X blasts India 'censorship' order
Social media platform X said Tuesday it was "deeply concerned" after the Indian government ordered it last week to block more than 2,000 accounts, including two belonging to the Reuters news agency.
Many of the blocked accounts were restored within hours, and New Delhi denied any role in the takedown.
India, the world's biggest democracy, regularly ranks among the top five countries for the number of requests made by a government to remove social media content.
"On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld," X's Global Government Affairs team said in a statement shared on the platform.
The statement added that India's Ministry of Electronics had "demanded immediate action — within one hour — without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked" until further notice.
An Indian ministry spokesperson denied such an order was issued, saying there was "no intention to block any prominent international news channel".
"The moment Reuters and Reuters World were blocked on X platform in India, immediately the government wrote to 'X' to unblock them," the spokesperson told news agency ANI.
The accounts were taken offline late on Saturday, but had resumed operating by Sunday.
"Non-compliance risked criminal liability," said X, the platform formerly known as Twitter and owned by the world's richest person Elon Musk.
"After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock @Reuters and @ReutersWorld," it added.
"We are deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India due to these blocking orders."
Rights groups say freedom of expression and press freedom have been under threat in India since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014.
New Delhi regularly imposes blanket internet shutdowns during periods of unrest.
In April, India launched a sweeping crackdown on social media, banning more than a dozen Pakistani YouTube channels for allegedly spreading "provocative" content following an attack in Kashmir. Many of those have been restored.
New Delhi has also imposed intermittent internet outages in the northeastern state of Manipur since 2023 in the wake of ethnic violence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Bilawal urges Indian youth to reject hate, war rhetoric from govt
Listen to article Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari urged the people of India to avoid falling prey to disinformation and hate-mongering, stressing that it is easy for the current generation to talk about war. "I just want to tell the people of India that they must be they must avoid disinformation and hate mongerers. It is easy for this generation to talk about war and tell you that every Pakistani is a terrorist, every Pakistani is your enemy; that is not true," he appealed in an interview with Indian journalist Karan Thapar on Wednesday. Bilawal categorically rejected India's claims of Pakistani involvement in terrorism, labelling them as propaganda. "Pakistan does not willingly permit groups you mentioned or any group to conduct terrorist attacks outside of Pakistan but also within Pakistan," he asserted. Addressing the issue of terrorism within the country, the PPP chairman recalled the immense toll Pakistan has suffered, stating, "We have, as you're well aware, faced the brunt of terrorism over the past many decades. Pakistan is fighting and has been fighting the largest inland war against terrorism." He added, 'We've lost 92,000 lives altogether. Just last year, we lost more than 1,200 civilian lives in over 200 different terrorist attacks. At the rate at which terrorist attacks are taking place this year alone, if they continue at this pace, it will be the bloodiest year in Pakistan's history.' Bilawal acknowledged the emotional cost, saying, 'I, too, am a victim of terrorism. I feel the pain of the victims of terrorist attacks. I understand the trauma that their families are experiencing in a way more than many others can ever imagine.' Reflecting on Pakistan's efforts to combat terrorism, he noted the military actions taken in South Waziristan and later in North Waziristan over the years. 'Most recently, we went through a rigorous FATF process with the international community endorsing Pakistan's actions against said terrorist groups,' he shared. Bilawal reiterated Pakistan's offer for an international probe into the Pahalgam attack in India, saying, 'Immediately after that accusation by the Indian government, the prime minister of Pakistan publicly stated that Pakistan is willing to be part of any impartial international inquiry into the incident because our hands are clean.' However, he said, India rejected the offer. He stated the need for mutual cooperation between Pakistan and India on counter-terrorism, adding, "I'd like to see the day where India and Pakistan engage in comprehensive dialogue, which should also include the issue of terrorism so we can collectively combat this menace." The PPP chairman also recalled the 2007 Samjhota Express attack, where 40 Pakistani citizens lost their lives on Indian soil, questioning why there had been no convictions. "We can't ignore saffron terror on one side and then hold another standard by which Pakistan is judged," he said. Highlighting the role of India in fostering terrorism in Pakistan, he referenced the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian spy arrested in Balochistan. 'Most recently, the Jaffar Express attack can be directly linked to facilitators in your intelligence agency," he remarked. Bilawal also raised concerns about India's plans to cut water supplies to Pakistan, calling it a violation of humanitarian principles. 'Indian Prime Minister and your government are threatening to cut off the water supply to 240 million people of Pakistan. This goes against everything it is to be Indian. It goes against the philosophy of Gandhi. It goes against all we've been taught about a secular India." Despite these challenges, he reiterated Pakistan's desire for peace. "We want peace. We can talk together and sort out all our issues," he concluded.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
A blowback of narrative engineering
