History of Censorship in India

Description: Independent south Asian republic whose territory included modern Pakistan and Bangladesh when it was under British colonial rule before 1947.

Significance: Although India has a long and complex history of censorship, it has allowed one of the freest presses among developing nations.

Within India—which is the world’s largest democracy—the diversity of ethnic groups speaking sixteen hundred languages and a rancorous relationship between the country’s majority Hindu and minority Muslim populations have contributed to making censorship a constant threat. From ancient times to the Mughal dynasty, Indian rulers ruthlessly suppressed all dissension. After Great Britain began colonizing India, its regime also found censorship a useful tool for governing. Since India won its independence in 1947, its central government, its various state governments, and diverse pressure groups have invoked censorship on the media, fine arts, and films.

The British Period

During Britain’s long period of rule, it hardly mattered whether newspapers were published by Indians or British nationals. Colonial authorities never hesitated to punish publications criticizing British rule. One of the earliest censorship incidents occurred in 1780, after India’s first officially recognized modern newspaper, the Bengal Gazette (also known as the Calcutta General Advertiser or Hicky’s Gazette) published an article attacking the wife of Governor General Warren Hastings. The government had the press’s types confiscated and the newspaper’s postal privileges removed, and James Hicky, the paper’s publisher, was fined and jailed. Thereafter, the British regime embarked on regulating the press. The first of a number of censorship laws, enacted in 1799, required preapproval of publication from the government’s secretariat. Licenses for publishing newspapers were mandated by the Regulation of the Press Ordinance of 1823, promulgated by Acting Governor General John Adam. The first law regulating the establishment of printing presses was popularly known as the “Gagging Act of 1857.” It came in the wake of the great mutiny of Indian soldiers that year.

The law that had the most far-reaching consequences for the Indian subcontinent was the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867, which helped to shape the modern press laws of independent India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. This law mandated printing press owners and newspaper publishers to secure declarations from magistrates. As demands for self-rule became vocal, the colonial regime cracked down on the vernacular papers with the Vernacular Press Act of 1878. Unable to stop the ever-growing anti-British sentiments, Viceroy Lord Minto attempted to buy good relations with some vernacular newspapers by paying them subsidies. Many other press and press-related laws followed. Under provisions of these acts, publications deemed objectionable had their declarations revoked, they were forced to pay security deposits, and their journalists were jailed. Despite strict government controls over newspapers in the last years of British rule in the mid-twentieth century, a number of underground publications appeared that reported details of the independence struggle and the performance of British troops on the World War II battlefields.

Modern India

On attaining independence in 1947, many Indian leaders—including Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, called for press freedom. Unlike the First Amendment of the US Constitution, India’s new constitution of 1950 guaranteed freedom of the press within the larger provision of free speech and expression that was accompanied by a number of restrictions, including the disallowing of speech undermining the security of the state. A constitutional amendment was subsequently passed to disallow free speech that could hurt friendly relations with foreign countries.

After independence the Indian press vigorously covered the political scene. The national government’s Press (Objectionable Matters) Act of 1951 rescinded a British law of 1931 and the press acts of thirteen states. The new law empowered the government to demand forfeitable security deposits from newspapers, to seize unauthorized printing presses for printing unauthorized newssheets, to confiscate certain newspapers, and to deny privileges to offensive publications. Other laws restricting the press followed, such as the Press and Registration of Books (Amendment) Act of 1955, the Defense of India Act of 1962, the Sixteenth Amendment to the constitution, and the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. States also adopted their own versions of the Special Powers (Press) Act. Between October 1962 and November 1965 the state governments censored eighty-two newspapers.

Wartime Measures

During India’s 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan, the Defence of India Rules was used to censor the press. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi invoked the law to impose a state of national emergency that lasted from June 26, 1975, to March 20, 1977. A major facet of this emergency declaration was its blanket imposition of censorship on the press. The measure was enforced by cutting off electrical power to certain newspapers, by arresting journalists, by forcing foreign journalists to leave—or not enter—the country, and by subjecting sixty newspapers to precensorship. Also, the Press Council was dissolved, and new restrictive laws were passed. Most of the new restrictions were lifted after Gandhi was defeated in the 1977 elections, allowing the press to renew its watchdog role. The press then exposed a scandal in which government officials were involved in a bribery scheme to purchase weapons from a Swedish firm.

After Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984, government economic and political pressures on Indian newspapers continued. The government has supported friendly newspapers through such means as favorable allocations of scarce newsprint and government advertising. As part of an effort to fight terrorism in rebellious Indian states, the government passed the Terrorist and Disruptive Acts in 1985. This law was widely used against the press, especially in states with centers of antigovernment rebels, such as Punjab, Jammu, and Kashmir. Antigovernment separatists in those states have also imposed a form of censorship by murdering journalists and physically stopping the printing and distribution of publications.

The Broadcast Media and Films

In contrast to the press, radio and television have remained under the direct control of the national Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Neither medium has been allowed to air critical news or commentaries about the government. A change came in the 1990s, when as many as seventy channels of uncensored satellite television programming became available, including limited broadcasting of the US-based Cable News Network.

The government’s film censor board, another British legacy, certifies every film exhibited in India. Cultural reservations about public displays of sexuality have kept even displays of kissing off the screen or limited.

During the 1990s Indian print advertising started using models in erotic poses and positions for products such as “Kama Sutra” condoms and MR Coffee to the ire of law enforcement authorities. Censorship of books has not been uncommon. The most famous case was the 1989 banning of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses. International publications containing critical articles about India have been seized or kept out of the country. However, sexually explicit magazines, such as Debonair and Fantasy, have been openly circulated.

In the summer of 2021, debates around film censorship were further ignited in the industry upon the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's proposal of a new bill that would allow for government review, based on complaints, of films that had received certification from the board. Many, particularly filmmakers, argued that this would only allow for even greater censorship by weakening the authority of the board.

The Internet and Media Censorship in the Twenty-First Century

In 2008, an amendment to the Information Technology Act of 2008, Section 66A, authorized the punishment of any individuals accused of using the internet to send offensive or menacing information. Over the years, activists accused the police of misusing the amendment to arrest people who had posted dissenting comments regarding social and political issues on social media sites. Eventually, in early 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the amendment as an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. However, concerns about the government's encroachment on freedom of expression through censorship increased later that year following two incidents. Within one week, the government required internet service providers to block more than 850 pornography sites and threatened to revoke the licenses of three television networks for allegedly having jeopardized the integrity of the country's judicial system.

By the beginning of the 2020s, international and national critics' concerns about internet censorship by the Indian government had continued if not increased, particularly following the release of a new set of comprehensive information technology rules in February 2021. Some took issue with the timing of the release, as it occurred during a period of high-profile protests by farmers that had led to what were considered controversial responses by the government that included orders for social media companies to remove or block posts that were critical in nature; according to reports, the rules had been under consideration and drafting for some time. Many contended that the rules, several of which were perceived as granting more power to the government rather than social media companies for content removal decisions and directives, were dangerously authoritarian and created a path for even greater digital censorship, including self-censorship by individuals. As of the summer of 2021, a number of legal challenges against the rules had commenced. That same year, the government controversially directed certain social media platforms to take down at least one hundred posts that were critical of the government's handling of the drastic spike in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in the country, arguing that they represented misinformation.

Bibliography

"Bollywood: Filmmakers Cry Foul Over Censorship Proposals." BBC News, 1 July 2021, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-57676214. Accessed 4 Aug. 2021.

Burke, Jason. "India Supreme Court Strikes Down Internet Censorship Law." Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.

"India's Government Censorship." New York Times. New York Times, 17 Aug. 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.

"India Threatens to Suspend TV News Channel." Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ, 24 Aug. 2011. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.

Merrill, John C., ed. Global Journalism: A Survey of the World’s Mass Media. New York: Longman, 1983. Print.

Nyrop, Richard F. India: A Country Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1986. Print.

Purnell, Newley. "India Accused of Censorship for Blocking Social Media Criticism amid Covid Surge." The Wall Street Journal, 26 Apr. 2021, www.wsj.com/articles/india-accused-of-censorship-for-blocking-social-media-criticism-amid-covid-surge-11619435006. Accessed 4 Aug. 2021.

Saaliq, Sheikh, and Krutika Pathi. "India Internet Law Adds to Fears Over Online Speech, Privacy." AP, 15 July 2021, apnews.com/article/technology-entertainment-business-music-india-2458a729cff255c8a8f83d84101372d8. Accessed 4 Aug. 2021.