By Smith Mehta, University of Groningen in Groningen
Content creators and platforms are self-censoring to avoid penalties and bans by the government.
Recently, the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting summoned Netflix’s content head regarding the controversy over the portrayal of the IC-814 hijacking in the streaming series IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack.
This followed complaints from certain groups, including members of the current ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), about alleged inaccuracies and controversial portrayals.
The offended argued that the series downplays the role of Pakistan’s spy agency ISI in the hijacking, humanises the hijackers, and inaccurately represents the terror among passengers.
Similar complaints of factual inaccuracies and controversial portrayals by other groups, for instance, surrounding a controversial film called The Kashmir Files, did not elicit such a response. Instead, that film was promoted by BJP state governments and given tax-free status.
Media scholar Ameya Balsekar argues that since India’s independence, different governing parties have used censorship to arbitrarily silence voices that deviate from their political ideologies.
What is new under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third term is the aggressive pursuit of an institutionalised form of censorship that offers the governing party the means to legally pursue alternative and critical voices.
My colleague, Eedan Amit-Danhi and I arrived at this conclusion in our study on the regulatory frameworks that govern India’s digital audio-visual industries, specifically focusing on the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (IT Rules 2021).
Legitimising censorship
The study shows how the Indian government builds consensus among the public to legitimise censorship and control of content creation and distribution over the internet.
Drawing on analysis of the IT Rules, governmental communications and public-facing rhetoric, and interviews with content creators and policy experts, the research shows how India’s regulatory framework for digital audio-visual industries serves as a vehicle for ideological control, blending elements of protectionism and censorship under the guise of national security and cultural preservation.
In the recent case involving Netflix, the omission of key facts, such as religious motivations, use of code names such as Bhola and Shankar (which are alternate names of the Hindu god Shiva) instead of their real identities, and conversion attempts by the hijackers, fuelled the outrage.
In the meeting, the Information and Broadcasting ministry asked Netflix to “keep religious sentiments and sensitivities of the public in mind”.
Subsequently, a disclaimer was added to the show to clarify that the show is a fictionalised account and does not represent the official or full historical record. The disclaimer also carries the real names of the hijackers.
A senior creative member of the IC-814 team (name withheld for obvious reasons) this writer spoke to expressed relief at the outcome.
The reason for relief was that the show would not be cancelled.
The member argued the frenzy due to the ministry summons arose as “they had no idea about the government’s demands”. The individual argued that despite second-guessing controversies, and a clear awareness of India’s current political climate, they could not have guessed this kind of backlash to their show.
This was because the series is adapted from the book Flight to Fear: The Captain’s Story written by the captain of the hijacked flight, Captain Devi Sharan along with Srinjoy Chowdhury, published 24 years ago.
Rules that silence
Framed as a nation-building effort, the IT rules and the subsequent version of the draft broadcasting bill have a chilling effect on freedom of expression by encouraging creators to align their content with the state’s ideological objectives to avoid economic and legal repercussions.
The government uses both overt and covert methods to ensure compliance, such as mobilising non-state actors to file coordinated complaints against specific content and applying public pressure to enforce self-censorship.
The IT Rules impose a three-tier regulatory framework that requires platforms to create self-regulation bodies, comply with grievance redressal systems, and adhere to a code of ethics, which includes content classification guidelines.
The ambiguity and vagueness of the language in these rules make compliance challenging and create a climate where self-censorship becomes widespread.
Content creators and platforms often avoid themes that might provoke political or religious backlash to mitigate the risk of penalties or bans.
This environment has particularly affected content dealing with sensitive topics such as caste atrocities, religious intolerance and minority persecution, which are often modified or shelved to avoid conflict.
The financial pressure on platforms is considerable, as failure to comply with the rules entails increased operational costs and the potential loss of market access.
This economic motivation compels platforms and creators to conform to the state’s requirements, further limiting the scope of creative freedom.
The regulatory environment is structured to favour the ruling party’s ideological stance, using ambiguous guidelines and selective rule enforcement to promote government-aligned narratives while suppressing dissenting voices.
This dynamic creates a restrictive creative ecosystem where alternative perspectives are stifled.
Creators interviewed for our study expressed concerns over self-censorship and the need to avoid controversial topics to protect their careers and avoid legal trouble.
In response, streaming platforms have hired compliance teams and developed internal guidelines to navigate this complex regulatory landscape.
Battleground to control narratives
India’s regulatory approach reveals a two-pronged strategy of what media scholar Vibodh Parthasarathi calls considered silence and wilful intervention.
On the one hand, the government promotes its “Digital India” and “Make in India” initiatives to boost digital technologies and economic growth through market-driven strategies. On the other, it tries to control digital content through direct interventions.
Surprisingly, the Indian government has also been indifferent to creating a unified cultural policy that would support all sectors of the cultural industries with financial incentives and better coordination between cultural actors and government bodies.
Despite this neglect, the state tightly controls the flow of information and content in the media, showing how economic, cultural, and ideological issues are closely linked.
Positioning India’s regulatory approach towards digital audio-visual within a global context highlights its distinctive blend of elements seen in both protective and authoritarian regimes.
In the European Union, regulations prioritise cultural diversity through content quotas and local production mandates, designed to shield local creators from the dominance of global streaming platforms such as Netflix. Similarly, Canada and Australia have implemented policies to bolster domestic content creation.
In contrast, countries such as China, Turkey, and Russia have adopted a more authoritarian stance, using censorship to preserve political stability and enforce ideological conformity.
India’s approach incorporates aspects of both, combining regulatory control with ideological motivations, particularly influenced by the rise of right-wing nationalism.
India’s regulatory landscape has become a battleground for controlling narratives, where political agendas increasingly dictate the creative and cultural space.
Through direct interventions and strategic ambiguity, the government, backed by non-state actors, has fostered an environment of self-censorship, forcing creators to align with state-approved ideologies. This tightening grip on media mirrors authoritarian regimes globally, stifling critical voices and diverse perspectives.
As India positions itself as a global digital powerhouse, the question remains: can creative freedom survive in a system that prioritises control over expression?
Smith Mehta is an Assistant Professor at the University of Groningen’s Center for Media and Journalism Studies and the author of The New Screen Ecology in India: Digital Transformation of Media
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™
