 Yeah, much better. Okay, then I'll continue with this. Yeah, we're good to go. Okay, so should I start? Okay. Okay, so good afternoon. Good afternoon everyone. So today we are going to have an interesting conversation on the model code of conduct and how it is managing or failing to regulate election campaigning, particularly campaigning which happens online or in a digital mode. Very quickly I will introduce the one more project myself and the speaker for today. So the one more project is essentially an initiative to explore and to have conversations on use and evolution of technology in elections. Earlier this year on 25th of January, which is the national voters day we had an annual conference in which we explored a lot of issues with respect to use of technology in election right from the use of collectible bonds to issues with respect to surveillance. And as well as two issues with respect to how use of father the linking of father and voter ID would have negative implications on elections. So the conversation that we are happening today was also originally scheduled for that conference but due to some reason we couldn't have it on that day so we are having it separately today. My name is Mansi I'm a lawyer, and I'm also one of the trustees at the article 21 trust, the article 21 trust works on issues at the intersection of technology and welfare. And we have been collaborating with other like minded organizations at the one project. And finally, very quickly I would like to introduce the speaker for today. He is a faculty at the School of Public Policy and Governance at the same PNG University. He studied engineering for his undergraduate degree and he later transitioned into a public policy to a masters in public policy degree from National Law School Bangalore at the same PNG University is currently developing courses on political communication and election campaigns design and management. He has also been advising student projects related to tracking the implementation of election manifestos and prior to joining APU he has also worked as a political consultant and policy researcher in different organizations. So Shashidhar welcome to the conversation today and just to just to kick start the conversation. It would be great if you could maybe lead us into the conversation by talking a bit about by introducing the concept of model code of funder for those who might not know about it or might not understand it properly so if you could just introduce it for a lay audience, as well as also talk about how it has evolved over the years. What were those circumstances that led to, you know, the election commission of India coming out with a model for the funder. So, so yeah Shashidhar, over to you. Thanks Mansi. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you for hosting me for this conversation for inviting me for this conversation and posting. I will start with a review of model code of funder. This has been my understanding about how it has its purpose, like this potato, its purpose. So model code of conduct is generally almost all of us who are interested in elections or who follow elections scheme are familiar with model code of conduct or NCC at least afraid of it. NCC kicks off or kicks in, it starts, it comes into operation when the polling schedule is introduced or announced by the election commission of India. Generally, about two months before the election, depending upon the type of election that we are talking about, it's generally an election, about three to four months before election date or it's the state election, maybe 45 days to two months before the election date, polling day election commission announces the schedule of the polling elections, that is, it gives the timeline of events. From the day that particular schedule is announced, the model code of conduct kicks in. So when broadly the function of model code of conduct kicks, it is to make sure that all political parties, make sure all political parties and candidates of the political parties and different campaigners and representatives of the political parties or candidates follow certain guidelines, which actually, these are like fair play games. So this NCC was actually, if we look at the history of NCC, the NCC was, I think I remember correctly, it was in 1960, the political parties in Kerala have come up with the agreement saying that during the general elections, these are the rules that we are going to follow to make sure that everyone, there is a fair election that happens. Then the same NCC of the guidelines, the code of conduct was again introduced or adapted by different state governments in 1962 to 1969. Then I think if 1979 or 1974 or 1979, Election Commission of India has come up with the comprehensive guidelines, which should call as model code of conduct. So all, whichever model, the guideline that we are talking about or whatever, whichever version of the NCC that we are talking about, all these guidelines were created after consulting or in consultation with the political parties. So it's like a gentleman's agreement between political parties that we are going to play fairly. It's more like that. Then eventually over the period of time, the ECI started implementing the NCC, most stringent, especially the part 7 of the NCC, which talks about the roles and responsibilities of the party in power. So it has been observed that the political parties in power are using the government infrastructure during the campaigns. Therefore ECI started enforcing this particular, I mean enforcing NCC, especially the part 7, very strictly. And then I think after the Supreme Court judgment, the manifestos have also come under NCC, which actually mandated the political parties to submit the election