Undermining digitisation

Internet shutdowns have become worryingly commonplace

India saw at least 116 internet shutdowns till September this year. In calendar 2017, there were 79; the number was only 31 in 2016, according to the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), a not-for-profit research organisation based in New Delhi. In reality, there may have been even more shutdowns since many states refuse to respond to RTI (Right to Information) applications asking for details of shutdowns. These can last anywhere from a day to 72 hours, or longer, and obviously, every shutdown negates the official policy thrust of promoting greater digitisation by removing the channel for digital communication. In states such as Jammu & Kashmir and Manipur, multiple shutdowns make normal online activities almost impossible. Quite apart from the disturbing impact on freedom of expression, shutdowns impose huge costs as well. The Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (Icrier) estimates that there were 16,315 hours of internet shutdowns between 2012 and 2017, costing an equivalent of $3.04 billion. The costs in 2018 alone would have been of the same order, or higher, given both an increase in shutdowns and the increasing volume of online business.

Local governments use the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services Rules (Public Safety or Public Emergency), which were introduced in August 2017 to order a suspension of internet services. In the past, Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code was used. News reports suggest shutdowns are often imposed by low-ranking officials, and then retrospectively cleared at higher levels. Moreover, news of a shutdown is rarely disseminated directly to the public, which learns about it the hard way. This draconian measure seems to have become a default option when, for example, an election is held, or there is some possibility of communal tension, or of public protests. These are usually related to apprehensions that social media channels such as WhatsApp may be used to instigate mob violence or to coordinate some act of public protest. But shutdowns have been ordered for all sorts of other reasons. For example, a shutdown was ordered to prevent cheating in police recruitment exams in Rajasthan and many others were ordered in Maharashtra to “prevent rumour-mongering”. In May 2017, David Kaye, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to freedom of expression, critiqued India’s internet shutdowns, calling them “collective punishment”. This is undoubtedly true since every shutdown inconveniences millions of ordinary citizens and causes large, quantifiable losses.

Resorting to this measure represents a failure of policing. It is also often a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted — that is, after a riot or lynching has occurred. In states such as Telangana, where the local administration has been loath to resort to this measure, the police have developed more effective methods of interacting with local communities and gathering intelligence to scotch the spread of inflammatory fake news. Instead of using a blunt instrument such as a complete shutdown, the law and order machinery across the country must find less damaging ways of dealing with increasingly connected populations. Otherwise, given the election schedule of the next few months, the country could see an increasing number of shutdowns, which would run counter to the policy of encouraging digitisation.