Satish AcharyaFor the second time in three weeks, Indian cartoonist Satish Acharya found himself effectively invisible on Instagram in his own country.
The 55-year-old discovered on Tuesday that his account had once again been briefly blocked in India, allegedly with no explanation from the platform.
Just a few weeks ago, another cartoonist, Manjul, had found that Instagram had restricted a post criticising India’s election commission over its controversial revision of voter rolls. His profile remained accessible.
The cases have raised concerns about the use of legal orders to restrict political satire in India, with cartoonists saying they are often given little explanation for why their work has been blocked.
Anyone trying to access his profile saw a message saying it was unavailable under India’s Information Technology Rules.
The rules allow authorities and courts to order social media platforms to remove or restrict content.
The government says they help tackle unlawful material, but artists and free-speech advocates warn they can stifle India’s rich tradition of political satire.
“Meta platforms have been restricting the reach of my cartoons for some years,” Acharya told the BBC. “But when my entire profile was restricted in India, I was a little sad.”
He wrote to Meta, Instagram’s parent company, but received no reply. He says he was preparing to go to court when his account became accessible again in early October, only to be blocked again earlier this week for three days.
In a statement, Meta told the BBC that it may temporarily restrict accounts to comply with India’s IT Rules but did not explain the specific reasons for restricting Acharya’s account or Manjul’s post.
Critics say the restrictions come as humour and satire play an increasingly visible role in political dissent in India, particularly among younger people.
Memes and Gen-Z humour helped fuel protests over education and jobs in July, which led to the resignation of India’s education minister. Online debate has also intensified over a controversial revision of voter rolls that removed 130 million names.
The political significance of social media has not been lost on the government. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has urged ministers to strengthen their online presence and connect with younger audiences.
At the same time, technology policy expert Prateek Waghre says the government is increasingly using legal orders to regulate online content.
The Indian Express reported that government agencies sent nearly 195,000 blocking and content-restriction orders to platforms including Instagram, Facebook and YouTube between March and July through the federal government’s Sahyog portal.
The figures, obtained through a right-to-information request, do not show how many posts were ultimately restricted or removed. The BBC has not seen the original response.
Waghre says that some platforms, particularly Meta, “seem more willing to comply”, he says, while X appears more willing to push back. But limited public data makes comparisons difficult. Meta declined to comment on his assessment.
The government has also reportedly sought greater scrutiny of how social media platforms recommend content.
Earlier this week, several media outlets reported that authorities had asked Meta to ensure its systems did not steer users towards “a single or limited set of narratives” and strengthen checks on content that could “cause public disorder or incite violence”.
The BBC has sought comment from India’s IT ministry on the restrictions and reported instructions to Meta but has not received a response.
India Today Group via Getty ImagesOf course, political satire has a long history in India – as do attempts to curb it.
Cartoons have been a fixture of Indian journalism since independence, with RK Laxman’s Common Man becoming one of its most recognisable characters.
But cartoonists have also faced censorship. During the Emergency in the 1970s, when civil liberties were suspended and the press was tightly controlled, Abu Abraham continued drawing, even as dozens of his cartoons were stamped “not passed by censors”.
In 2012, cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested on sedition charges over cartoons allegedly mocking the Indian constitution. The charges were later dropped.
Today, concerns about restrictions on political expression extend beyond cartoonists. India ranks 157th in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, while critics accuse the government of putting growing pressure on independent media. The government rejects the criticism, saying India’s media remains free and vibrant.
Comedians have also faced controversy over political satire. Kunal Kamra, known for his jokes about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party, has faced threats, cancelled shows and legal action.
For cartoonists, however, challenging those in power is central to their work.
“We are among the default opposition,” says Sandeep Adhwaryu, a cartoonist at a leading Indian newspaper.
“The nature of the craft is to oppose,” he says, adding that cartoonists, like journalists, must question whoever holds power.
Acharya says he has followed that principle throughout his career. Before 2014, many of his cartoons targeted the Congress-led government and were shared by BJP leaders.
“I never faced official restrictions on my cartoons during the previous governments, though there would be some trolling occasionally,” he says.
Now, with the BJP in power, much of his satire is directed at Modi’s government.
ManjulSocial media has allowed independent cartoonists like Acharya to reach audiences without relying on newspapers or other traditional outlets.
“We are not associated with newspapers or any mainstream media. That’s why we can draw,” says Manjul.
But that freedom comes with a new vulnerability – dependence on platforms that can restrict their work or cut off access to their audiences.
No one knows this better than Rachita Taneja, the creator of the hugely popular Instagram comic Sanitary Panels.
“My career would not have existed without the internet,” she told the BBC. Yet she describes social media as a double-edged sword.
“At the end of the day it’s a for-profit endeavour that answers to advertisers,” she says.
Taneja says that Meta’s compliance with Indian government requests reflects the company’s commercial priorities rather than concern for users’ rights. Meta declined to comment.
Even cartoonists working in traditional newsrooms face pressure. Adhwaryu says artists may soften captions, avoid certain subjects or think twice before submitting a cartoon. Over time, he says, such self-censorship can become normalised, even without explicit instructions.
Still, cartoonists have found ways to support one another.
When Acharya’s Instagram account was first restricted, Taneja drew a stick-figure cartoon in solidarity. “Seeing people on the front lines creating communities, protesting, running campaigns, tirelessly fighting for their own rights and the rights of others is what keeps me going,” she says.
Adhwaryu believes satire will continue to adapt. He compares cartoons and humour to a “shape-shifting virus”.
“It keeps mutating in response to its environment,” he says. “It will find its way.”
