Search results

1 – 2 of 2
Book part
Publication date: 23 April 2021

Devika Sethi

Purpose – Public debates about censorship laws largely focus on their desirability and the limits set on free speech. From a historical perspective, however, the logic and…

Abstract

Purpose – Public debates about censorship laws largely focus on their desirability and the limits set on free speech. From a historical perspective, however, the logic and contradictions inherent in these laws’ implementation, as well as their evasion, also merit attention. This chapter places at the heart of its investigation the General Communist Notification (1932) in British India which prohibited specific kinds of Communist publications from import and circulation, even more so in a context of mass anti-colonial nationalism. Methodology/Approach – Using government and intelligence agencies’ archival records, intercepted documents of the Communist Party of India, legislative debates and memoirs, this chapter illustrates the censorship of Communist literature in India at two levels: one, it sketches a broad picture of the mode and extent of the censorship of Communist literature in late colonial India (c. 1925–1947). Two, by excavating debates and processes around the treatment to be accorded to books of two British Communist writers, John Strachey and R. P. Dutt, it reveals the constraints and dilemmas of censorship of Communist literature. While doing so, it brings both Indian and British voices to the fore. Findings – This investigation provides valuable insights into the operation of laws related to specific genres of publications, provides an assessment of the success of censorship measures, and highlights the repercussions of their failure. Originality/Value – By illustrating the limited success of censorship measures, as well as the dilemmas of censors and debates among them, this chapter urges for a more nuanced and multidimensional understanding of the operation of censorship, particularly in politically fraught contexts.

Details

Media and Law: Between Free Speech and Censorship
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-80071-729-9

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 19 March 2024

Deb Aikat

With 43.2 million coronavirus cases and 525,000 deaths in 2022, India ranked second worldwide, after the United States (84.6 million cases and 1 million deaths), according to the…

Abstract

With 43.2 million coronavirus cases and 525,000 deaths in 2022, India ranked second worldwide, after the United States (84.6 million cases and 1 million deaths), according to the latest available June 2022 COVID-19 impact data.

Amid people’s growing mistrust in the government, India’s news media enhanced the nation’s distinguished designation as the world’s largest and most populous democracy. India’s news media inform, educate, empower, and entertain a surging population of 1.4 billion people, which is roughly one-sixth of the world’s people.

Drawing upon the media agendamelding theoretical framework, we conducted a case study research into interplay between two prominent democratic institutions, the media and the government, to analyze the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in redefining India’s networked society.

India’s COVID-19 pandemic aggravated internecine tensions between media and government relating to four key freedom issues: (1) world’s largest COVID-19 lockdown affecting 1.3 billion Indians from March 25, 2020 to August 2020 with extensions and five-phased re-openings, to restrict the spread of COVID-19; (2) Internet shutdowns; (3) media censorship during the 1975–1977 “Emergency”; and (4) unabated murders of journalists in India.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic caused deleterious problems debilitating the tensions between the media and the government, India’s journalists thrived by speaking truth to power. This study delineates key aspects of India’s media agendamelding that explicates how the people of India form their media agendas. India’s news audiences meld media messages from newspapers, television, and social media to form a picture of the issues, insights, and ideas that define their lives and times in the 21st century digital age.

1 – 2 of 2