Some recent developments in India have revived the debate between those who want to keep social networking sites relatively free and those who want to monitor and censor, if possible, their content. In a way this is a sequel to the riots between Bodo tribe and Muslims in the northeastern state of Assam. The July/August violence killed more than 75 people and displaced as many as 300,000. While Assam was still burning, an equally sinister development was taking place on the social media. Authorities knew of this only when there was mass exodus of thousands of panicked people from cities like Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad and Pune to their homes in the northeast. These were the men and women from eight northeastern states who have moved to major Indian cities in search of jobs and education. They were fleeing for their lives after they received text messages warning of reprisals for what their people did to Muslims in Assam. Hate messages and threats spread on social media created a feeling of insecurity in their minds. Morphed pictures and false messages were used to trigger panic. Authorities moved to ban bulk text messages in a bid to stem rumors. A reward of $2,000 was announced for information leading to the arrest of mischief-makers. Local authorities reassured those considering flight that they were safe and the situation was under control. Exodus has now slowed. But wanting to take no chance, this week the government instructed Internet companies, including Facebook and Google, to block more than 300 web pages and more than a dozen Twitter accounts charging them with inflaming communal tensions. What were the forces behind this attempt to create panic? Who tried to use social media to exploit India's communal fault lines and inflame passions? Predictably, Indian authorities blamed Pakistan for spreading rumors over the Internet. Some pointed fingers at Muslim groups “moved by the plight of their coreligionists in Assam." Latest reports say that official inquiries have revealed the involvement of some extremist Hindu groups who thought Muslims in other parts of India will invariably be blamed and thus invite the public's wrath. Whoever may turn out to be the culprits and whatever the truth, this crisis shows how destructive social media can prove in certain circumstances. Websites that contain “extremist" content is a real danger in India and other counties where people belonging to different religions and ethnic groups live. India is no stranger to censorship aimed at preventing communal violence. Only this time the crisis has a new dimension.The problem is how to tackle it without giving governments at federal and state levels excessive powers to stifle dissenting views. Already privacy groups, political opponents and Internet users are accusing the government of an excessive and poorly targeted censorship drive. Some say the government is overreacting. Nobody can take exception to a government seeking to contain social alarm triggered by communal unrest. But it has to move cautiously to avoid criticism that this is a cleverly-designed attempt to suppress dissenting political views. Already parallels are being drawn between what the government is trying to do now and what happened during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's two-year of “Emergency rule" in the late 1970s when civil liberties were curtailed or suspended on the pretext of maintaining internal stability.