manifestos. And then reporting of criminal cases, that was also changes that was part of nomination process, but that is also more moderated or monitored by under NCC. Then the other, then the recent changes or the recent additions to the NCC is about the role of social media regulation. So this is broadly the evolution, the picture of evolution of NCC from 1960, which was at that time an agreement between political parties instead of Kerala. To today where it stands, where the NCC is the source of power for election commissions or different CEOs, chief electoral officers or district electoral officers or retailing officers during the election campaign period. In fact, there are cases where the chief electoral officer has the power to transfer the chief secretaries and DGPs also during elections. If they find that they are supporting the government, or they are helping the government, which is actually a violation of NCC. And any, there are few proactive, there were few proactive chief electoral officers who actually used, looked into all the files that pass through this agreement. So we had mechanisms to make sure that no file or no financial budgetary allocation that happens or spending that happens violates the NCC. So that's the power of NCC in a way, but again, since it does not have a statutory backing, it is more an executive position system. It depends always the such kind of systems depend on the role of a different executive who occupies the office or relates the position. So therefore, you will find a subjective assessment, which of the implementation of NCC, and it's not uniform across all states. And there are not, we keep hearing cases about the biasness of the CEOs who are, who actually implement the MCC, who are at the helm of the sides of the government. It's inclined towards one or other political parties because of their own vested interests. So anyway, that's the discussion, that's a different discussion, but that's how the, that's the power of NCC, though it's a small document, it is too powerful if it's implemented properly. Thanks, Shashita. And I want to just dwell for one minute on two things that you said one was that, you know, the party in power has an undue advantage. I think that is sort of like given in the political reality of the country, especially if it is, if it is not a situation of gloss and teen competency. And second is that the model code of conduct only comes into play on the date on which elections are announced. And there have been instances, I'm sure you have also noticed there have been in, you know, instances and which actually raised questions on the independence of the Election Commission, where they have, where it has been alleged that they have deliberately delayed on announcing election dates just to give the government and the party in power some more time to do some more things announced some more scenes because as soon as the dates are announced and the model code of conduct is in place then they are not able to announce any new scheme or anything else to influence the voters. So I'm sure you've also sort of like come across those instances so I just wanted to quickly delve on that because we'll also bring it up later when we, you know, discuss how the model code of conduct is either managing to or failing to, you know, or rather regulate elections online. So very quickly, I mean, now that we've spoken about the introduction and how MCC has evolved and taking from the last point that you left, you know, which is that you said that, you know, it remains, it is not, it does not have the force of law as such. It is not really mandatory. So if you could talk about what kind of challenges are faced one by the Election Commission, and of course your own experience of working as a political consultant and, you know, with political parties. If you could also give some examples of how parties try to evade, you know, the implications of model code of conduct to try to avoid running into the challenges that come from MCC and similarly what kind of challenges the Election Commission faces in trying to extract compliance from political actors. I will start with the few cases, a couple of cases about how the incumbent governments have or the politicians from the incumbent government who are holding offices have been penalized for their violations. And at the same time, but again, I'm giving the caveat to, these are only few cases, but there are election commissioners quite infamous for not addressing the violation cases immediately. So because, so when there was a, when there is an argument about giving MCC statutory status, what election commission, the election commission's argument is that if you give a statutory status, there is a procedure established and therefore for every pre-vance or every complaint will have to, it will have to reach to the court or there should be a legal authority that needs to, who needs to address this particular pre-vance. Whereas MCC violations have to be addressed immediately, therefore as an executive power, it should remain as an executable. This is the argument. Whereas when it comes to the executive powers or the executive powers of the election commission, as you have rightly mentioned about the schedules itself, there are cases in the recent past, even earlier also. I remember during 2014 time, 2014 or 2013, one of the election commissioners has flagged this issue, saying that we are trying to fix a schedule and as and when we decide or we talk about a date, I keep getting calls from the minister or someone from the political ruling political party who are trying to influence my decision as an election commissioner. But that has been in 2013, but later on we have also come across various cases where election