nick: you are watching al jazeera. the u.s. says it will designate russia's wagner group is a transnational criminal organization. the white house national security spokesman john kirby says the private military group has about 13,000 fighters in ukraine, most of them drawn from prisons. >> we continue to assess that wagner has approximately 50,000 personnel deployed to ukraine, including 10,000 contractors and 40,000 convicts. our information indicates the russian defense ministry has reservations about wagner's

recruitment methods. reassess it is likely wagner will continue to recruit right out of russian prisons. due to recent events, we assess it is likely there are mounting tensions between russian officials and mr. pegula. >> lloyd austin says washington is committed to supporting ukraine. officials meant germany to coordinate military support for kyiv. they promised more weapons but germany has not decided whether it will provide tanks. protests continue in peru's capital calling for the resignation of the president. he has accused protesters of wanting to overturn the government after demonstrations turned violent on thursday. police in brazil have carried out raids searching for those responsible for the january 8 riots in the capitol area supporters of former president gyre bolsonaro attacked

government buildings. chris upton's is set to replace just send a return as new zealand's prime minister. he is currently the police minister but has held high-profile roles in education and health and served as minister for covid-19 response. there has been a new attack on a camp for displaced people in eastern democratic republic of congo. thank you and says at least seven people were killed. asylum-seekers tried to reach europe in our forcibly returned from italy. those are the headlines. the news continues after "insights rate. stay with us for that. --the news continues after "inside story." stay with us for that.

nick: the indian government is proposing tough measures to clamp down on what it considers fake news. opposition parties and journalists say it is simply state censorship. what do the plans mean for media freedom? are they necessary to stamp out disinformation? this is "inside story." ♪ nick: hello and welcome to the program. i am dick clark. plans by the indian government to stop the spread of fake news are making headlines themselves. proposals include giving state run agency the power to decide what is false and what is not.

critics say it gives the government new powers of censorship, limiting media freedom, and putting journalists at greater risk of prosecution. the proposal is an amendment to a 2021 law at the consultation stage that gives the ministry of electronics and information technology the power to prevent social media platforms from publishing anything deemed to be misinformation. the decision on what qualifies as fake news would be made by the press information bureau, which is a government agency. the editor's guild of india says the proposal amounts to media censorship and will stifle government criticism. tiktok and more than 300 chinese apps have been banned, with the government citing data security concerns. a popular videogame has been blocked for the same reasons. ♪ let's bring in our guests now. from new delhi, we are joined by ashish shukla, who is a

journalist and founder of the newsbred website. in mumbai, we have rana ayyub. she is a global opinions writer at "the washington post." in new delhi, we have anant nath , the general secretary of the editors guild of india. we did reach out to the governing bjp party but nobody was available. let's press on. a warm welcome to you all. ashish shukla, if i may start with you, first of all. this move, do you support it? if so, why do you think the bjp think it is necessary? ahmed: i think we need -- ashish: i think we need to first understand whether the media is being blocked or the intermediaries of social media are being advised to take down news which they feel could cause trouble and which is fake news. now, the pib, which has had a

fact checking unit since 2019, they on their own do not have enough men to monitor or censor the spread of news, which most of us find every day in our social media exchanges, that we feel are not right. it is not a censorship of media. it is just an advisory by the government to the intermedia of social media that they should pull up their socks and when there is a fake news that could cause unrest, and we know there have been multiple instances in recent years, which we will come to later, fake news has been spread and inflamed because unrest, violence, lives a been lost. in most cases, say in cases where we have protests, it could be a security issue as well. nick: let me stop you there.

i will bring in rana now. what do you make of what you just heard? there is a need for it. fake news on social media is there, destructive, and possibly come full for society. rana: to begin with, we must acknowledge that india has a big disinformation problem, like most democracies around the world. not just the editors guild but also the publishers have come out with a very strong statement which recognizes there is a problem of fake news. as the previous speaker acknowledged, there is a problem, fake news leading to tensions in india. but given that there are no checks and balances, you have given powers to somebody to decide what is fake. who decides? especially when many members of

the ruling party themselves have been fact checked by fact checking websites the last couple of years. every day, you see a member of the government being fact checked. we have seen that they could news and whatsapp, instagram, tiktok, they have been platforms where fake news is used to target minorities, activists, dissenters, journalists. we are dealing with a misinformation problem. but instead of dealing with the problem, what we have got here is it is giving arbitrary powers, i believe, to an agency that will now decide what is fake and what is not fake. and by affect, you will end up censoring news and journalists who you might not agree with. that is what my biggest fear is. what are the checks and balances here? that is my biggest concern in a year where journalists in india have been at the receiving end of the government.

