THE CENSORSHIP PARADOX: ABHIJEET DIPKE ASKS WHETHER MODI COULD HAVE RISEN IF MANMOHAN SINGH HAD CURBED FACEBOOK AND WHATSAPP
October 28, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 28, 2026 — Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the satirical political outfit Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), has criticised the Narendra Modi government over reported restrictions on Instagram posts and accounts, arguing that suppressing online criticism cannot eliminate the public grievances driving it. Drawing a comparison with the social-media environment during former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's tenure, Dipke questioned whether Modi could have achieved his political rise if Facebook and WhatsApp had faced comparable restrictions at the time.
“Imagine if Manmohan Singh had cracked down on Facebook and WhatsApp the way Modi is doing with Instagram today. Would Modi have made it this far?” Dipke wrote on social media.
His remarks come amid mounting complaints from political critics, cartoonists, comedians and activists that their content has been removed or their accounts made inaccessible to users in India. The controversy has intensified questions about the relationship between government-directed online restrictions, freedom of expression and the public's ability to scrutinise those in power.
DIPKE: REMOVING POSTS WILL NOT REMOVE PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
In a series of posts, Dipke argued that Instagram is a medium through which people communicate concerns that originate beyond the digital sphere. He said that removing accounts and posts would not resolve the underlying issues being discussed online.
“The government is taking down thousands of posts and accounts every day,” he wrote, contending that the approach risked deepening distrust rather than addressing the causes of public dissatisfaction.
Dipke's criticism frames the dispute as more than a disagreement over individual social-media posts. His argument is that restrictions on digital expression cannot, by themselves, resolve questions about employment, governance, public infrastructure, electoral administration and other matters raised by citizens.
The comparison with Manmohan Singh's government is intended to highlight the political importance of social media in contemporary India. Platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp played an increasingly prominent role in political communication during the years preceding Modi's rise to national power. Dipke's question asks whether a comparable clampdown during that period might have affected the opposition's ability to mobilise support.
This is a political counterfactual rather than an established conclusion about what would have happened under different policies.
A WIDER CONTROVERSY OVER ONLINE RESTRICTIONS
Dipke's intervention follows reports of government agencies issuing large numbers of blocking orders affecting major social-media platforms.
According to a report by The Indian Express cited by The Telegraph, central and state government agencies issued approximately 1.95 lakh blocking orders involving Instagram, Facebook and YouTube between March and July 2026. The reported orders were issued through mechanisms that included the Union home ministry's Sahyog portal. A single order can cover multiple pieces of content or accounts, so the number of orders should not be interpreted as an equivalent number of individual posts or users affected.
The figure has added to concerns among critics about the scale of online restrictions and the transparency of the processes through which they are implemented.
The government can require online platforms to restrict content under applicable legal provisions, including Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, subject to the relevant statutory procedures. Authorities may invoke legal grounds for restricting content, while critics argue that broad or insufficiently explained restrictions can impede legitimate political expression.
The central issue is therefore not simply whether governments possess legal powers to order content removal, but how those powers are exercised, what reasons are provided and what remedies are available to people whose accounts or posts are restricted.
CARTOONISTS AND COMEDIANS REPORT RESTRICTIONS
Several prominent cartoonists and satirists have reported difficulties accessing or distributing their work to Indian audiences.
Cartoonist Satish Acharya said his Instagram profile was inaccessible to users in India on two occasions between September and October. During one reported restriction, from September 28 to October 6, users in India were unable to locate the profile through search or access it through a web link.
Another cartoonist, Manjul, published criticism of the Election Commission of India's handling of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. His post was reportedly not visible to Instagram users in India.
Comedians Brijesh Jha, Kajol Srinivasan and Pulkit Mani have also reported restrictions affecting their content. Jha's widely viewed video satirised the Election Commission over voter-list deletions in Bengal ahead of the 2026 Assembly election.
Pulkit Mani used a familiar internet meme format to portray a fictional dilemma involving censorship, copyright and information-technology rules, with a caricature resembling Modi. The post illustrated the concerns of satirists who fear that humour and political criticism can become vulnerable to restrictions framed in legal or regulatory language.
According to reporting cited by The Telegraph, Meta has said that accounts may be temporarily restricted to comply with India's Information Technology Rules. However, the company did not publicly explain the specific reasons behind every restriction discussed in the reports.
The absence of a clear explanation in individual cases has contributed to demands for greater transparency.
THE 'BRING BACK BALLOT' CASE REACHES DELHI HIGH COURT
The dispute has also entered the judicial arena.
The operators of the Instagram account Bring Back Ballot, which campaigns for a return to paper ballots in elections, approached the Delhi High Court after the account became inaccessible to users in India.
The petition was filed by Mission Save Constitution and its national convenor, advocate Mehmood Pracha. The organisation said its account, which had more than 50,000 followers, was blocked on October 10, the day it planned a protest at Jantar Mantar under the slogan “EVM Hatao Desh Bachao”.
The petitioners argued that restricting the entire account was disproportionate and said they had not received prior notice, a detailed explanation or a copy of the order directing the restriction.
On October 27, Justice Amit Mahajan issued notice to the Centre and Meta Platforms, seeking their responses. The matter was listed for further hearing on November 6.
The issuance of notice means the court has sought responses from the parties; it does not amount to a final ruling on the legality of the restriction. The proceedings could nevertheless become significant in determining how courts examine claims concerning account blocking, procedural transparency and the proportionality of online restrictions.
THE POLITICAL IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Dipke's comparison invokes a central feature of India's political transformation over the past decade: the growing role of digital platforms in shaping public debate and political mobilisation.
Social media has enabled political parties, independent commentators, campaigners and ordinary citizens to communicate directly with audiences without relying exclusively on established news organisations. It has also created new challenges involving misinformation, unlawful content, privacy, incitement and the enforcement of legal restrictions.
For governments, content moderation and blocking mechanisms can be presented as tools for enforcing the law and addressing legitimate public concerns. For critics, opaque restrictions can create uncertainty about the boundaries of lawful dissent and make it difficult to challenge decisions that affect political communication.
These competing concerns make transparency and accountability especially important. Restrictions should be assessed against the legal basis invoked, the specific content involved, the reasons provided and the availability of an effective review process.
THE UNRESOLVED QUESTION OF DIGITAL FREEDOM
Dipke's remarks have brought the broader debate into sharp focus: can a government meaningfully address public dissatisfaction by restricting the channels through which citizens express it?
His answer is that the grievances will persist regardless of whether particular posts remain online. The comparison with Manmohan Singh's tenure also raises a question about whether political competition can remain fair when digital communication is subject to extensive restrictions.
The reported blocking orders, complaints from creators and pending court proceedings offer distinct pieces of a developing dispute. They do not, on their own, establish that every restriction was unlawful or politically motivated. Determining that requires examining the circumstances and legal basis of individual orders.
What remains clear is that social-media regulation has become an important issue in India's debate over freedom of expression and government accountability. The outcome of the Bring Back Ballot case and the explanations provided by authorities and platforms may help clarify the safeguards available to users.
For now, Dipke's challenge is both political and practical: restricting the medium through which questions are raised does not necessarily resolve the problems that prompted those questions. The lasting test of digital governance will be whether the state can enforce the law transparently while preserving meaningful space for criticism, satire and public scrutiny
