Peace talks halted after RSS objection: NSCN-IM
The Naga peace talks have stalled because of objections raised by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological parent of the Bharatiya Janata Party, on issues of a separate constitution and flag, the Isak Muivah- led National Socialist Council of Nagalim ( NSCN- IM) has claimed in a statement.
The demand for a separate flag and constitution are “component ingredients” of the framework agreement (FA) of the Naga insurgent group signed with the Centre in August 2015, the NSCN-IM said on Monday.
“The irony is that this matter was already resolved long back but the RSS factor came in between, questioning how there can be two flags and two constitutions,” the statement said.
“The manifesto of the RSS/ Hindutva sharply contradicted the principle agreement of the FA. The actual point of delay started from here.”
The insurgent group entered into a ceasefire agreement with the central government in 1997 and the two sides have been holding political dialogus since then. A group of seven Naga national political groups (NNPGs) also engaged in separate talks with the Centre in 2017.
The Centre signed an FA with NSCN (IM) in 2015, and an “agreed position” with the NNPGs in 2017.
Officials of the home affairs ministry did not comment.
The Centre should not allow a separate flag and constitution for Nagas, an RSS leader said. “... Every state in the country has to accept our national flag and the Constitution,” the leader added, asking not to be named.
The people of Nagaland have no problem in honouring the national flag and the Constitution and it is only the NSCN-IM that is insisting on them, he added.
The government is discussing a proposal to make intermediaries such as Facebook and Twitter “accountable” for fake news and handling of unlawful/ harmful information, people familiar with the matter told HT.
The move is part of proposed amendments to the rules under the Information Technology Act, which gives the administration the prerogative to spell out additional compliances not specified under the parent law.
“The proposal is part of the amendment that is still under consultation,” said an official familiar with the matter.
“The government wants intermediaries to be a lot more proactive in addressing fake news. The onus is on them to check veracity of facts and expeditiously address them, whether it is reported or not. They can employ fact checkers if they want to.”
While the draft does not characterise fake news in particular, the official quoted above said two clauses are meant to effectively crack down on the problem. One of these says an intermediary cannot “deceive or mislead the addressee about the origin of the message or knowingly and intentionally communicate any information which is patently false or misleading in nature but may reasonably be perceived as a fact”.
The other states flags information that “is patently false and untrue, and is written or published in any form, with the intent to mislead or harass a person, entity or agency for financial gain or to cause any injury to any person”.
The draft includes several amendments and is known as the draft amendment to the IT Rules, 2021. It was circulated for public feedback in June, but that it would also apply to so-called fake news has only now been clarified.
Soon after the draft was shared, it was mired in controversy for proposing a grievance appeals committee for social media content moderation that would be ultimately headed by the government – a suggestion that companies and activists said would give the administration disproportionate power to police speech.
The person quoted in the first instance said the government wants to ensure an open, trusted and accountable internet, a message the administration has repeatedly asserted.
Some experts believe that this is needed — especially given the lack of accountability of large technology firms that function like media companies, but without any of the required checks in place.
NS Nappinai, Supreme Court advocaye and founder of Cyber Saathi, said: “Laws and regulations to check fake news and disinformation are certainly needed but the same has to balance safe harbour rights vested in Intermediaries through the parent act with speedy takedown compliance. It is trite to clarify that where a platform ‘knowingly or intentionally misleads” it in any event is not protected under the exemption under Section 79 of IT Act”.
“Any law proposed has to delineate such instances from those of dissemination of third party content for which Intermediaries have protections under parliament enacted law, and with respect to which the executive cannot exceed its remit under delegated legislation” Nappinai explained.
Another expert said it may be hard also because it opens up all content to policing.
“We’re often dealing with things that may be neither fake nor news. But more importantly, the term has lost meaning over the last 4-5 years as it has been used to dismiss any opposing views/opinions,” said Prateek Waghre, policy director at the Internet Freedom Foundation adding that there was a definitional issue with the term ‘fake news’.
He added that”this opens up room for selective enforcement, as has been the case with many ostensibly ‘anti-disinformation laws’ around the world (e.g. Singapore’s PoFMA, or see Russia’s selective enforcement of whatever laws they have on their books),” he added.
As per current Indian laws, content that poses a threat to national security and integrity of India, or is a threat to public order, can be dealt with by the government under section 69A of the information technology act.
THE GROUP SAID DEMAND FOR A SEPARATE FLAG, CONSTITUTION ARE ‘COMPONENT INGREDIENTS’ OF THE FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT (FA)
THE MOVE IS PART OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES UNDER THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT