Like God, the censor can work in mysterious ways. On Monday, February 9, this happened: when one clicked to open The Wire’s Instagram account, you were greeted by a message that read: ‘Account not available in India’. This was followed by the explanation “…because we complied with a legal request to restrict this content.”The questions were innumerable but two of them bleeped like a siren in the dark: First, what was the content that had attracted the move to block 1.3 million users from accessing The Wire’s Instagram handle? Second, who had ordered this action? Turns out that the object of this extraordinarily overbroad crackdown was a cartoon video, spanning a mere 52 seconds. Which brings us to the second question: the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting insisted it was not behind the move and that was puzzling. It was learnt later that a government authority had contacted Meta, which owns Instagram, to block the satirical video. In its eagerness to comply, Meta ended up mistakenly removing the entire Instagram handle! A couple of hours later the account came back but not the video deemed as offensive.This whole business reveals a great deal about the opaque and chaotic nature of censorship in India. Some bureaucrat, driven either by personal over-zealousness or at the prompting of one of the many government authorities granted the power to expurgate online content, set this train of action into motion with very little accountability or direct exposure to public wrath. According to the rulebook, any move to censor would have to be preceded by a notice about it reaching the affected platform. In this case, The Wire received no prior intimation. It was only on February 11, when it was given the opportunity to present its defence to an inter-departmental committee (IDC), that it was orally informed that the grounds for blocking the cartoon video were that it had spread rumours/unverified information that would affect the defence, security, reputation of the country and India’s relations with foreign countries.The term “relations with foreign countries” is a useful one for government censors, because it is listed in Article 19 (2) which restricts the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression inherent in Article 19 1 (a). But could The Wire cartoon video really have had those malign impacts outlined by the government? Let’s revisit the said cartoon video. The first aspect about it that strikes the most casual viewer is that its treatment is minimalist. It is not particularly sophisticated in its use of tech; neither is it overly funny, certainly not rolling-on-the-floor funny. Also, it does not seek to subject the country to derision in any way or create ill-will with neighbouring countries. It is focused on a real-life development: the prime minister’s flight from parliament during the recent budget session when faced by the opposition on his handling of the 2020 confrontation between Indian and Chinese forces in Galwan and his empty instruction to the army, in the face of the Chinese military buildup, to do what it thinks best: ‘Jo uchit samjho’.That this slight cultural artefact was enough to trigger the all-powerful ruling establishment speaks volumes for its hypersensitivity over the prime minister’s image and the extent to which it is prepared to go in order to repulse even the mildest criticism of that individual. Every development of this kind shrinks the space for dissent and satire in the country, while simultaneously expanding the state’s appetite to quell media speech. Many readers who posted comments on this made the point that in the UPA years, then prime minister Manmohan Singh was heavily lampooned for his alleged “weakness”, with very little consequences to media freedoms. Today even a humour-laden suggestion that the present incumbent in the prime ministerial chair is partial to flight in the face of a political challenge, is framed as an attack on the sovereignty of the country! What the government perhaps did not reckon was the blowback its move would receive. DigiPub, which represents over 90 digital platforms, protested the move thus: “Such measures reflect a growing pattern in which satire, critical journalism, and dissenting voices are constrained through opaque and unaccountable ‘legal demands’, undermining due process and democratic norms.” The Hindu, on its part, came out with a thoughtful exposition on satire (‘On the importance of satire’, February 18) quoting from the 2019 judgement, Indibily Creative (P) Ltd versus State of West Bengal which had highlighted satire’s “unique ability to quickly and clearly make a point and facilitate understanding in ways that other forms of communication and expression often do not.” There were, besides, innumerable comments from the public on social media, including this beauty from ‘dolinjye’: “It hurts only if it’s true”.Also read: Digipub, PCI Demand Answers Over The Wire Instagram Block, Satirical Clip TakedownIt was not just the response from an alert public and media that was tested, but the ways in which social media platforms could respond to attempts to chill online speech, something that becomes particularly important given that online media are often a crucial site for ideological arguments. How a particular platform