at this point in time, which is why i believe both the editors guild come all the journalists who have worked to raise their concerns about this, they are legitimate concerns. we have to deal with the mass of fake news, but this is not the right approach. nick: you mentioned the editors guild. let's speak to the general secretary, anant nath . the media should have freedom of expression, says the government, but not freedom of distortion. rana: let me -- anant: let me pick up from where rana was mentioning, the power being given to the pib. it is an agency set up by the government. it is a pr firm which tells the news media at large all the activities of government, organizing press reli releases, conferences, so forth.

governing fake news has been given to an agency that has not been authorized to do that. our issue is the sweeping powers without any procedures, without any mandate, w without any statutory influence is giving information about government activities to news media. that is a fundamental problem. there are subsequent problems with the procedures set up, but those are secondary to the fundamental problem. let's keep in mind, the pib in the dark days was the agency that was engaging in censorship. there was censorship in news media, the newspapers and magazines. they had to get verified by the pib. what the government now has done has taken and enacted censorship powers given to the same agency

which was exercising this arbitrary power back then. nick: that is the thing, this is akin to censorship, the determination about what is or isn't fake news should not be down to a government body. it should be down to an independent body, surely? ashish: i do not know.what is the problem here i am really confused. this pib thing, which one of my fellow speakers has pointed out, does not have that. the pib was established in 2019. it was done after the government introduced the scheme where young recruits were to be invited to join the army for a specific period of time, and misinformation led to huge violence, and a very worthy scheme which everyone has come to acknowledge now, an attempt was made to deviate. what are we fighting here? the pib on its own cannot clamp

down. how do they clampdown on news? what they are saying is the intermediaries are to be advised to take down fake news.it is not the mainstream media or the journalists who are being censored. it is the groups. we witnessed the violent scenes around the country. some 35 groups were found to be perpetrating false information and stoking the violent. we have instances very recently where the government found multiple youtube channels trying to cause unrest and trying to cause misinformation. nick: i understand all of that. forgive me for interrupting, but the question i posed was why can it not be an independent body independent of the government? otherwise it is easy to make the criticism that this is about controlling public opinion in

the government's favor. we know how sensitive the issue of social media is, so why not make it an independent body? ashish: even if you make a body, this pib thing which is the bone of contention at the moment, they cannot monitor social media. it is not an overreaching dystopian body trying to monitor what is happening on social media, which nobody could do it. it advises people like you and me and everyone else to pitch in where misinformation is fed. fake news must be stopped. and who does it? now you say appoint an independent body to decide. they are not asking the newspapers to take down the news report. the newspapers are told that this news is fake, and the newspapers carried the correction. it is a mutual interactive thing. that is why the people's freedom

is not being curved. they can do whatever they want. but in case there is a clear case of trying to stoke trouble in a very volatile atmosphere at times and a populous country, all the government is saying is, intermediaries, please take it down. nick: understood. let me bring in rana. i can see you want to come in. rana: i was a little amused because it feels like we are living in an ideal world in india. unfortunately, we are not living in an ideal world in india. we are living in a time when most of the mainstream media channels have become propagator's of propaganda. they treat every article critical as propaganda. when something like this comes into the picture, why are we not to be worried the government will deem everything critical as fake news?

surely, what anant is pointing out, the media in india, especially independent media which already bears the brunt of the government, which has called us agents and all sorts of names? how are we assured that the government is not using this to curb critical studies? the kinds of forwards that come to us by members of the ruling party are by nature fake. will the government do any introspection of its own? will the government stop fake news, which is being peddled by its own party officials? if you've got any fact checking website -- before i came on the show i checked alt news, boom live, and two other fact checking websites. why should we not be worried in a country where journalists are

the new enemies of the state? i think we have every reason to be worried because the pib, which is a body like a pr body of the government, its purpose is to sanitize the news that the government wants. i feel like it should not be seen in isolation. very recently, they have advised the supreme court coalition that they want one of their members of the government to be part of the supreme court coalition. they are trying to have this interference in all independent bodies, and it is a pattern, which is why it is equally worrying for all of us. nick: anat, i want to come to you. is there enough support to counter this proposal to not allow it to pass? anant: let me first correct what ashish said. he has been advising this is an

advisory. this is not an advisory. the wording of the amendment is clear that all intermediaries will take reasonable efforts to bring down the content. so it is a takedown. it is almost an instruction. ashish: it is also reasonable. anant: let's be very clear that the instruction is to be taken down. this is nothing short of taking it down. it includes not just social media platforms. it includes intermediaries that post on websites. it is a fairly carte blanche sweeping power given to pib. secondly, the power, and i will get to what has been pointed out, the pib does not have the strength to fact-check. even if somebody was given this authority, we know that the government uses it selectively. they will filter some kind of use and not others.

