‘Instagram Crackdown Won’t Work’: CJP’s Dipke Hits Out at Instagram Takedowns

Allegations of online censorship have intensified after Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke and several creators and news organisations reported the removal or restriction of Instagram posts critical of the government.

Dipke alleged on Wednesday that the Centre was pushing for thousands of posts and accounts to be taken down, warning that suppressing online criticism would not resolve the concerns behind it.

CJP Accuses Centre of Online Censorship

Cockroach Janata Party leader Abhijeet Dipke accused the government of targeting anti-government posts on social media platform Instagram.

"The Instagram crackdown is not going to work! The government is taking down thousands of posts and accounts every day, but it seems to be missing a fundamental point. Instagram is just a platform where people are raising their questions. The reasons behind those questions exist far beyond social media, and taking down accounts won't make them disappear," Dipke stated. 

CJP colleague Ashutosh Ranka also alleged that thousands of accounts had been restricted and numerous videos removed. However, the scale of the alleged crackdown and claims of a coordinated government campaign have not been independently established.

The allegations come amid CJP's protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and its demands for accountability over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Police restrictions and detentions during demonstrations in Delhi have added to tensions surrounding the movement.

Content Takedowns Extend Beyond CJP

Satirist and lyricist Varun Grover said Instagram removed a musical version of his satirical poem about the government's Viksit Bharat 2047 promise.

"The musical version of this innocent little poem was removed from Instagram by a cowardly government. Perhaps in 2047 this ban will be lifted," Grover sarcastically posted on X.

Digital legal news outlet LiveLaw also reported the removal of a reel explaining the Election Commission's position in a Supreme Court matter.

According to the outlet, Instagram cited a legal request but did not explain how the content violated the law.

Newslaundry separately reported restrictions affecting journalists and news organisations covering police action during the October protests. These included a Mathrubhumi English video showing a woman resisting detention. Some notices reportedly cited government or law-enforcement requests or provisions of India's information technology rules.

The Government-Meta Content Question

The controversy has drawn attention to the government's communications with social media platforms.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued Meta an advisory on October 10 concerning how Facebook and Instagram recommend content. It reportedly asked the company to prevent recommendation systems from disproportionately exposing users to a single or limited set of narratives.

The timing has attracted scrutiny because restrictions affecting CJP-related content and protest coverage were also reported around October 10 and the following days.

Digital-rights group SFLC.in recorded 181 instances of restricted posts, pages and accounts in India between October 1 and 18, involving 382 items. These figures indicate the reported scale of restrictions but do not establish that every case resulted from political pressure or the same government directive.

The distinction between government orders and platform decisions remains central: content may be restricted in response to legal demands or under a platform's own policies, leaving questions about the basis and scope of individual decisions.

Digital Dissent in the Crosshairs

The reported takedowns have renewed debate over transparency and accountability in online content moderation.

When platforms cite legal requests without clearly explaining the grounds for restricting content, users may struggle to determine whether the action stems from a specific legal violation, a government direction or the platform's own policies.

The available reports do not establish that every removal was unlawful or that all affected content was targeted because it criticised the government.