Satire silenced: Indian artists face censorship as anti-Modi protests grow

What happened to Brijesh Jha's parody video and why did Meta say it was removed?

Brijesh Jha made a parody video after his name, his father’s name and his sister’s name disappeared from a voter list in West Bengal. The video accused Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar of disenfranchising millions for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP. It turned a personal voting grievance into a public protest about India’s election system.

The video was posted on Instagram on September 29 and attracted 1.7 million views. Two days later, Meta, Instagram’s United States-based owner, removed it. Meta’s stated reason was “local laws,” but it did not identify the law or explain which part of the video violated it.

Jha said he felt helpless and believed the government was scared after an Indian Express investigation raised concerns about the voter-roll revision. His case became an example of how political satire and online criticism were being restricted alongside street protests.

What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of India's voter rolls?

The Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, is a review of India’s voter rolls. Its stated purpose is to identify people who are deceased, listed more than once or considered “dubious,” then remove them from the electoral register. The Election Commission launched the exercise across the country in June last year.

SIR matters because voter lists determine who can cast a ballot. Removing inaccurate entries can improve the rolls, but removing eligible voters can prevent them from participating. In the article, critics focused on whether the process was being conducted fairly and transparently.

The exercise became politically explosive after more than 130 million voters were deleted. The article says an overwhelming number were Muslims, who do not usually vote for Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP. Opposition parties demanded an independent inquiry into decisions made during the revision.

How many voters have reportedly been removed through the SIR exercise, and what proportion of India's electorate does that represent?

The SIR exercise has reportedly removed more than 130 million voters from India’s electoral rolls. The article describes this as nearly 14 percent of the country’s total voters. That makes the revision an exceptionally large administrative action, not a minor correction to voter records.

The stated mechanism is a search for deceased, duplicate or “dubious” voters. However, the article says an overwhelming number of those deleted were Muslims, a group that does not usually vote for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP. That pattern intensified opposition claims that the revision could affect political competition.

The reported scale has fueled protests and demands for an independent inquiry. Two election commissioners allegedly objected repeatedly to key decisions connected with SIR. The controversy therefore concerns both the number of deletions and whether eligible citizens were wrongly excluded from voting.

Why did opposition parties and critics accuse India's Election Commission of helping the BJP through the voter-roll revision?

Opposition parties and critics accused the Election Commission of helping the BJP because the voter-roll revision reportedly removed an overwhelming number of Muslims. The article notes that Muslims do not usually vote for Modi’s Hindu nationalist party. Removing eligible voters from that community could therefore change who is able to participate in elections.

Their allegations also focused on the Election Commission’s leadership. Gyanesh Kumar, appointed by the Modi government, was accused of acting at the BJP’s behest. An Indian Express investigation reported that two of Kumar’s fellow commissioners formally objected at least 14 times to key decisions connected with SIR.

These claims led to demands for Kumar’s resignation and an independent inquiry. They also triggered street protests. The BJP rejected the accusations, saying opposition parties were trying to change the government and attacking India’s democracy and constitutional institutions.

What can happen to an election or to public trust in democracy when eligible voters are wrongly removed from voter lists?

When eligible voters are wrongly removed, they may be unable to vote even though they remain citizens entitled to participate. If many people are excluded, an election may not reflect the preferences of the full electorate. The effect can be especially serious when removals are concentrated in a particular community or political constituency.

The article illustrates this concern through Brijesh Jha, who said his name, his father’s and his sister’s disappeared from a West Bengal voter list. It also reports that more than 130 million voters were deleted nationally, with an overwhelming number reportedly Muslim. Critics connected these removals to possible political advantage for the BJP.

Such disputes can damage public trust even when the final effect on results is uncertain. People may question election officials, demand investigations or protest in the streets. The article describes demonstrations demanding Kumar’s resignation and an independent inquiry into the Election Commission’s decisions.

How do India's new online-content rules change the time social-media platforms have to remove government- or court-declared unlawful content?

India’s new online-content rules sharply shorten the time platforms have to remove material declared unlawful. Previously, social-media companies had 36 hours after receiving an order. Under the rules introduced in February, they must remove the content within three hours.

The rule applies when a government authority or a court has declared content “unlawful.” It places more pressure on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and YouTube to respond quickly to official demands. The article links the tighter deadline to a broader crackdown on memes, jokes and online criticism.

The reported scale is substantial. The Indian Express said the government issued nearly 195,000 blocking orders to those platforms between March and July this year, averaging one every 68 seconds. The government rejected the report’s implication, citing India’s 600 million users and enormous volume of posts.

Why are satire, cartoons, memes and comedy important tools for criticizing people in power in a democracy?

Satire, cartoons, memes and comedy give people accessible ways to question those in power. They can make complicated political issues understandable, memorable and widely shareable. In a democracy, that public criticism helps expose concerns and gives citizens ways to express dissent beyond formal political speeches.

The article shows this through Brijesh Jha’s parody song and Satish Acharya’s cartoons. Jha protested the removal of family members from a voter list and criticised the Election Commission. Acharya said several cartoons, including some up to three years old, were removed, and his Instagram account was blocked in India for several days.

These tools also matter because they connect online discussion with street protest. The Cockroach Janta Party and left-wing students used humour, art and music in demonstrations. Their removal or restriction can narrow public debate and make people fear that criticism will be silenced.

Key Facts:

📌 Jha’s parody video reached 1.7 million views before removal.

📌 Meta removed the Instagram video two days after posting.

📌 Meta cited “local laws” without further explanation.

📌 SIR identifies deceased, duplicate or “dubious” voters.

📌 The Election Commission launched SIR across India in June last year.

📌 Critics questioned the fairness and transparency of the exercise.

📌 More than 130 million voters were reportedly deleted.