chooses to respond to such silencing therefore becomes pivotal in the larger efforts to keep media freedoms alive. When faced with bald state censorship, media entities can either accept the inevitable and maintain a discreet silence and comply, or they can deal with the onslaught in ways that are “non-violent”, innovative and creative. The Wire chose the second option, displaying a quiet refusal to be intimidated by the hammer blows from “competent authorities” within the country and social media giants that accommodate themselves to governmental diktat given the extremely lucrative stakes involved. The very next day to the blocking came a strong The Wire editorial which suggested that “the joke has clearly landed. Right on the Modi government”. Among other nuanced and quick responses was another satirical skit, this time on Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla and the manner he chose to silence the leader of the opposition, Rahul Gandhi, during the parliamentary debate on the reply to the President’s address: “No,no, no, no, you cannot say what you want, raise any objection/No, no, no, no, you will be silenced because you are in the opposition..” It is unlikely that the government will end its policy of cracking down on digital dissent. As the DigiPub statement mentioned, in the period when The Wire’s cartoon video was suspended, the Instagram accounts of Deshabhimani newspaper and No Cap (a Malayalam portal) were also permanently disabled. But one important learning we can gain from The Wire experience is this: Only more laughter can defeat bans on laughter.§Dilemma of an ambitious news anchorAmbition is important but overt ambition can be dangerous. Just like the Arnab Goswami stereotype has set studios alight in all regions and many languages of the country, we have the Navika Kumar wannabes – mid-career women television anchors racing against each other to occupy the top spaces in news television. The one formula that they have latched on to in order to rise in the firmament of studio lights is to up the toxic content of their shows. This could take different forms. Aaj Tak’s Anjana Om Kashyap, for instance, who inherited the prime show, ‘Black & White’, from that other communal baiter, Sudhir Chaudhary, after he left Aaj Tak for a fat cheque from Doordarshan, expended a lot of effort recently on Babur’s bisexual proclivities. Why, one may ask, was there a need to enlighten viewers on the peccadilloes of a long-dead monarch on a prime time slot in a busy news season? Was it yet another effort to heap derision on the Muslim community, which is now expected to answer for the actions of medieval Mughal emperors?In the meanwhile, Kashyap’s compeer, Padmaja Joshi, brought all her considerable energy as a relatively newbie within the NDTV fold, to rescue Union minister Hardeep Puri from the swamp into which he had fallen for having built a transactional relationship with the late, unlamented child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. He did this ostensibly to serve his country, although he had no locus standi to do so, being merely a “former diplomat” and a senior advisor at the International Peace Institute at the point when he first got to know Epstein. His exertions, however, did prove rewarding. It appears to have helped him land a ministership in India, although there is still no clarity on the issue since the Government of India, as is its wont, has not gone public over the extent of its own relationship with Epstein.Also read: The Big Indian Media’s Reaction to the Epstein File Revelations Demonstrates How Low it Has FallenJoshi clearly sees herself as a groupie in the reigning power structure and her programmes and choice of guests are invariably weighted in favour of the government. In her recent show, ‘Shoot and Scoot, Without Proof’, she threw her anchor’s hat on the Puri side of the aisle, with BJP power girl Shazia Ilmi providing smiling applause. No surprise this but what was mind-boggling was the lengths to which Joshi was prepared to go. In her anxiety to defend Puri, she ended up nearly exonerating Epstein in a way that even whacko rightwing television channels would have hesitated to do. In framing Epstein as a “power broker” – that was his job, she insisted – she forgot that Epstein was not just a pedophile, but a convicted pedophile; that the man had assaulted or trafficked over a thousand women and children; that many grandees in countries across had had to resign, or have paid a heavy price for their association with him. The outrage over the programme was not long in coming. One comment on X pulled no stops: “Indian TV is rotten when Padmaja Joshi and Shazia Ilmi sit on prime time panels to massage the image of Hardeep Singh Puri and mock outrage over emails with child rapist Jeffrey Epstein. Women fronting PR for a sex criminal and his minister friend is moral collapse on live news.”So untenable was Joshi’s position that she was forced to issue a public apology: “I would like to start by being categorically clear: Jeffrey Epstein was a paedophile, child rapist and sex offender of the worst kind. I have said this always, and I say this now. His victims deserve nothing but the full ferocity of justice for what they suffered. Clips from my show, selectively edited to suggest me implying anything else, have caused dismay. While this is categorically false and not remotely what I meant to convey in the flow of a TV debate, I can see why those clips have triggered many. For this, I sincerely regret any misunderstanding. As a woman who takes a very clear view on sexual crimes, I stand unequivocally with those affected.”