Being the fourth pillar of democracy, the media has always been an impediment for politicians hungry for power. While its job is to bring out the truth in front of the public, politicians have always succeeded in implementing policies that limit its ability to speak out. These policies are at times presented quite appealingly in the form of laws, but it’s the journalists who are aware of the monstrosity that lies behind it all.

Under the guise of enacting laws to curb terrorism, these laws have been constantly used against common citizens, journalists, and students who chose to criticise the Union. Throughout the course of history, the government of India has imposed censorship and other laws, mainly to cover up its shortcomings. The 

 are some examples. Making illegitimate use of such laws, governments have been able to ensure restrictions on press freedom, at times giving the excuse that journalists and media reports are a “threat to national security.”

 in 1975 imposed complete censorship of the press during the emergency, prohibiting all domestic and international news. In 2016, the Srinagar-based newspaper “

” was asked to stop production on grounds that it contained context that tends to incite violence. Recently, the 

 featuring Prime Minister Nadrendra Modi and his role during the 

While many activists have been constantly fighting against the abolition of such laws, the government of India announced the creation of a fact-check unit, which imposes even more restrictions on the freedom of the press.

Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023

” of the central government to identify fake, false, or misleading information that is solely concerned with the central government. The purpose is to prevent the spread of misinformation and ensure harmony in the country without diminishing any fundamental values of the citizens

The department will investigate online comments, news reports, and opinions about ministries and government officials. Any content flagged as fake or misleading will have to be taken down by the intermediary platforms like 

 within a stipulated time limit to avoid any legal action, and internet service providers like 

 will have to block URLs to the content. Failure to do so could lead to social media platforms losing the safe harbour protection offered to them under Section 79 of the IT Act, according to which an intermediary shall not be held liable for any third-party data or communication link hosted by it. Moreover, the government has laid down no provisions that specify what it deems fake. This means that the units’ decisions will be highly subjective and not susceptible to judicial review, unless, of course, the concerned party moves to court. Whilst there is an increasing tension regarding the misuse of this power by the centre, the Minister of State for Electronics and IT says that these doubts will be soon addressed.

The move has faced considerable criticism by the 

, civil rights activists, the News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and several independent lawyers and journalists who stated that the determination of fake news cannot be in the sole hands of the government.

Even after much criticism, the central government has not withdrawn the creation of the fact-check unit. It has now announced certain amendments to the act to make it appear more appetizing, which seem to be only gift-wrapping this draconian step.

This measure has been put forth under the pretext of curbing the spread of misinformation, but in fact seems to widen the scope of online censorship. It gives the government a free, non-answerable way to flag any information critical of the government as misleading. No democracy in the world puts such restrictions on freedom of expression. It gives intermediaries absolutely no option for escaping this censorship exercise other than to face a lawsuit.

Misinformation can instigate violence, but the very basis of this framework is a threat to digital expression. Keeping in mind that “

a free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad

,” citizens need to grasp the gravity of this situation. We live in a society where laws are increasingly weaponised to curb opposition and dissent. If not now, then in a few years, a law such as this one will be misused by the government, as it always has been. This unit of the central government responsible for fact-checking whatever is reported seems more like a unit of the central government keeping everything that is being reported in check.

Fact-check Unit : A free pass for the Government to enforce Censorship

For a long time, video games have been heavily criticised for the violent aggression they inflict on their users, especially teenagers. In the midst of all this altercation, there came into existence several social media challenges that led their users, particularly teenagers, into self-harm, which often proved deadly.

 was an online social media group in which administrators asked users to complete a series of challenges that culminated in their killing themselves. The game instructs participants to complete 50 tasks over the course of 50 days, such as carving specific phrases or symbols on their hands, watching scary videos, waking up at odd hours, and so on. As the game progresses towards its final day, it results in suicide of the participant. The participant must demonstrate completion of the task by sending proof, such as photographs, to the “

.” According to reports, the game is to blame for hundreds of teen suicides worldwide. The creator of the game admitted that the victims of the game are ‘

Some bizarre challenges surfacing over social media platforms like 

 This challenge gained popularity when teenagers began choking themselves to get high. The players were actually cutting the oxygen supply to their brain, leading to a temporary euphoria. This single game has claimed 250 to 1,000 lives per year in the US alone.