commission has called for a press conference in the morning to release the polling dates, but they waited for the prime minister's public address or public value to end in one of the states that is going for elections and then in the evening they have announced. So do you want to, do you want to, I mean if you can we find a cause and effect or cause and effect relationship? No, it's the discretion of the bureaucrat, since it's an executive power. But yes, it is how it has been. When it comes to violation of cases, I think in, there were two cases when I was doing my research, I found it interesting. One was in 2003, at that time, the Punjab Chief Minister was Amrendra Singh who used his official helicopter to go for the campaign in objective age, then election commission identified that as a violation of cases, which is a violation of cases. And they made him pay the entire trip cost, the two ones for the helicopter, that has been one case. And during 2014 election campaign, Mr. Ramit Shah was banned in Madhya Pradesh to do the election campaign because he, the election commission, I noted that he has been making provocative statements related to religious affairs, therefore he is not allowed to campaign in the state. That's when again Mr. Shah apologized to the election commission saying that I'm an apologize, I'm not going to do that. Later he was allowed to continue his campaign activities. So, well, if the executive or the bureaucrat is inclined to implement it, implement MCC with the letter and spirit, then yes. So, we should also, when we are trying to understand the implementation of a modal code of conduct, I think at a broader level we should also have an idea of how election campaigning works, how election campaigns happen. So, if you look at different aspects under which you can raise complaints with election, file complaints with election commission with respect to MCC violation, you get a clear understanding of how a campaign works. Or what are the areas in which the election campaigning infringes upon or violates the MCC. So, I think broadly this is what I think. Yes, so you will be explaining about that, different aspects of campaign? Yes, yes, yes. So, firstly we should, the modal code of conduct, in order to understand the modal code of conduct, we should make sure, we should understand that this is largely connected with the campaign activity that happens. That is how the people, the candidates or the political parties are positioning themselves. What is their campaign activity? And so with respect to on-ground campaigns or with respect to personal campaigns and with respect to media campaigns, how they run with respect to the advertising that they do on media outlets, then mount the social. So, broadly if you look at, let's take an example of a political party. A political party in what ways can it connect with the voter? That is what will happen. So, if we, so one way could be to do a in-person direct one-to-one conversation with the voter or public rally or doing, let's say media advertisement, media campaign, on-ground public addresses, then posters, wall paintings, posters, this sort of campaign market activities. So, all these areas, all these spaces in which the interaction between the campaigner and the citizen takes place are more or less regulated by the modal code of conduct. So, if an election, so that's, so from this, this is a broad idea I would want you to take. So, then if you look at, so that's the actualization of this modal conduct. So, the violations or the structure of these violations will come into play. So, for example, you cannot, one of the rules is that when a campaigner cannot stick bills onto the walls of the government schools or public property. That's one of the, if a campaigner does that, it's a violation. Similarly, media advertisement. So, every advertisement should have a mention of who's advertising, through whose money it is being advertised. So, these are some, and there is a media committee formed by the Election Commission from a district level as well. So, these committees have to clear these ads, which have to, which are being published in the newspapers or any other media platforms. But again, this is not applicable to social media. Well, they've said that we will, for example, I think Facebook and Google asked for these certificates, whereas Twitter banned the ads. Twitter does not allow for political advertisement, but other social media platforms, they do not ask for such a certificate from the Election Commission. That is, the Election Commission generally clears the, any particular advertisement that the party or the candidate wants to put it. So, yes, broadly, if you want to understand the model of conduct, what we'll have to bear in our mind is that the model of conduct moderates the relationship between or moderates the interaction of the campaigner and the citizens. So, let's, let's call them voters and the whole. Okay, so, so yeah, I think we will now shift to talking about digital campaigning and the challenges of MCC there. But just before that, I wanted to ask you one question, because you mentioned that there have been instances where, you know, like you gave the example of Amit Shah being banned from campaigning for a speech that he gave. And something similar happened with a couple of other candidates as well. I remember in 2019 elections, looks of elections, I think it also happened with Sadhvi, Sadhvi Pragya, Thapur also, and a couple of other political candidates. But in your experience of working with political candidates, do you think this kind of ban is effective? Does it dent? I mean, not dent, but I mean, the fact that it should be seen as some kind of punishment, right? You have violated the