the question is, why couldn't this be done with an existing body which is an independent body? even that body does not have the authority to takedown content. they can issue fines. whatever has been the procedures, even in the act itself which has the power of blocking content, the supreme court judged in the case, they came up with a judgment that it has to be in the back about very elaborate procedure, where they are given the chance to present their case. there is also a very elaborate procedure. this one is a simplified procedure given to a body, which is part of the executive. furthermore, it is also mentioned that not just pib, any agency authorized by the central government.

plus, any takedown with respect to business, it is given authority to pib to take down any reporting. nick: there is plenty more to discuss. ashish, briefly respond to that. ashish: i personally feel that much hullabaloo is being done on this issue in the sense that, who is being hurt here? who controls the fake media? who controls the news which could cause lives to be lost, families to be destroyed? the body is seeking advice only. it is not the newspapers which are the center of the attack. nick: you have made this point before, so let's move it on now. you mentioned newspapers.

you would agree that an independent and free press is the hallmark of any modern democracy, right? ashish: yep. nick: has india got one right now? ashish: i think india has been a phenomenal free press. i personally feel -- i have been in england recently. i was in england last month and i could not access a lot of websites, and nobody raised her cry about the freedom of press or no press being muzzled. nick: india has a good free press. that is the answer i wanted. i wanted to bring in rana to respond to that because she is keen to jump in. what do you make of that? rana: is it possible for you to ask ashish that as a journalist, does he not find it problematic that the prime minister of the world's largest markers he has not taken a single press conference in the last eight years? i need to understand what kind

of press freedom is this. i need to find out if a journalist has been behind bars for the last two years on terrorist charges and money laundering charges on a story he did not report, i need to know it kind of press freedom is that. he has been behind bars for the last seven months on charges of terrorism? what kind of press freedom are we talking about? even you would agree with me that the prime minister of the country needs to address the media. eight years, eight years and not a single press conference? i am sure we are decent journalists, right? nick: ok, thanks, rana. ashish, respond to that, please. ashish: i think if ever thing is hinging on whether the prime minister addresses the media or not, i think it has been too touchy on the issue. consider this.

for eight years, he has not opened his mouth. where was the cry about those years of congress when he never addressed the media? you look at the work the man is doing. media has been saying things to modi and about modi which is like burning oil in one's ear. they are abusive. there has been no punitive action taken by this government. to say that media is being muzzled by modi when there has been no instance. rana: sir, i am old enough to realize that the media during the other scams, when i was doing that investigation and other investigations.

i am young enough to also know that the front page newspapers, the front page of the washington post recently had an investigation on the ada nhis. a bbc documentary yesterday, the indian government is not reporting. it is an extension of the government. nick: just wait a second. i want to get rana to talk about one thing. we only have three or four minutes left. tell us briefly the kind of things that have happened to you as a result of your reporting. rana: what has happened to me is next week i have a court summons. next monday, i have a summons for an article i wrote in 2009 where the accusation against me, me accused of practicing my muslim, thus i -- i have a

summons in karnataka for an appearance on bbc where i am accused that my appearance has polarized india on the lines of -- basically polarizing indians . thi have been charged, where i am accused of spreading fake news, where exactly what i tweeted was published by almost every news publication. there are at least 73 kisses i am dealing with right now. i really want to live in the same world as him. nick: it doesn't sound like india is a thriving arena of media freedom. ashish: the one thing which rana has not pointed out -- i am not saying she embezzled the money she had gathered for a public cause, but there has been -- we have been hearing about the money that was collected from public funds, which accounts do

not add up. nick: we don't want to get into specific issues here. i need to move across to anant. we just need to stop a second. we only have a couple minutes left. anant, your overview of the state of press freedoms on the whole in india, tell us where we are at. anant: picking up from what rana was mentioning, the number of cases. i see this as a structural problem irrespective of the government or the party in power. the reality is that in the media, we have a legal framework where there are more exceptions to freedom of speech which have been given, ranging from obscenity to hate speech and so on.

but the reality is, these laws are used very liberally by whichever government is in power. some are more respectful of it, some are not. there are instances where the government has been reckless in these laws because the press comes under the jurisdiction of a state government. the reality is this a vulnerable, cumbersome legal system, which makes the current law even more problematic because there are already laws used every day with press freedom, including independent journalists. on top of that, the government is making it more easy. they are especially using those laws with great advantage. nick: no doubt these

discussions could continue for many more hours, but we have run out of time. thank you so much for joining us. thank you to our guests. rana ayyub, ashish shukla, and anant nath.and thank watch the program anytime -- and thank you for watching. you can watch a program anytime on our website. you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. for me end of the whole team, it is goodbye for now.

/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ/ñ

... ♪♪♪ emma alberici: in india, 1.3 billion people have been told to stay home. but what if home looks like this? could lockdown be more dangerous than the virus? ♪♪♪