: In this game, salt is poured on the body before immediately placing ice over it. This creates a burning sensation. The player has to bear the pain for the longest time. This game can be deadly. Ice, water, and salt mixtures can cause second- and third-degree burns.

: Directly playing with vulnerable kids, this game makes teenagers cut themselves on purpose, click pictures of the injuries, and upload these online.

: Cinnamon, which is a healthy food, can prove to be ghastly for health if taken in an uncontrolled manner. In this challenge, teenagers are asked to swallow a spoonful of cinnamon without drinking water. This amount of cinnamon can collapse your lungs and also cause choking. There have been cases in which people have died from this challenge.

The rising number of deaths in the name of “

” calls for understanding the idea behind getting attracted to such life-threatening games. Psychologists worldwide feel that people, especially youngsters, are increasingly turning to external sources of validation. This is aided by drawbacks in present parenting styles that push teenagers into isolation, who are then often enveloped by online games that draw them into the limelight.

Analysis of suicide-themed Instagram posts indicate that self-harm was present in the majority of the posts. Posts about suicide ideation elicited higher engagement than posts that did not. Such challenges give teenagers their privacy, the attention, and the validation they yearn for.

This dark side of the internet calls for attention to transforming the social system, particularly in the field of mental health issues.

Self-harm driven by External Validation

A factoid is an imitation of a fact. They act as a modern and easy substitute for truth, blurring the line between reality and fiction. In political discourse, the distinction between facts and factoids is extremely complex. They are created to serve to a variety of purposes, which would include aiding politicians in covering up their shortcomings with lies.

A factoid is an imitation of a fact. The difference between fact and factoid is that they do not correspond to reality. In terms of content, factoids correlate with lies, rumours, or artistic fiction. They either completely imitate facts or are expressed with the help of evidence of the unreliability of information.

This seemingly candid mode of communication fills an important role in the postmodern world. Think tank scholars often did not see their jobs as discovering facts; they saw their jobs as creating factoids. Factoids, however, are not facts but are treated like one. They are promulgated by a credulous media, the content of which looks plausible. These factoids act as a modern and easy substitute for truth, blurring the line between reality and fiction.

In the social sphere, it is widely believed that hunger would no longer be an issue if a country achieved food security. However, with the current rise in prices of fuel and other items in 

, it proves to be an exacerbating problem, especially for the economically weaker sections.

The differentiation of facts and factoids in political discourse is very complex due to the specificity of factuality itself. For example, the claims that the 

 will solve the problem of illegal migrants from 

 stand opposed to the lack of clarity regarding the aftermath. The migrants cannot be deported since there is no agreement between India and Bangladesh on this issue. Those identified would be persecuted and left without any rights. The misconceptions about the extent of success of the 

 is yet another example of a politically induced factoid.

The possible factoids are produced to foster a positive perception of state affairs in the country, such as the pronounced long-term benefits of demonetization in tackling corruption and consequent GDP growth in the country; to create a negative perception of life in other countries, for example, the 

 constantly vowing to preserve the so-called international order that is designed to serve the US’s own interests and perpetuate its hegemony against 

; to entertain the public in order to promote certain ideas or products, like the common misconception of cow urine having the properties to cure cancer and other diseases, or to frighten the public in order to justify certain ideologically important actions. For instance, the typical misbelief among the lower illiterate section of the society about the threat of “

” to the nation, who, according to them, deserve to be arrested but who in fact happen to be educated men and women, choosing to criticize the government and protest against India’s deeply exploitative social order.

We live in a world of factoids, which do not necessitate an emotional and personal transmission of “

.” A confident addressee may mention factoids in a serious communication, which vary in their levels of credibility when replicated by media organisations.

The World of Factoids

stand opposed to the lack of clarity regarding the aftermath. The migrants cannot be deported since there is no agreement between India and Bangladesh on this issue. Those identified would be persecuted and left without any rights. The misconceptions about the extent of success of the 

A world of factoids

The Union Cabinet in December 2021 cleared a proposal to raise the 

marriageable age for women across India from 18 to 21 years

. The bill now lies before the Standing Committee for further evaluation, a few steps away from becoming a law.

 to raise the minimum age of marriage for girls from 18 to 21 years, quashing any other customs or practices. The bill also increases the minimum age for application of annulment of marriage, i.e., before attaining majority (before 20 years of age for girls). The bill now allows women to apply for annulment of marriage till 23 years of age, i.e., for up to five years.