model code of conduct, and you are being punished with a ban. That is, in very crude and simple terms, that is how it should be understood. But does it really act as a punishment? Does it have any negative impact on the campaign of a political candidate? It's a subjective assessment. So, for someone like Amit Shah, if he is banned from doing the election campaign, I think it will have an impact on the entire state because at that time he was heading the operations of entire So, he will have to be on ground. So, therefore, since he realized that it will have a negative impact, he was ready to apologize and move on. And also, since it was Amit Shah, the case was handled at fast speed. But there are a lot of cases pending with the election commission. So, this is one of the critics of law, critics or the criticism that ECI faces and a lot of activists complain about this. When they file a complaint with the election commission about MCC, most of the times they take time to act. By the time they decide, they decide on it or they come, they start the hearing process, the election will be over. And the election commission's responses since elections are already over, we cannot take, I mean, no punishment will help. As in because the scope of the punishments or scope of the penalties is very limited when it comes to the elections, when it comes to violation of MCC. So, this, it has certain PR value. But it depends, the PR value depends on the candidate against whom the penalty is imposed. So, yeah, so now taking the conversation ahead to digital campaigning. So, I mean, like I said, you know that the model code of conduct regulates the interaction between a political candidate and the voters or the audience. But the kind of, you know, challenges that the election commission faces and implementing model code of conduct in the offline world, perhaps multiply, multifold when it comes to digital campaigning one because of the reach one because of the fact that, you know, the message that's been sent out could continue circulating even if, you know, even if a particular ad, you know, is in violation of MCC gets to be banned later. But it might have already reached a number of places from, you know, which it's difficult to recall it etc. So a whole new range of sort of like challenges would have come up with respect to digital campaigning and especially when political parties came to rely on social media so heavily. So I also remember in 2019 elections, you know, the election commission sort of tried to bring in place some kind of, some kind of guidelines for social media to follow and some of the social media companies, Facebook, WhatsApp, etc. tried to comply with it. They tried to show that they were now more proactively regulating content online, especially political advertisement. So yeah, so if you could, you know, just sort of talk about what according to you are those new unique challenges that election commission faces and trying to implement MCC on digital campaign. Thanks Mansi. That's a very short question which has a very elaborate answer with different strings attached from different directions. Firstly, I would like to start by saying that Election Commission of India or to that matter anyone of us who follow elections struggle to identify one particular problem. That caused by social media in the election space. When I say this, we all know that social media, the advent of social media and the kind of effect that the social media has on electoral democracies is, I would say it's more negative than positive. And well, I might definitely not get a job at any time in the future in the social media company. But I'm sure, and that's where I started and none of us understand complexities that are involved in the social media platforms. I'll say someone who comes from a technical background can explain how an algorithm works. But that's not the only problem. There are so we are as a policy researchers, we know that it's a complex, it's a complex problem. I mean the ecosystem has multiple strings that contribute to a problem and there are multiple levers. So this complexity, I'm sure a lot of researchers are working on giving a framework to this complexity. But I'm 100% sure that Election Commission of India has not taken it seriously, but in 2014 it was not serious about social media. But it definitely for sure did not, does not understand the complexities involved in social media spaces. I'm involved in digital campaigning and social media spaces. It's because they don't know how to regulate. In fact, if I, if you are my, I mean, if myself or you, we are in the shoes of an election commissioner, we don't know where to start. Well, so we start, we start, I will start with, so this is the election commission started with the political party. They have asked the political parties to report their details of the social media. That's fine. They have reported the social media handles. They have given them for every candidate gives their follow up to deserve a follow up. And if a candidate puts in a message through the official handle, and if that message is flagged as a violation of MCC, then maybe they can take an action. Maybe they can ask the candidate to remove that message, which did not happen. Only there was one case or very few cases. And the other than the other issues. It's not the candidates who actually do the campaigns or do the activities. It's more the supporters of there are the supporters who cannot be regulated. And there are these patrol armies, as they're called. These people are there on the social media platforms who amplify the messages and there are these influencers. That's another set of another group of people who can amplify the message. So it's on social media, it's, it's