--- layout: default title: "A Dangerous Trend: Social Media Adds Fire to Muzaffarnagar Clashes" description: "A Hindustan Times report examining how fake videos and morphed images spread through social media platforms intensified communal violence during the Muzaffarnagar riots, raising questions about content moderation and free speech." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2013-12-03 authors: ["Zia Haq"] source: "Hindustan Times" permalink: /media/a-dangerous-trend-social-media-adds-fire-to-muzaffarnagar-clashes-hindustan-times/ created: 2026-01-02 --- **A Dangerous Trend: Social Media Adds Fire to Muzaffarnagar Clashes** is a Hindustan Times report published on 3 December 2013. The article investigates how fake YouTube videos and morphed photographs circulated through social media platforms contributed to escalating communal violence in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. It examines the role of online platforms in spreading disinformation, the legal response by authorities, and debates around content censorship and free speech safeguards. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
📰 Published in:
Hindustan Times
📅 Date:
3 December 2013
👤 Authors:
Zia Haq
📄 Type:
News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

As access to the Internet grows, especially in small Indian towns and cities, social media has revealed a darker side as a hatred-mongering tool capable of setting off serious violence.

Malicious content, such as fake YouTube videos and morphed photographs, are usually spread rapidly to trigger rioting.

In UP's Muzaffarnagar, a video clip purportedly showing a Muslim mob lynching two boys, which police now suspect is from neighboring Pakistan or Afghanistan, was used to stir unease, deepening hatred between Muslims and Hindus.

A series of rioting in western UP district has left at least 41 dead. The circulation of the video had led to violence spreading to new areas. The fake video that escalated clashes portends a new trend in India's discordant politics.

"From word of mouth, communal polarization, especially by Hindutva organisations, is now moving online. This is a dangerous trend since the Internet is very potent," said Prof Badri Narayan of the GB Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad.

Research shows social media sites, including sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, are more persuasive than television ads. Nearly 100 million Indians use the Internet each day, more than Germany's population. Of this, 40 million have assured broadband, the ones who mostly subscribe to social-media accounts.

The country also has about 87 million mobile-Internet users, according to Internet and Mobile Association of India.

UP's police have blocked the video, invoking sections under 420 (forgery), 153-A (promoting enmity on religious grounds) and 120-B (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 66 of the Information Technology Act.

Section 66, however, is the heart of a free-speech debate. Activists say section 66 has been used at the drop of a hat.

Last November, two Mumbai girls faced arrests for questioning the city's shutdown for Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's funeral. The arrests were declared illegal after being roundly criticised, including by the Supreme Court.

"In this case, the government has a legitimate reason to censor speech. However, this requires the authorities to be very focused and action should be targeted, rather than sweeping," said Sunil Abraham of the Bangalore-based The Centre for Internet and Society.

The government's action, Abraham said, tended to be broad-based. He said in such situations, the government could use public-service messaging to present the alternate view.

"Legal provisions could be made whereby Twitter users from India, for example, (compulsorily) see the public service message by default when they log in," Abraham said.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background The Muzaffarnagar riots occurred in August and September 2013, resulting in over 40 deaths and the displacement of thousands from their homes. The violence was preceded by tensions following an incident in Kawal village, but the circulation of fabricated content online significantly amplified communal hostilities across the district. The video in question depicted a 2010 mob lynching incident from Sialkot, Pakistan, but was misrepresented as footage of Hindu youths being killed by Muslims in Muzaffarnagar. A BJP legislator shared the video on Facebook, and it spread rapidly before authorities could intervene. Police registered cases against 229 individuals for circulating the content, though enforcement proved challenging. The incident highlighted emerging patterns in how digital platforms were being exploited to incite communal violence in India. Sunil Abraham's observations in the report reflected civil society perspectives on balancing legitimate law enforcement interests with free speech concerns. Whilst acknowledging that authorities had valid grounds to remove content directly inciting violence, he argued for targeted rather than sweeping interventions and suggested alternative approaches such as mandatory counter-messaging to address misinformation without resorting solely to censorship. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalised sending offensive messages online, remained contentious. The Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional in March 2015, citing vague language and disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression. ## External Link - Read on Hindustan Times