Listen to article The recent move by National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency to seek a court order against 27 YouTube channels marks yet another chapter in the state's long and complicated history with controlled narratives, political engineering and use of media as a weapon. Most of the YouTubers targeted in this latest crackdown are being accused of promoting an "anti-state" narrative. But to understand how we got here, one must revisit the not-so-distant past, where the voices that are now being criminalised were the chorus, singing praises of the state's chosen political order. Before the fall of Imran Khan's government, many of these journalists aka Youtubers were the darlings of the power elite. One of the now-banned YouTubers, who has since fled abroad, proudly broke the news of Nawaz Sharif's disqualification on his channel. His tone was celebratory, his posture triumphant. That moment symbolised the height of their influence These individuals were not just reporting the news — they were creating it, packaging it to build two carefully crafted perceptions. First, that Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N were inherently corrupt. Second, that Imran Khan was the only saviour who could rescue Pakistan from this swamp of corruption. Even the PPP was not spared. Despite Asif Ali Zardari being one of the most compliant presidents in Pakistan's history — tolerating the removal of his Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, and quietly recalling Ambassador Hussain Haqqani during the Memogate scandal — he was forever branded as "Mr 10 Percent." The 2014 sit-in at D-Chowk, jointly orchestrated by PTI and Tahir-ul-Qadri's PAT, was celebrated, not critiqued, by the same YouTubers now under scrutiny. Their content was a mix of sensationalism and state-sanctioned propaganda, camouflaged as patriotism. But what the state failed to grasp — or perhaps chose to ignore — is that narratives, once unleashed, are not easily controlled. The same platforms that were cultivated to malign one set of political actors eventually turned their gaze elsewhere. When the hybrid model began to crack — when the promised "Naya Pakistan" failed to deliver, when Imran Khan's governance proved hollow, compromised and confused — these same YouTubers pivoted. Some began questioning the very institutions they had once idolised. Others, aligned with Imran Khan's political ideology, refused to toe any new line that emerged after the regime change. With Khan now in the opposition, the institutional support that once helped shape his image into that of a messiah vanished. But the media warriors did not stop. They turned their criticism toward the invisible hands that had orchestrated not just his rise but also his fall. The state, which once weaponised these voices to sow division and discredit democratic parties, now finds itself at the receiving end of the same vitriol. The poison allowed to ferment in the political ecosystem has not dissipated — it has simply changed direction. And now, rather than being used to destabilise political opponents, it is being wielded against the very architects of that destabilisation. Many of the banned YouTubers now live in exile. Others have been jailed or are facing intimidation. Some have lost jobs and rely solely on their YouTube earnings to support their families. This isn't just a story of censorship; it's a case study in narrative collapse. When journalists are nurtured as political tools, when they are paid to promote disinformation and ideological conformity, it does not end with a controlled message. It ends with chaos. Intelligence agencies must realise that domestic political manipulation is a dangerous game. Their role is to protect the state, not to distort the democratic process or create media mouthpieces. If they wish to project a positive image of Pakistan, there are countless international platforms through which to build the country's narrative. But when they entangle themselves in local political rivalries — by nurturing one party and discrediting another — they not only delegitimise democracy, they erode institutional credibility. Pakistan is not suffering from a crisis of political leadership alone, but from a systemic refusal to let institutions function independently. Whether it's manipulating elections, engineering alliances or scripting media narratives, the long-term cost has always outweighed the short-term gain. The fallout is not just political instability but also widespread public distrust, deepening polarisation, and a media industry that lurches from sycophancy to rebellion. The crackdown on YouTubers is not a solution; it is a symptom. A symptom of a state struggling to rein in the chaos it once helped unleash. If the state truly wants stability, it must start by ending the practice of nurturing journalists as touts and stop interfering in the political process. Let the media hold power accountable — whichever party is in power. Let institutions operate within their constitutional limits. And let the people, not power brokers, decide who governs them. Until then, every narrative engineered in the shadows will eventually break free — and when it does, it will haunt its creators far more than its targets.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Military notes of Indo-Pak conflict: inferences and conclusions
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article This article concludes this series covering the four-day Indo-Pak war in May 2025. The war crossed previous thresholds in geographic reach, systems employed and produced unprecedented levels of mis/dis-information, that to this day cloud a clearer understanding specially from the Indian side. It ended after significant diplomatic engagement, primarily by the US. The war saw many military firsts like: India using cruise missiles (BrahMos, SCALP-EG); Pakistan employing conventionally armed short-range ballistic missiles (Fatah Series); armed drone warfare between any nuclear armed neighbours; and the conflict being the largest aerial, EW, AI, psy-warfare duel. Whereas India delivered precise standoff attacks across Pakistan, our AD interfered and intercepted some attempted strikes. Yet, Pakistan needs more robust AD, asset hardening and intelligence. No fighter jets reportedly crossed over into the other side's airspace, signifying the seriousness of AD threat. This implies Pakistan to continue to augment the BVR (beyond visual range) capability of PAF. IAF loss of up to six planes remains the largest military cost for India's arrogant