more the battle of narratives. The battle of narratives and who amplifies the message that fits into them. So when it comes to this space, the election commission is helpless at this point. They have committees, they have the stick social media committees, constituency level monitoring groups, but they can only ask the candidate. They can only ask the social media company to remove a message, which they said, if it's the, if it's a violation that is that the election commission identified with a violation, then they can, they will remove it in three hours. But it's how it's not, it is very, it's only limited people who are officially formally on the social media platform who can be regulated. The other issue that that's, that is, the other issues about CVISL app, which I've realized. So, as you all, as you must be aware that the election commission has launched an app called CVISL, where citizens can report the violation of MCC, where on the app and the election commission investigates that particular incident. And therefore, and then they'll take an action if they identify it's a violation. If you look at the categories of the CVISL app on categories under which you can report the violation, there is nothing related to social media. So that's, that's, it has been intriguing. So we are talking about, so we have moved from on-ground campaigns to digital campaigns. The election commission realized that we need, we need to regulate or we need to look into the social media and elections or the campaigns or the activities on social media. But still, a citizen, if as a citizen we identify any violation of MCC on social media, we cannot report it. That's a challenge. So I feel it is, it has not yet reached that level of a complete understanding where they can actually formulate rules and identify violations of the candidates. So, you know, in the annual conference that we had in January, we had this one talk on political advertisements online, especially on Facebook. So we're using the Facebook's API, which you could track, you know, who has put a particular political ad, etc., and how much funding has gone into it, etc. But it was very interesting to see that, you know, Facebook also as an, I mean, as an entity, which, you know, is sort of has to, I mean, the kind of relationship that perhaps election commission of India or the responsibility that it has is different from the kind of responsibility that a private organization has. And yet a lot of this regulatory power has been given to, you know, a private entity to sort of screen which are the political advertisements we should go online and also a lot of it depends on how much a particular entity is paying. And there was also another investigative report which had come out a couple of months ago which showed that, you know, these different social media entities, especially Facebook were charging very different rates from different political parties. And so of course, any political party which has a higher paying capacity would be much, much, much well placed to have their advertisements going. But it's very interesting that all of these kind of issues which are coming up, it doesn't seem like any kind of conversation is happening, especially or being initiated from the side of election commission. I mean, the only kind of things we see coming out from the election commission are Adhaar and Uttar ID linking, which do not even have any kind of proof or evidence that it works or it will lead to the kind of, you know, success that they are hoping it would or the kind of benefits that they are hoping would come out of it. Or there are conversations around simultaneous election and the cost saving it will lead to but it doesn't seem like there are enough conversations happening, especially, you know, like you said that the election commission of India might not even know where to start. And even then it doesn't seem like that with civil society or with political parties there are any kind of conversations happening. Do you think it's more like it's sort of, you know, best to keep the space open and to see how things emerge instead of trying to proactively do anything? Do you think it could be a case of that or is it just, you know, that I mean this is a beast that we just cannot control? It's at this point it looks like a beast which cannot be controlled but it is, but it is actually, it is not helping in progressive democracy. I mean it is, it is, we as, see, we as a citizen, we are exposed to different messages which largely fall in the categories of fake news slash misinformation slash something, any other category and which is not regulated. So, well, some, there is this debate of free speech versus democracy, accountability to democracy. So that's, that's the debate. I'm honestly speaking I don't have an answer for it but I don't believe that anything or like if you want the democracy to survive, certain things have to be regulated. It's not, it's not that it needs to be banned but it needs to be regulated. There are different mechanisms which can be operationalized to make sure that it is regulated. So, see, I'll tell you, I think I'm the optimist in me is talking. So, from 1960 till 1991 when Mr. Tien Session has took up the office, till that time we didn't know that MCC was powerful or MCC has these many powers. So, I think it is, it is, it is one good bureaucrat in one position, the things might change. That's an optimist in me who is talking. But I think it's, I think you cannot leave it or you cannot make it or you cannot leave it as a responsibility of social media platforms. The state, especially election commission has to play a key role. And so, at least to start with they should give a platform for citizens to report