inter-Departmental Committee for a thumbnail. The irony is that they didn’t even watch the whole video and summoned me to the hearing for a thumbnail,” said Ambuj Kumar, Editor of Lokhit India.
When Kumar pointed out that the officials had not seen the content, they acknowledged it and asked him to change the thumbnail instead. The incident raises questions about the due diligence officials apply before flagging material for removal.
Demonetisation was also used as a tool. Hundreds of election-related videos were demonetised after 10-15 days or a month. His Facebook page, which had around 9.5 lakh followers, was demonetised during the 2024 elections. He was asked for bank documents during the election period but missed the request. The page remains demonetised today, with no option to resubmit the required documents.
4-PM: Declared anti-national, taken to the Supreme Court, still running
Sanjay Sharma, Editor in Chief of 4-PM, has faced criminal defamation, Income Tax, Economic Offences Wing (EOW), and ED investigations; a physical attack on his office, and a Supreme Court notice after the government declared him anti-national. Today, he runs 17 channels across India and internationally. “The credit for creating 17 channels goes to the government,” he said.
His YouTube channel disappeared with no notice during the 2022 UP elections. YouTube admitted the channel was compromised and restored it on the third day.
After the Pahalgam attack, the government ordered YouTube to shut down his channel, declaring him anti-national.
“Sixteen Pakistani channels were shut down and only one Indian channel was shut down, at 4 PM,” Sharma said.
The Supreme Court issued a notice. The government withdrew its order on the third day.
On the Adani-related video deletion, Sharma found out only after the fact — YouTube mailed him saying three videos had been deleted, with no prior notice. “After the action, after the video is deleted, I realise that I have done something because of which I have received an order in this way,” he said.
In a subsequent government meeting, when officials told him he was violating journalism rules, he informed them he was recording the conversation. “They left the meeting and ran away,” Sharma said.
“The question is not whether the murderer has a stick, a sword, or a pistol. The question is what the character of the murderer is. He is there to kill. Whatever rules and laws they make, their only target is that the questions and criticisms against them do not happen,” Sharma said.
The common thread: Content taken down, no explanation given
Across all accounts, a common pattern emerged. Platforms take down content without any notice, without any explanation of which rule was violated, and without any clarity on who initiated the action or how to contest it.
“If you have a problem, then talk to us, brother. What is the problem? We are our own,” Jha said, addressing the government directly, arguing that independent journalists are not adversaries and that content should not disappear without dialogue or explanation.
MediaNama hosting this discussion with support from Meta, Amazon and Google. Our community partners for this event are Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), Centre For Communication Governance (CCG) and Digipub.
Also read:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。