--- layout: default title: "Internet Analysts Question India's Efforts to Stem Panic" description: "A New York Times report examining India's controversial response to ethnic panic through widespread internet censorship and SMS restrictions, featuring analysis from Sunil Abraham on the poorly managed implementation of content blocking directives and the need for more sophisticated counter-messaging strategies." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2012-08-21 source: "The New York Times" authors: ["Vikas Bajaj"] permalink: /media/internet-analysts-question-indias-efforts-stem-panic/ created: 2025-12-13 --- **Internet Analysts Question India's Efforts to Stem Panic** is a report published in *The New York Times* on 21 August 2012, written by Vikas Bajaj. The article examines the Indian government's response to ethnic tensions targeting northeastern migrants through aggressive internet censorship and communication restrictions, featuring critical commentary from Sunil Abraham on the impractically broad directives issued to intermediaries and the government's failure to employ effective counter-messaging strategies alongside content removal efforts. ## 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
đź“° Published in:
The New York Times
đź“… Date:
21 August 2012
👤 Author:
Vikas Bajaj
đź“„ Type:
News Report
đź“° Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

MUMBAI, India — The Indian government's efforts to stem a weeklong panic among some ethnic minorities has again put it at odds with Internet companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter.

Officials in New Delhi, who have had disagreements with the companies over restrictions on free speech, say the sites are not responding quickly enough to their requests to delete and trace the origins of doctored photos and incendiary posts aimed at people from northeastern India. After receiving threats online and on their phones, tens of thousands of students and migrants from the northeast have left cities like Bangalore, Pune and Chennai in the last week.

The government has blocked 245 Web pages since Friday, but still many sites are said to contain fabricated images of violence against Muslims in the northeast and in neighboring Myanmar meant to incite Muslims in cities like Bangalore and Mumbai to attack people from the northeast. India also restricted cellphone users to five text messages a day each for 15 days in an effort to limit the spread of rumors.

Officials from Google and industry associations said they were cooperating fully with the authorities. Some industry executives and analysts added that some requests had not been heeded because they were overly broad or violated internal policies and the rights of users.

The government, used to exerting significant control over media like newspapers, films and television, has in recent months been frustrated in its effort to extend similar and greater regulations to Web sites, most of which are based in the United States. Late last year, an Indian minister tried to get social media sites to prescreen content created by their users before it was posted. The companies refused and the attempt failed under withering public criticism.

While just 100 million of India's 1.2 billion people use the Internet regularly, the numbers are growing fast among people younger than 25, who make up about half the country's population. For instance, there were an estimated 46 million active Indian users on Facebook at the end of 2011, up 132 percent from a year earlier.

Sunil Abraham, an analyst who has closely followed India's battles with Internet companies, said last week's effort to tackle hate speech was justified but poorly managed. He said the first directive from the government was impractically broad, asking all Internet "intermediaries" — a category that includes small cybercafes, Internet service providers and companies like Google and Facebook — to disable all content that was "inflammatory, hateful and inciting violence."

"The Internet intermediaries are responding slowly because now they have to trawl through their networks and identify hate speech," said Mr. Abraham, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy group based in Bangalore. "The government acted appropriately, but without sufficient sophistication."

In the days since the first advisory went out on Aug. 17, government officials have asked companies to delete dozens of specific Web pages. Most of them have been blocked, but officials have not publicly identified them or specified the sites on which they were hosted. Ministers have blamed groups in Pakistan, a neighbor with which India has tense relations, for creating and uploading many of the hateful pages and doctored images.

A minister in the Indian government, Milind Deora, acknowledged that officials had received assistance from social media sites but said officials were hoping that the companies would move faster.

"There is a sense of importance and urgency, and that's why the government has taken these out-of-the-way decisions with regards to even curtailing communications," Mr. Deora, a junior minister of communications and information technology, said in a telephone interview. "And we are hoping for cooperation from the platforms and companies to help us as quickly as possible."