such kind of campaign activities that are happening. So, if I would complain something which falls in the category of fake news, there should be some action that needs to be taken. Someone has to act on it. So, I initially tried to draw, from my understanding, tried to draw a balance between a newspaper versus a social media platform. This is a paper, may print media and this is a social media. But then I realized that I think I'm, my attempt is wrong because print media space is limited. Firstly, the newspaper has limited space and the editor regulates it and editor is made accountable. If a paid news article is published or if an editorial is published, then the editor is made accountable. But what happens in the social media? Like the space is vast. There is no limit. Everyone has an opinion. Everyone has an opinion. So, earlier people with opinions were called armchair activists. Now everyone is a mobile activist. So, everyone who has a mobile or access to a social media platform has an opinion. And again, in our imagination, the popular imagination, we only talk about Facebook, Twitter or now the conversation is about Instagram and WhatsApp. WhatsApp, we don't know how to regulate it. We don't know what can be done because every political party has, so they have, like how they have boot-level workers to do campaigns. But boot-level social media activists, social media members of the party, whose main job is to manage WhatsApp groups. And how can we regulate it? We don't know. I mean, can you regulate it? At this point, there is no manpower with election commission. But how the kind of messages that circulate also, that's another issue. So, political parties say that we are not advertising on a particular issue. I was reading this interesting article at the media piece, if I remember correctly. So, this particular journalist was saying that someone, if BJP may not put an advertisement related to Ram Mandir. But if a political party, if some other organization is putting, is paying for an advertisement related to construction of Ram Mandir, definitely that connects with the narrative of the political party. Similarly, this is a similar case that when I was doing the campaign, but this was similar case that we were facing. So, there was a issue, I think it was gender related. It was a sexual assault against women and that's when different parallel campaigns have started. So, nothing was initiated by the political party there. But the messaging, the message connects to the narrative of the opposition party. So, this is a complex system. I think Sankarshan has a question. Sankarshan, please go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on the topic that you brought up. I was waiting for TVS to respond to. So, if the model code of conduct is unable to keep pace with how social media messages flow and how they are inexpensively copied over and multiplied many times. I mean, what's the way out? Do we continue to have this slightly limping model code of conduct that causes no end of unhappiness across everyone where we wish for a change? Or are there ways to really move it from a very discretionary to a more feedback data driven way where evidence is submitted can be quickly verified, validated and then some decisions are right there. I think that's one of the ways to start with. Because I feel, well, it's a digital space. So, we can come up with digital solutions, technology solutions which can solve this problem. Firstly, I think the election commission should start having active citizen groups involved at a constituency level. Like, for example, there are these flying squads, whenever there is. So, I'll give you an example of how a complaint is addressed if you make it through a CVS lab. So, what happens is you report an incident on a CVS lab saying that there is money being distributed in this particular, I'm giving you an example, in this particular constituency. So, immediately the person who in the election commission, whoever is looking at this, then I look at the evidence that was submitted and immediately they'll ask the district returning officer of that particular, where in which the particular constituency falls in and the flying squads who immediately rushed to the space. So, in this case, they have said the election commission has given one such case on their website saying they would identify the violation within 81 minutes of being reported. So, yes, 81 minutes of being reported. So, there are such kind of mechanisms have to evolve in order to regulate the social media activity, that's precisely, that's what I sense at this point of time. Well, and also there should be awareness, the awareness campaigns also EC should focus more on the awareness campaigns as well. And I'm sure there will be, I think, with the kind of innovation that is happening every day, there will be a technology solution that comes into operation soon for such a problem. So, I, but I think the start with election, I mean, we cannot go with model product because that is what is actually bring some, at least some sort of accountability with the election process, whether my as a citizen I have some confidence whether my issue is resolved or but at least the politicians actually fear for MCC violation. So, and they make sure that they actually do not, their activities do not work. So, therefore, I think the scope of MCC should be made more broad. And I think the role of social media and how violations are maybe a protocol to report the violations and the action of MCC and the actions that ECI can take has to be discussed, debated and should be in operation as soon as possible. This is broadly my answer. I'm sure that this is not a definitive answer to your question, but this is what I can think