#dnaEdit: Twitter terrorist

The arrest of 24-year-old Mehdi Masroor Biswas for posting tweets sympathetic to the Islamic State(ISIS) raises some concerns. Biswas became a victim of his Twitter handle’s(@shamiwitness) popularity, which he operated anonymously until UK-based Channel 4 outed him. In his tweets, Biswas had steered clear of any anti-India rhetoric. Home minister Rajnath Singh has stated that Biswas’ activities were “limited to posting and reposting of pro-ISIS material on his Twitter account and social media sites”. Biswas also denied recruiting anyone for ISIS. Biswas was, no doubt, a radicalised individual and by his own admission, condoned ISIS actions. But unless evidence is available that he engaged in violence or actively aided the ISIS, accusing him of terror charges is disproportionate to his actions. Perhaps, the forensic examination of his personal computer will provide more answers.

In Biswas’ defence, he appears to be an obsessive Internet user, who scoured news websites, online forums, and social media sites for news about ISIS and used his Twitter handle as an aggregator and disseminator of information for the benefit of other ISIS sympathisers and observers. Because of the absence of violence in his conduct, the stringent charges against Biswas hardly look convincing. They include Section 125 of the Indian Penal Code, for waging or abetting war against a friendly Asian nation, Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (conspiring or attempting to commit or incite the commission or preparation of terrorist acts) and UAPA Section 39 (offences relating to support given to a terrorist organisation). Biswas is also reportedly booked under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act for cyber terrorism, perhaps the first person booked under this provision in India.

Biswas’ tweets approving the sexual violence against the Kurdish women fighters and the beheadings committed by ISIS men would classify as highly offensive, attracting the IT Act’s contentious Section 66A criminalising hateful communication. But ask most women, including celebrities, about the volume of misogynistic abuse and violent threats they receive on Twitter, and the helplessness of authorities and technologists. Banning thought and expression is near impossible and difficult, considering the way the Internet or social media applications like Twitter are structured. The other option — incriminating offensive speech — must be exercised with care.

Learning from the experience of the national movement, the original Constitution ratified by the Constituent Assembly granted unqualified freedom of speech and expression to citizens. However, the Nehru government beat a hasty retreat, and in the very First Amendment placed reasonable restrictions on free speech. Contrast this with the US Constitution’s First Amendment forbidding any infringement on free speech. We need to grow less touchy about unacceptable “speech”, unless the threat of violence is direct, the object of hatred is vulnerable, and the violence is imminent.

Biswas’ is a  unique case. Unlike other terror accused, there is no alleged act of terror, as yet, other than the 140-character tweets as evidence against him. He was no rabid ideologue either. His blog has just two articles analysing ISIS chief Al Baghdadi’s rebuff to al-Qaeda chief Ayman Al-Zawahiri and the Jihadist strategy in Syria. In 2011, a Supreme Court bench ruled that mere membership in a banned organisation, without committing or inciting violence, could not be termed a crime. Later, another bench granted bail to Binayak Sen, noting that presence of Maoist literature in his possession did not qualify as sedition. The ISIS was banned only on December 16, after Biswas’ arrest. Proving that Biswas’ tweets motivated others to join the ISIS will be an uphill task. He may be misguided, but that does not make him a criminal or a terrorist.