Spotlight
New Delhi, 20 March 2015
Social
Media
POLITICIANS
UNNERVED!
By
Geetartha Pathak
If on the one hand, the revolution in
information technology has widened the scope of knowledge and dissemination of
information, on the other a section of ‘powerful’ politicians has sought to
negate it by various means.
The arrest of a XI class boy for forwarding
an “objectionable” post on Facebook against Uttar Pradesh’s Urban Development
Minister Azam Khan has attracted widespread reaction from across the country.
The arrest was made under section 66 of Information Technology Act and section
153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race,
etc.), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 505
(public mischief) of the IPC. The incident went viral on the social media, triggered
anger and critical remarks against the both the Minister and the UP police. The
comments posted were coarser than the original post of the boy, ignoring the
consequences they might have to face.
Growing intolerance among the
powers-that-be is sadly becoming a routine affair. Earlier, on March 5, on a
complaint by Fasahat Ali, Azam Khan's self-styled 'media in-charge', the
district police had lodged an FIR against Ravinder Kumar Mishra, a tourism
officer from Varanasi for uploading “objectionable pictures” of UP Chief
Minister Akhilesh Yadav, SP supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav and Azam Khan on
WhatsApp and other social networking sites. He was booked under similar
sections of the Acts. In 2013, Dalit writer and social activist Kanwal Bharti
was similarly arrested by Rampur
police for a Facebook post against Khan. He too, was booked under section 66-A
of the IT Act
Ironically, Khan himself has in the past
made many comments that were seen as an intentional insult to a particular
religious group. Recall these provoked a breach of peace during the last Lok
Sabha elections. Then there was his comment on Kargil which led to public
outrage. Add to these the allegations that he had a role in the Muzzafarnagar
riots and records of his derogatory comments against former Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi, his brother Sanjay Gandhi and of course Narendra Modi. He also allegedly called ‘Bharat Mata’ a
witch in the past. Not to speak of his misuse of Government machinery by
deploying over 100 policemen with sniffer dogs to search for missing
buffaloes!
It appears that the politicians of our
country give themselves an absolute right to pass any comment against a person,
a religious section or a group of people, however provocative it may be.
Recall, Union Minister Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti’s communal remark “Ramzade Vs Haramzade’ which led to an
uproar Parliament and she eventually had to express regret. If one looks at the Facebook posts of Dr
Subramaniam Swamy, one may easily find controversial contents, enough to
attract the provisions of law including section 66A of the IT Act. On a recent
visit to Assam,
he recently stated that mosques are places of prayer made out of bricks and
cement only and can be demolished by the Government! The comment was widely
decried by the people of Assam.
Also let us take the case of JD (U) Sharad Yadav, who having made a sexiest
remark in Parliament against women, remained unfazed even when it was condemned
by all. Remember, SP supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav’s bid to defend rape by
publicly stating that ‘boys behave like boys’.
While the politicians seem to simply get
away, the common citizen pays a heavy price. One of the first cases was in
1012. Two girls from Palghar in Maharashtra
were arrested under Section 66 A of the IT Act for posting questions as to why
Mumbai should come to a halt after the death of Shiv Sena Supremo Bal
Thackeray. In Puducherry, the police arrested a businessman Ravi Srinivasan
under Section 66A of IT Act, for allegedly launching a smear campaign against
then Home Minister P Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram
through Twitter.
Fortunately, while the student from Bareilly arrested on
Monday, was granted bail by the additional chief judicial magistrate on
Thursday, he would still have to face the long process of litigation.
Importantly, Shreya Singal, a law student and other NGOs have petitioned
seeking quashing of Section 66 A of IT act. These were filed after the two
girls in Maharashtra were arrested.
It needs to be noted that since the words
“objectionable”, “offensive”, “derogatory” are not defined, the section 66A of
IT Act can be used by anyone claiming that a particular comment of a person on
any social media site is objectionable or offensive etc. On February 26 this year, the Supreme Court
had reserved its order on pleas of challenging the validity of Section 66A of
the IT Act. The Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution is under question. While
it can be subjected to reasonable restriction as provided under Article 19(2)
of the same, it cannot be throttled. As of now, the Centre, has justified
section 66A of IT Act in the Court.
A moot point is that postings on Facebook
are private communication within a limited group and therefore these should not
be treated as public. Moreover, the Government can request the service
providers to remove or disable the controversial contents from any social
media. During July-December last year, Facebook blocked 5,832 pieces of
content, including anti-religious matter and hate speeches, on orders of the Central Government-- the highest by any country on the
social networking platform. If it is so, why then does the Government need
special provisions to punish a person for his/her comments?
Undeniably, social media has broken the barrier created by
monopolized traditional media in disseminating information and building public
opinion. Today, individuals can instantly reach a large audience by simply
posting their views on a particular issue. Major political parties too have
taken advantage of the social media. It was widely used by them during the last
parliamentary and State Assembly elections. However, a section of the same
politicians are now trying to try to fetter people from using it.
It should keep in mind that even the traditional media
realizes the power of social media and is using it to reach out to the people.
Instead of restrictions, the Government should encourage people to speak out
their heart so that it and political parties are aware of ground realities and
understand the peoples’ mood. Knowing
the peoples’ pulse is a prerequisite of a political outfit to win the support
of the masses. And, social media can be its tool. At the same time, the Right
to freedom of speech and expression is non-negotiable. It must be upheld and
the Government be stopped from playing truant with it. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|