of. So, Shashita, I want to try and bring together two, three different strands which have come out of this conversation. So, one is that initially how we spoke about, you know, that where you tried to sort of explain how MCC evolved and you said that it evolved from a gentleman's agreement among the political parties themselves. And the idea not just seems to be to regulate the interaction between political parties and their voters, but also to sort of create a level playing field because you want to keep the elections as fair as possible. We also discussed about how incumbent government has a definite advantage and would want to exploit that advantage as much as possible. So it seems like we have reached a situation where coming up with any kind of regulation of political advertisements and online would not be seen very positively, not just by the party in power, which is of course exploiting it to the maximum advantage possible and also given the fact that it has humongous resources at its disposal and no other political party even comes close to the ruling party in terms of that. But also that perhaps there is also consensus among parties themselves on whether this needs to happen and the extent to which this can happen because everyone sees the advantage of that kind of speech online where everything goes. And by the time any action is taken, the deed is done and whatever benefit you can get out of it, you are able to get out of it. And at the same time, another interesting development is that the government does want to regulate social media, at least to keep a check on speech which might be critical of the government. So we are seeing all these social media intermediary guidelines that the government is coming out with and the government wants to keep a very close watch on what is being said on social media. Like the conversation, anything that citizens are saying with respect to the government or the opponents or the opposition are saying with respect to the government, the government wants to give a very close tab on it. But when it comes to what its own political actors might be saying online, that is what they would rather let go and keep it out of the radar. So I just think if we try to piece all of this together, it just seems like it might be very difficult to bring different political actors to some kind of a conversation on a table or consensus that there is the need to regulate political speech online and hold the political actors accountable for everything that sort of comes online in terms of campaign. So yes, I mean just, I mean that was just just an observation but yeah, your thoughts on that. See at this stage, I mean I agree with what you have said, it is difficult to bring all political actors together, all political partners together on this particular issue of social media. But yes, I think at this point I feel maybe ECI can take a position, ECI can take a position and start. So now that the SOP is clear how a government can influence a social media company, the SOP is already in place. And during from the date of announcing the schedule, ECI has all powers as any government. I think they can always open a channel with the social media company. And then once that happens then I think some damage can be controlled. So as I was reading this report yesterday while I was preparing for this conversation. So it's not just political parties. So any money or any advertisement that a political party places or the money that political parties face can be regulated or can be monitored. So that's what Facebook was, I think Facebook has submitted the financial report, which says that I think BJP has spent about four crores or something on about 50 ads. Whereas the Facebook page of Nation with Namo and some of the, I think Deshki monkey bath, these two Facebook pages, which are operated out of BJP's office but not BJP's official hand. They have spent close to 30 crores, subject to correction, but 4,800 ads they have placed, which do not fall under the MCC or the election commissioner of India cannot manage. Unlike US, in US any ad can be which is paid for any political ad is actually regulated, but in India it is not the case. So I think it's something like the work that ADR does. They realize that there are criminals in politics and they wanted their activities around cleaning politics or making politics free of charge. There is some progress in their activity or there is some progress towards their vision, but it's a long journey. So I think that's where I'm in. I don't have an answer because I've been as a campaigner and as a researcher, I'm trying to find answers for this and I thought maybe some matured Western democracies when I say matured with respect to technology. I thought they will have some solutions or they could find some solutions, but they are still struggling. So they are struggling for the last three elections. If I remember three general elections, like US had two general elections which had a higher social impact, even Europe, the Brexit issues. It's not an election campaign, it's a political campaign for which a referendum happened. So it's fake news, misinformation and everything. So Shanthal has shared a question and I just want to sort of like add to it. So she's asking, can you explain how campaigns view MCC and if they see it as a major hindrance? But I also wanted to ask, so we have MCC and then separately we have electoral offenses and corrupt practices, etc. Which actually are part of the law under the Representation of People's Act or under IPC and somebody can be charged with an electoral offense, can be prosecuted, etc. So yeah, so I mean just like sort of to wait, which is seen by political parties as more onerous or something that they