Indian officials have long been concerned about the power of modern communications to exacerbate strife and tension among the nation's many ethnic and religious groups. While communal violence has broadly declined in the last decade, in part because of faster economic growth, many grievances simmer under the surface. Most recently, fighting between the Bodo tribe and Muslims in the northeastern state of Assam has displaced about half a million people and, through text messages and online posts, affected thousands more across India.

Officials at social media companies, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid offending political leaders, said that they were moving as fast as they could but that policy makers must realize that the company officials have to follow their own internal procedures before deleting content and revealing information like the Internet protocol addresses of users.

"Content intended to incite violence, such as hate speech, is prohibited on Google products where we host content, including YouTube, Google Plus and Blogger," Google said in a statement. "We act quickly to remove such material flagged by our users. We also comply with valid legal requests from authorities wherever possible."

Facebook said in a statement that it also restricts hate speech and "direct calls for violence" and added that it was "working through" requests to remove content. Twitter declined to comment on the Indian government's request.

Telecommunications company executives criticized the government's response to the crisis as being excessive and clumsy. There was no need to limit text messages to just five a day across the country when problems were concentrated in a handful of big cities, said Rajan Mathews, director general of the Cellular Operators Association of India.

"It could have been handled much more tactically," he said.

Others said the government could have been more effective had it quickly countered hateful and threatening speech by sending out its own messages, which it was slow to do when migrants from the northeast began leaving Bangalore on Aug. 15.

"It has to also reach out on social networking and Internet platforms and dismantle these rumors," Mr. Abraham said, "and demonstrate that they are false."


A version of this article appears in print on , Section B, Page 4 of the New York edition with the headline: Internet Moves by India to Stem Rumors and Panic Raise Questions

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background The August 2012 crisis surrounding northeastern migrants represented a critical test of India's capacity to manage communal tensions in the digital age. Violence in Assam between Bodo tribes and Muslim communities had created legitimate concerns about retaliatory attacks, but the government's response revealed deep institutional inadequacies in addressing online misinformation. The exodus of tens of thousands of people from major cities demonstrated how digital rumours could translate into real-world panic with devastating speed. Sunil Abraham's critique that the government "acted appropriately, but without sufficient sophistication" captured a fundamental problem in India's approach to internet governance. The initial directive asking all intermediaries to disable "inflammatory, hateful and inciting violence" content was so sweeping that it became practically unenforceable. Small cybercafés and internet service providers lacked the technical capacity to trawl through networks identifying hate speech, whilst larger platforms like Google and Facebook required specific URLs or clear violations of their policies rather than vague categorical demands. Abraham's observation about the need for counter-messaging highlighted an alternative strategy that governments facing misinformation crises increasingly employ. Rather than relying solely on censorship—which often proves ineffective and creates its own controversies—authorities can actively disseminate accurate information through the same channels spreading falsehoods. The Indian government's delay in issuing reassuring messages whilst migrants were already fleeing Bangalore illustrated this missed opportunity. By the time official communications reached affected populations, panic had already taken hold. The government's decision to limit SMS messages to five per day across the entire country exemplified the blunt-instrument approach that characterised its response. Telecommunications executives rightly noted that problems were concentrated in specific cities, making nationwide restrictions disproportionate and unnecessarily disruptive. This measure particularly affected ordinary citizens conducting routine communication, creating widespread inconvenience without clearly addressing the targeted hate speech driving the crisis. The incident also highlighted persistent tensions between Indian authorities' expectations of control and the operational realities of global technology platforms. Companies operating under US law with international user bases could not simply comply with sweeping demands without following their own procedures for content review. This created inevitable delays that frustrated Indian officials accustomed to more compliant traditional media, yet these procedures existed partly to protect users from arbitrary censorship. The episode demonstrated how ethnic and religious tensions that might have remained localised in earlier eras could now cascade across regions through digital networks. Doctored images from Myanmar and Assam circulated thousands of kilometres away in Bangalore and Mumbai, creating secondary crises disconnected from original events. This new dynamic required governance approaches more nuanced than simple content blocking—a lesson that would recur in subsequent years. ## External Link - Read on The New York Times