The term is a portmanteau derived from “interconnected network” and was initiated as a research project in the US in the 60’s. It progressed to the most significant innovation in history, exponentially changing the manner in which we communicate. Many countries do have Internet restrictions, but these are largely aimed at controlling child pornography. There have been temporary restrictions on political grounds, security issues and periods of strife; even cheating at examinations. However, India established a distinction of its own with the Kashmiri shutdown, now in its sixth month; more than the combined time period of the next nine countries put together. We even outdid Pakistan which we often accuse of scarcely qualifying as a true democracy.
Rules were passed in 2017, regarding how and when the government can enforce shutdowns. Only the Union Home Secretary or a State can pass the order for a shutdown, which must state the reasons for the decision. In unavoidable circumstances a Joint Secretary may issue such order. In case of the Center, this order must be forwarded to a review committee consisting of the Union cabinet secretary and Union secretaries of the Department of Legal Affairs and Telecommunications the day after it is issued. The committee must review the order within five days to assess whether it complies with Section 5(2) which permits the shutdown in a public emergency. The Software Freedom Law Centre has tracked 381 shutdowns since 2012; of these 106 were in 2019. The ongoing Kashmiri shutdown is the longest ever in any democracy.
This crass abuse of established rules resulted in a SC petition by Vrinda Grover, on the grounds that the shutdown did not comply with the Rules, which state that the suspension must be “necessary and unavoidable” in the “interest of public safety” in a “public emergency”, and must be “temporary”. The Bench observed that that though the term “temporary” was used in the rules, an indefinite suspension was “impermissible”. The government was directed to review its order as freedom of speech and trade on the Internet was a fundamental right. Regrettably whilst stating principles, the Bench stopped short of applying them thus enabling the shutdown to effectively continue. Neither the order nor the reasons thereof have been made public, the government’s argument being that doing so would jeopardise “national security”. It appears that the use of these two words gave it carte blanche to do whatever it pleased and to hell with the rights of the seven million people affected. The Court also made the point that even when the State chose to restrict individual rights, there should be a principle of proportionality. If the means are excessive and disproportionate or otherwise unconstitutional the State action should be struck down. It seems the goal is the complete subjugation of a particular community, and justifies whatever means used. The Internet shutdown is used as a sledgehammer to beat the community into submission in complete contradiction of the rule that the “least restrictive” option must be exercised.
Communism crumbled in the face of demands for basic rights. Whether you crack down or not, civil disobedience movements tend to grow as long as the ideals driving them are not addressed. Labelling dissenting voices anti-national for expressing any view critical of the government will not suppress dissent, but merely feed it.
More importantly research has shown that Internet shutdowns have never succeeded in suppressing opinions. If the concern was extremist views circulating and promoting violence, surely the government could have countered such attempts by its own programmes and blocking selected websites instead of blunderbuss methods. Ruling party representatives displayed their pathetic ignorance when NITI Aayog member K Saraswat stated “Internet is used mainly for watching porn”. The Kashmir Chamber of Commerce estimates that the shutdown has caused a loss of about Rs 18,000 crores to the local economy. Communications between doctors and patients were hit hard. Lab reports could not be communicated. Agriculture collapsed because produce lay unsold and rotting as e-bills could not be processed. The govt promotes cashless transactions which cannot work in a shutdown. In fact, banking transactions, credit or debit cards usage ground to a halt. GST payments could not go through. Hundreds of SMEs had to shut down. The UK Internet research firmTop10VPN estimates that shutdowns in India in 2019 alone caused an estimated loss of $1.9 billion.
Such measures have international repercussions. The UNHCR described the CAA as “fundamentally discriminatory in nature” and called for a repeal. A stage-managed publicity stunt involving two dozen right wing EU parliamentarians selectively taken to Kashmir proved an embarrassment. The European Parliament tabled six resolutions against the CAA and the shutdown. It took deft political footwork by Indian diplomats, to avoid a vote.
In unleashing such programmes, the party appears to have got carried away with its majority in parliament, ignoring the fact that it got only 37.4% of the popular vote thanks to first past the post system in India. The electoral success was followed by a systematic trend with the lynchings, beef laws, triple talaq, unlawful activities prevention, Ayodhya, Kashmir, and now the CAA. The question is: like the internet shutdown, are these weapons for beating a community into submission? Or are they attempts at diversion from an economy in dire straits?
Probably both; but this paranoid obsession with hammering down a community must stop before it is assigned to history’s graveyard of failed, irrational policies, like so many others before it. We sincerely hope it stops before the social and economic fabric of this nation is ripped to shreds.
(The writer is a founder member of the VHAG)