belligerence. Indian propaganda claims of intercepting Pakistani drones and missiles need further investigation. Although attention was riveted primarily to the air and drone campaigns, the ground fighting along the LoC in Kashmir was deadly, causing most of the casualties. This crisis involved innovative use of several weapons systems, neither side used during their last crisis in 2019. It would necessitate relevant defence acquisitions and doctrinal innovations by Pakistan, especially in drone and anti-drone technology, missile regime and precision, and asset hardening. Next crisis, under the prevalent Indian military thinking, might see greater and escalatory usage of cruise and ballistic missiles, armed drones, air force, long-range fires, and sabotage, imposing preparedness and readiness on Pakistan. Operationally, Pakistan fused air, missile, cyber, space and EW effects under a unified command. Next generation Chinese sensors, data links, and electronic-attack pods equipped PAF pilots, already more proficient in night and terrain-masking profiles, with the network advantage to undermine Rafaeles. Integrated EW suites blinded Indian command circuits, long enough for standoff munitions to hit with impunity. Because of inadequate pilot training and tactical cohesiveness, the IAF could not take advantage of Rafaele's Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar and Meteor BVR missiles, hence PAF controlled the airspace by integrating J-10Cs with Link-17 for real-time coordinated dogfighting tactics. The qualitative pilot and platform edge, augmented by sophistication of PAF's information grid, remained decisive and needs to be maintained and honed. Continued investment in kill chains like the C4ISR (Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) supremacy, that out-networked India, which invested in platforms, would remain the way to go. Cyber defence, AI-based surveillance, counterintelligence and multi-domain operations should be Pakistan's preparedness hallmarks. The Indian assumption of having created a 'new normal', that of striking Pakistan proper aggressively, believing to have space for a punitive war under the nuclear overhang, although debunked significantly, needs further robust and aggressive response. A meaningful deterrence would be announcement of Pakistan's nuclear policy. From 'No-No-First Use', it should stipulate 'First-Use' against Indian aggression in future, to prevent Modi from orchestrating staged and false-flag operations. Throughout the crisis, both sides worked to calibrate escalation and showed some ability to manage escalation. Pakistan's May 7/8 drone offensive and Indian retaliatory targeting of Nur Khan airbase were escalatory, yet Islamabad showed greater maturity by restraining itself from downing more Indian planes on May 7, and avoiding more damage when India was forced to ground Rafaeles; and S-400 batteries at Udhampur and Adampur were destroyed, lending command of the air to PAF. The cost of the crisis for India is almost 7.5 times higher than for Pakistan, and 'may' induce some caution on Modi's adventurism. India's assessed damage is over $1.789 billion, compared to Pakistan's $236 million. This includes, on both sides, damage to military and civilian infrastructure i.e. airbases, aircraft losses, border posts, UAVs, radar systems, fuel depots; civilian houses, schools, hospitals, roads, border towns, communication towers; trade disruption losses; stock market impact; tourism & service sector losses; flight grounding; energy infrastructure damage; defense production halt; and foreign investment fallout etc. After losing Rafaeles, the world's markets witnessed decline in its manufacturer, the French Dassault's shares. Without meaningful international interlocutions, the crisis-prone India-Pakistan relationship will ensure peace only till another crisis erupts. Indian intransigence against composite dialogue, suggested repeatedly by Islamabad, will only constrain India's great power ambition. South Block's disdainful reluctance to hyphenate India-Pakistan relations is no more taken by Washington, which under Trump will gravitate towards a more transactional relationship with New Delhi, to be based upon 'interests' (containing China) and not' ideology' (India, the largest democracy). Pakistan's gains also include internationalising the Kashmir issue. The US crisis management was decisive, especially in the closing hours, when India was unable to stabilise the situation. The US-brokered ceasefire gave Islamabad a diplomatic upper hand, as Trump cajoled India. Pakistan must be careful about increased Indo-Israel bonhomie. Keeping the US in good humour, hence, is vital for Islamabad, given the US-Israel networking. In strategic and diplomatic arena, Pakistan's measured, calm and calibrated responses as against Indian jingoism changed the strategic equilibrium and might force India to re-evaluate future escalations. The conflict attracted worldwide attention, and most nations urged restraint and communications, gravitating to Pakistan's position of commitment to peace, stability and national defence. Pakistan's military professionalism, readiness, leadership and deterrence, throughout the crisis, highlighted India's dangerous political irresponsibility. The launch of Operation Sindoor itself was a blatant act of pre-emptive aggression, motivated more by internal politics and raw bravado. India upended the regional strategic status quo, violated international law, and LoC protocols by starting the conflict; Pakistan only retaliated to respond to Indian provocations, demonstrating strategic prudence. The conflict was a strategic setback for India, which found itself equated with Pakistan, a smaller, weaker country. The war unified Pakistan's fractured political forces, and its military regained its characteristic popularity. Pakistan's political leadership now seems more willing to strengthen the military. Media handling and information dissemination by the ISPR was mature and organised, compared to India, where military officials and media mostly promoted fictional, false and hyper-nationalist jingoistic themes. Indian briefings created controversy about Indian spokesperson, Col Sofiya Qureshi's religion. Indian media lost credibility over news like India taking control of Karachi Port, etc. In sum, Pakistan emerged taller from the crisis.