§An important correctionHandling data is tricky and The Wire has had to confront this truism. In its first iteration of a story on the data provided by the government on the number of SC, ST and OBC officers (IAS, IFS and IPS) in the country, it ended up misrepresenting facts. A mea culpa was subsequently issued and the figures corrected. I am happy to note that The Wire desk did this within 15 hours of publication. The story was based on a governmental response to a parliament question, in which the number of SC, ST and OBC officers appointed between 2020-2024 and the total number of officers that are there was disclosed. In the initial story, The Wire had mistakenly put out the reserved category candidates as a percentage of total officers in service so far. This was wrong as the overall figure would no doubt include reserved category officers too, appointed now and before. The Wire revised the story, noting that it had erred initially. But when revisiting this error, it does strike us that comparable figures of the general category appointed between 2020-2024 should have been provided in the government’s reply. It needs to do this so that the Indian public can see for themselves if there is a mismatch and to what extent, between general category appointments and those from reserved categories between 2020 and 2024, as well as in overall figures too. Incidentally, the mistake was pointed out by the editor of another news portal, which is what solidarity in journalism is all about! You can read the story here – Govt Evasive on Number of SC, ST, OBC Officers in IAS, IPS, IFS, Only Provides Data of Direct Recruits in Last 4 YrsThe error is regretted. §Readers write in…Need for sensitivityA reader, Ram, wrote in to alert us to an important principle…“I understand the intention of the headline – ‘The Blind Men of Naya Bharat’, February 6 – but using Blind Men as an analogy to explain the situation is very unfortunate. It assumes that Blind Men are not able to figure out issues. The reality is that they are very smart and intelligent.” Minorities and minoritiesSantosh Kumar makes a pertinent point:“In these past ten years we thought it is only the Muslims of this country who have been marginalised. But we are mistaken. If you watched the Lok Sabha proceedings for just ten minutes recently, you will realise that the Opposition too is being treated as second class citizens. You can feel that by the very way the Speaker, Om Birla, handled the proceedings and the manner in which he looked to his left. The contempt is so obvious in his words and demeanor. There are clearly two sets of rules in the House. One for the ruling party and other for the Opposition. There never has been such a partisan Speaker as he. His very body language makes it all so apparent.”§Telegram is the way to go!Prasanth Kumar, a law student at the National Law University of Odisha (NLUO), has a suggestion…“I am a regular reader of the Wire and I sincerely appreciate your independent, in-depth coverage of current affairs, public policy, constitutional issues, and investigative journalism. Your reporting plays an important role in promoting informed public discourse and democratic accountability.“I would like to respectfully request you to consider launching an official Telegram channel for the Wire. I rely heavily on Telegram as my primary platform for following news updates, as it allows readers to track unread posts clearly, follow stories post-by-post, and refer back to important reports when needed.“While other platforms such as WhatsApp exist, they are not very convenient for systematic and structured news reading, as unread messages often get marked all at once. Telegram, on the other hand, is far more suitable for serious journalism and long-form reporting, which The Wire is well known for.“Several respected news organisations already use Telegram effectively to reach their readers and expand digital engagement. I strongly believe that an official Telegram presence for The Wire would enhance accessibility, increase reader engagement, and strengthen your digital outreach among audiences who prefer Telegram for news consumption.”§End piece: What is sought to be hidden?Transparency activist, Anjali Bhardwaj, has raised an important issue on social media…What is the PMO trying to hide? First, information about PM CARES denied to citizens under the RTI Act and now to their elected representatives in Lok Sabha. Is this a case of Electoral Bonds 2.0? The fund could potentially be an instrument for quid pro quo, extortion and regulatory inaction, just like electoral bonds. At the time of collecting money, the government said the PM CARES could receive CSR money as it was set up by the central government. Ministers were issuing “appeals” for donation of salaries by government officials. But when people started asking for information, the government claims PM CARES Trust is not a public authority.Write to ombudsperson@thewire.in