A woman is considered an adult upon attaining the age of 18 years. This implies that all laws meant for adult citizens of the country would apply to her. It would include her being allowed to vote, sign a contract, attain a driver’s license or be tried as an adult if she’s involved in a criminal case. However, according to the proposed bill, a woman is still not old enough to exercise her choice of getting married. This is also the current status of males in our country. Attaining the age of majority at 18, while not being permitted to marry until the age of 21, may have implications for the rights and obligations of people aged 18 to 21.

According to the government, raising the marriageable age will help achieve a variety of goals, including further declines in MMR and IMR, improvements in nutrition levels, sex ratio at birth, female labor force participation, and gender equality. But data on MMR and IMR shows that these indicators have already been improving in the country. There is no credible data to suggest that 

 is the major reason for the high MMR and IMR. There may be other factors like health, nutrition, and lack of medical facilities that contribute to it. While the government intends to improve education among women, this move may eventually lead to a rise in the number of underage marriages.

Under the new law, underage marriages would be considered null, and women would be allowed to approach the court for annulment of marriage up to the age of 23, which would help young girls who are forced into marriage and want to come out of it. However, for many poor families, marrying off their daughters is seen as a solution to deal with 

 against their daughters. Raising the legal age of marriage would mean that a much larger section of society, mainly the poor, would face punitive measures.

If child marriages are considered null and void in the eyes of the law, it would mean the spouse would have no right to maintenance, no marital rights, and no right to inheritance, and the man would face no legal consequences if he married again. Moreover, marriages considered null and void in the eyes of the law would still have social validity. A young girl who is married just becomes a spouse without any legal protection. Raising the age of marriage would result in many more such young girls who would have no legal protection or even recognition under the law. Steps must instead be taken to tackle the ongoing issues faced by young girls.

Critics of the proposed bill argue that this increase in the minimum age for marriage would be counterproductive. They say that this would deprive young girls of their rights as adults and would be misused by parents as a tool to keep them under their control.

NFHS (2019-21), 23% of women aged 20 to 24 married before the age of 18

. However, only 785 cases were registered in 2020. This means that there has been limited success in curbing marriage below the age of 18 years. The current PCMA law treats underage marriage as valid but voidable. It gives social workers flexibility in negotiating with the families involved. Using laws at the village level may have severe repercussions (e.g., 

 was gang-raped for stopping child marriage).

The supreme court has said that the right to marry is a part of the right to life under 

. It further stated that this right could not be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair. In a case in 2018, the supreme court held that the consensual choice of two adults to be together is recognized under 

. It also held that consensual sexual activities between two consenting adults are fundamental rights under 

articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian constitutio

n. If the bill were passed, it would be legal for two consenting adults to have sexual relationships but illegal to marry between the ages of 18 and 21. Again, this is also the current status of males in India.

Several national and international committees recommend making 18 years the legal age of marriage for both boys and girls. The current law is based on the archaic assumption that girls mature earlier than boys. However, it must be noted that due to the prevalence of hypergamy, bringing down the age of marriage for boys would result in people desiring a bride of age 14-16 years for a man of age 18. Hence, the government must focus on strengthening the current laws rather than introducing changes without any secure foundation.

The proposed law essentially puts off the existing problems, even while effort must be made to address domestic abuse, early pregnancies, etc., and new laws must be passed to address issues like 

It is crucial for the state to envision a certain future for women in the country, but the proposed legislation would impose a drastic shift without addressing the circumstances that necessitate such legislation in the first place. Adulthood is not divisible. The law seems to be limiting a woman’s rights under the pretext of women’s empowerment. There is no hard-core evidence to prove that raising the marriageable age would benefit society in any way. In fact, it might end up guiding us away from the core issues.

Articles by Bushra Faridi

Fact-check Unit : A free pass for the Government to enforce Censorship

Self-harm driven by External Validation

The World of Factoids

A world of factoids

How realistic is it to raise the Marriage-able Age for Women in India?

Fact-check Unit : A free pass for the Government to enforce Censorship

Self-harm driven by External Validation

The World of Factoids

A world of factoids

How realistic is it to raise the Marriage-able Age for Women in India?