Do UP riots call for curbs on social media? - Yes

Rumours are a key element to any communal riot. They can provide the spark that unleashes the cycle of violence. A variety of mediums have traditionally been used to circulate information that can create a communal narrative and provoke violence against the ‘other’. These range from informal conversations at tea or paan shops to panchayat meetings and religious sermons. Today, the social media — YouTube and Facebook in particular — has proven to be an invaluable tool for any mischief monger.

The recent riots in Muzaffarnagar (Uttar Pradesh) are a case in point.

It is believed a YouTube video, which showed two men being lynched to death by a mob, played a critical role in turning a minor skirmish into a full-fledged riot in Muzaffarnagar. The video was actually from the gruesome lynching incident in Sialkot (Pakistan) in 2011.

Another case was of a number of pro-Hindutva Facebook pages posting morphed headlines from the Muzaffarnagar edition of the Dainik Jagran. For instance, the headline of Jagran’s front-page story on September 9 was Dangaiyon Par Goli Chalane Ka Aaadesh (“Rioters to Be Shot At Sight”). But the story was posted on Facebook with the headline Musalamano Ke Haathon Hinduon ka Katl-e-Aam Jaari (“The Massacre of Hindus at the Hands of Muslims Continues”).

A story in the September 8 edition with the original headline Panchayat Se Laut Rahe Do Logon Ki Goli Maar Kar Hatya (Two Shot Dead While Returning from Panchayat) was changed into Muzaffarnagar Me Musalmaano ka Aatank, Hinduon Ka Khauf (“Muslim Terror and Hindu Fear in Muzaffarnagar”). Yet another group posted pictures of victims of the Syrian civil war as being riot victims in Muzaffarnagar.

Such instances do reveal the need for certain curbs on the social media. There are two aspects that make the social media a potent weapon during riot situations: Content and speed. Graphic videos, gory pictures, morphed newspaper clippings can have a much more dramatic effect than rumours circulated by word of mouth. The mechanism to filter such content within sites like Facebook is woefully inadequate.

Unfortunately, the clumsiness of governments and law enforcement agencies has harmed the legitimacy of Section 66A of the IT Act under which action can be taken against mischief mongers. The arrests of Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan for a Facebook post critical of Mumbai shutting down following Balasaheb Thackeray’s death and of a Puducherry businessman for lampooning Karti Chidambaram were because of the police’s ineptitude, for which the law must not be blamed.

Section 66A like many other laws such as those in the Indian Penal Code have been misused. But that doesn’t mean that the law be done away with. It is, however, true that Section 66A contains subjective expressions like “circulating information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character” or “circulating false information for causing annoyance, inconvenience”, which need to be made less ambiguous.

(The author is a Delhi-based freelance journalist.)

Also read: >Do UP riots call for curbs on social media? - No

COMMENT NOW