need to be more mindful of or that they know that neither will properly be enforced. So we can just do whatever you want to do. So yeah. Political parties take MCC seriously. So in fact, every political party will place a bunch of lawyers who are specialized in electoral laws at the doorstep of election commissions. With the Central Election Commission and the State Election Commission. During the entire period of time. So they take, firstly, there will be petitions reporting the violation of opposition candidates and there will be petitions which against them, which they'll have to respond immediately because if they are not available, the Election Commission gives an order passes an order, then immediately the entire campaign gets disturbed. So they will have to jump in there. So I once remember, so one of the star campaigners was doing the campaign at around, I think after five o'clock or something, then immediately the ruling party, the ruling party's lawyer filed a complaint and when the Election Commission was hearing the petition, this lawyer was not available. So immediately the candidate was, I mean the person, the star campaigner was asked to leave the space and report to the city or come back to the capital city and which caused a disturbance for the entire campaign plan for the next few weeks. Then again this was challenged and this was taken up at the higher level, that is the Election Commission. I mean the point being that all political parties, all campaigns, all campaign teams take MCC seriously. And they actually fear for MCC therefore they also realize that they also find ways to violate MCC. Because if they know the effect that MCC has on campaigns and they know the impact of violations of the Tina analysis associated with violations. Therefore they will be careful in violating but they will violate as well as they take it seriously. Yeah, so I guess we have more or less reached the end of the conversation and the very last thing that we had on our list to discuss was the need to reimagine the modern code of conduct. So yeah, your final thoughts on that and we'll close with that. I think my big thoughts I've already shared with us to respond to Sankarshan's question. But yes, those are broadly my thoughts that is I feel involvement of citizens more proactive and coming up with SOPs to which they can regulate the social media. This is a good starting point and I think citizens should also know about the role of social media campaigns and what sort of messaging or what sort of messages they face or they are exposed to during the campaign period. So what is the impact of these messages? Because what happens is this is like the WhatsApp forwards that you receive. Most of them, it's the algorithm that works. I mean on social media it's the algorithm. WhatsApp it's your behavior, right? Like okay you feel associated with that. But I think the larger link between the narratives and messages has to be discussed openly what public debates have to happen on this. And the social media election commission should have the social media names exclusively at the constituency level. In fact at the both level is what my imagination is like how they have both level polling officers and polling act. They should also have a social media person or someone who looks at the implementation of MCC with respect to social media. That's an extreme position. But also I think the election commission should formulate the rules and regulations and they should initiate a larger debate on how this can be regulated. Then the rules and regulations should be framed. Then the implementation part is how it can be done. I think with social media or digital campaigning it just seems like a game of a better word it's like a cat and mouse chase. By the time ECI will figure out how to regulate social media as it stands currently it would have evolved to a completely different level altogether and then they'll have to figure out how to manage that. So it will always I think as regulators we are always a step behind. Any kind of regulation I think. Any kind of regulation. Always a step behind just trying to catch up with everything new that it evolves into. The regulation always comes into place when the problem exists. So when the problem takes its complete form and shape that's when the need for regulation comes. Then by the time the regulator takes a complete form and shape the problem takes a different shape. So it's almost like how we are seeing with the COVID right we come up with one thing and it evolves and there are new variants etc. So we are just always running up. But thank you so much Shashidhar this is a very very interesting conversation. And I hope that we continue to have more conversations on this. I think one of the things that we have very categorically identified in this is that there is a need for more public conversation on this. Perhaps even at work to see with the political parties and election commission that this is a thing that needs to be taken much more seriously than it probably is being done right now. And I mean by let's say it's it's good that some steps have been taken. I've also like sort of seen like what we saw the kind of efforts that were being made during the 2019 elections and since then to regulate campaigning online. But there is a need to do much more. So hopefully at one vote also we'd be able to have more conversations on this issue and yeah it will be great to keep engaging on those in the future as well. Sure. Thanks. Thank you for hosting me. I think we will be connecting again because I'm currently researching on how the regulation can be measured. I think once that research work is there I'm sure I would want to present it here again. Thank you. Thank you all.