There is no evidence to support limited internet shutdowns, but plenty of data to show the harm they can do
Can we shut down the internet in a way that helps restore law and order but also permits beneficial use? In 2018, India attained the top global rank and has since retained the pole position for the highest number of internet shutdowns. Being a world leader in an authoritarian exercise has not only brought shame to Indians but also caused deep and certain injury. There is also concern about protracted periods of deprivation. Not too long ago, there was a mobile data blackout in Jammu and Kashmir for 550 days, which finally ended on February 4, 2021. Will the ongoing ban in Manipur, now running for more than 80 days from May 3, 2023, eclipse it? There is worry and talk of reform. It has led to an administrative consensus for the middle ground of “limited internet shutdowns”. This idea holds a seductive appeal for officials of the Department of Telecom, legislators in the standing committee on IT, and judges in the Supreme Court and our high courts. Even ordinary Indians will agree that allowing the good and banning the bad is a reasonable measure to contain riots and security threats. In its simplicity lies its appeal, as does its danger.
Limited internet shutdowns are not a novel idea. One of the earliest endorsements is found in the litigation in the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gauravbhai Sureshbhai Vyas. In its 2015 decision, the high court held that the orders were proportional because they only prohibited mobile internet access. Restriction on access to medium (wired or wireless), while the most common, is one of four primary methods to implement “limited internet shutdowns”. In addition, there can be restrictions on time (for a certain number of hours or days), localisation to a geographical area (specific districts rather than an entire state), or those used to block or whitelist specific websites or a class of services (such as social media or internet banking). All four are used in different variations by different state governments.
The first method — restriction of internet access by medium — is a form of socio-economic rationing that allows only an affluent minority access to the internet. As per Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) data, wired access is only 3.8 per cent of connections, as most Indians use smartphones rather than costly desktops and wired connections. The second and third methods for “limited internet shutdowns” are existing practices where orders are limited to a certain number of hours or days for specific areas. For instance, in the state of Rajasthan, they are restricted to two-three days in specific cities. However, even these can be easily repeated and extended. As per a report by Human Rights Watch and IFF, between January 10, 2020 and September 25, 2021, there were 85 orders in the state, out of which 26 were in Udaipur and 30 in Jaipur.
You have exhausted your
monthly limit of free stories.
To continue reading,
simply register or sign in
Continue reading with an Indian Express Premium membership starting Rs 91 per month.
This premium article is free for now.
Register to read more free stories and access offers from partners.
Continue reading with an Indian Express Premium membership starting Rs 91 per month.
This content is exclusive for our subscribers.
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to The Indian Express exclusive and premium stories.
The final method of only banning virtual private networks (VPNs), social media and internet messaging applications has become popular recently. Even if one agrees with it in principle, its enforcement is difficult. For instance, as per technical analysis by Prateek Waghre and Rohini Lakshane for the whitelisting approach in Jammu and Kashmir, 80 out of the 153 permitted websites failed to load for meaningful use. Further, such whitelisting relies on physical verification, which gives rise to invasive surveillance such as physical stop-and-frisk measures.
Despite their widespread use, there has been no study conducted by the government of India or any state government to examine their intended objectives. In asking for empirical data, the standing committee on IT in the 37th Action Taken Report was “perplexed with the reply of the Department (of Telecom) and deplore(d) the indifferent attitude…”, it strongly urged an assessment on “the impact of internet shutdown on the economy and (to) find out its effectiveness in dealing with public emergencies and public safety”. Ample evidence exists both for the social and economic harms of shutdowns. On the contrary, some studies even suggest social media creates greater state accountability. The qualitative study “Of Sieges and Shutdowns” in Manipur quotes an interview of a female protestor on the Phaknung gangrape in 2017 that led to “one of the biggest rallies in Imphal.” She said, “I was a part of it…The case is under trial now…whatever information we got we kept sharing it and posting it on FB [Facebook], FB messenger and WhatsApp…”. Hence, a “limited internet shutdown” on social media only curbs the spread of viral clips that can spur citizens to peacefully protest and demand state accountability. A quantitative analysis by Jan Rydzak even suggests that “violent mobilisation seems to grow in intensity during (internet) blackouts…”, as people lose the ability to peacefully protest. Many studies exist, but we do not need to look beyond our newspapers. Each week there is a report of Indians put at risk due to the forceful deprivation of internet access.
At present, all four methods of “limited internet shutdowns” are undergoing institutional expansion. The TRAI, acting on reference from the Department of Telecom, started a public consultation on July 7 for the selective banning of internet applications. A challenge to internet shutdowns in Manipur led the High Court to selectively restore wired internet access while blocking social media sites and VPNs. Even the standing committee on IT, based on the submissions of the Department of Telecom and the Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, has condoned selective bans.
In the absence of any evidence, why do we continue to place faith in the curative powers of internet shutdowns? Can we continue to believe in the probabilistic notion that it may help save lives when ample data shows it imperils people? Undertaking an artificial balancing exercise to propose “limited internet shutdowns” is an act of blind faith policymaking that camouflages unaccountable censorship powers which can place millions of Indians in certain danger.
The writer is an Advocate and Founder Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
First published on: 03-08-2023 at 07:07 IST
[ad_2]