Opinion Manipur internet shutdowns: Forgetting the lessons from Kashmir

How can the growing push for digital public infrastructure hold any meaning when an entire state can be cut off from the internet indefinitely, and the ability of millions to access online services, avail the benefits of government schemes, and make digital payments is routinely impacted by shutdowns in the country? With 51 shutdowns and counting in 2023, India is firmly on its way to retaining its title as the global leader in internet shutdowns for the sixth year. At this rate, the nagriks of Digital India will then only be the privileged fraction who can afford broadband connections, residing in regions fortunate to have connectivity. India cannot drive change, including through the G20 presidency — and the inherent focus on the digital economy — or be a leader of open societies if it continues to deprive people of access to an open and secure internet.

As the ban on social media continues in Manipur, so does people’s ability to share and verify information, and access online civic spaces. Internet access is also conditional on MAC Address binding, static IPs, and a ban on Virtual Private Networks. These measures enable greater monitoring of all online activities, and tracing of the user’s location while impeding the exercise of the rights to free expression, freedom of assembly and privacy amid a crisis when people’s need for them is even more pressing. Lack of access to an open and secure internet and social media affects the flow of information from and to the state, weakens reporting, and therefore the ability to bring those responsible for the ongoing violence to account.

The Supreme Court has recognised that the right to free expression and to carry out one’s trade or profession through the internet is a fundamental right, and so is the right to privacy. And fundamental rights can only be limited in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Restricting people’s ability to connect, and then effectively bringing all the ways in which they can connect under surveillance, is neither reasonable nor proportionate.

Internet and social media restrictions also have very real economic costs that impact individuals as well as the country at large — and unfortunately, but hopefully, we will, in the future, see studies that reveal the true extent of damage caused in Manipur. They directly contribute to economic loss and unemployment. For instance, the six-month communication blockade in Kashmir in 2019 left more than five lakh people unemployed, and Rajasthan saw losses of Rs 800 crore due to shutdowns over one month in 2021. At a country level, one estimate suggests that internet shutdown in 2022 caused over Rs 1,500 crore and those in just the first half of 2023 so far have already cost more — an estimated Rs 2,091 crore. This is not new information — in 2016, a Brookings paper estimated that India suffered a loss of Rs 7,932 crores due to shutdowns between July 2015 and June 2016. These figures, while staggering, understate the problem, not just because all shutdowns are not reported, but also since they do not include the unorganised sector. Relatedly, they do not account for the disproportionate impact on particular sections of society that engage more with the informal sector, including women.

Impunity and lack of answers from authorities remain an issue. On July 26, the central government was asked in the Lok Sabha about the number of shutdowns in the last three years, estimated losses, and whether it intended to do anything to minimise these, eliciting recrimination and no concrete answers. Shutdowns are often imposed by state authorities, and they must be made accountable. However, the responsibility to reform the legal framework authorising the imposition of shutdowns through the Telegraph Act and its rules, and implement rights-respecting changes, rests with the central government.

The Manipur government seems to have learned the worst lessons from the Jammu and Kashmir communications blockade of 2019-2020. Then, the Union government had initially imposed a complete internet shutdown for six months, and gradually lifted suspensions after a court intervention, starting with painfully ineffective 2G connections, blocking VPNs and social media. However, the government is simultaneously ignoring the law that resulted from the Kashmir shutdown. The Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin judgment held that shutdowns violate fundamental rights, and may be imposed only when it is proportional, reasonable, necessary, and the least restrictive measure, and can never be indefinite. Three years later, despite industry, judicial, and civil society interventions and international scrutiny, little has changed, and any other state could be next.

Maheshwari is policy counsel and Narayan is policy fellow at Access Now