Internet Shutdowns: How Governments Pull the Plug on Human Rights

-- By NiveditaMukhija - 11 Oct 2019

The Case of Kashmir

On August 5, the Central Government announced the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which grants a semi-autonomous status to the Muslim-majority state. The state was bifurcated into two Union Territories, to be directly controlled by the Central Government.

Since the announcement, nearly 4000 people have been detained, including lawyers and journalists, and curfews have been imposed throughout the state. Prominent politicians from the opposition parties have been placed in house arrest. Thousands of military troops have been deployed in the already highly militarized region, and all internet and telephone services have been suspended.

This is not the first time Kashmir has faced an internet blackout. In 2019 alone, there were 59 instances of complete or partial blackouts in the region. But this is the longest blockade: as of the writing of this essay, internet services in the region still have not been restored.

On August 8th, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave an address to the nation, calling the decision to revoke Article 370 “historic”, and one that would end “separatism, terrorism, dynastic politics and corruption" in Jammu and Kashmir, and drive the region towards economic prosperity. Later, at a rally in Houston, he is quoted as saying that the move will finally provide the people of Kashmir equal rights as other citizens. There was no mention of the internet blackout in his speech, and as of yet there is no definite news as to when the blackout will end. A government spokesperson said, on September 12, that the internet blackout continues to be in place as there were fears that “Pakistan might misuse the internet to foment trouble,” a sentiment that was echoed by the Governor of the State.

Government Doublespeak

In the past decade, the democratizing power of the internet has frequently been used by protestors to raise their voices and organize themselves against unjust governments, the Arab Spring being a notable example of the same. But the internet has proven to be a better friend to authoritarian governments, who are increasingly restricting complete or partial access to the internet.

The official reasons given by governments in these cases are coated in the familiar language of ‘national security’, ‘law and order’ and ‘preventing misinformation’. However, recent research (such as that conducted by Jan Rydzak at Stanford) has shown that not only are such blackouts ineffective in maintaining law and order, but they may even contribute to an increase in chaos and violence.

Studies show that communication blackouts at times of unrest can cause uncertainty and panic, as people struggle to gain information about their surroundings. The lack of legitimate news at such a time, a frequent byproduct of internet blackouts, can lead to the spread of disinformation and propaganda. Protestors that were otherwise non-violent and organized are fragmented and may resort to potentially violent acts to make themselves heard.

The real rationale of such governments seems to be to silence the voices of the people, to suppress dissent and to quell protests. Communication blackouts enable governments to have control over the narrative and over the flow of information, and to make sure that there are no records of state activities they may want to cover up.

Internet Shutdowns as Human Rights Violations

Until the telephone lines were restored recently, residents of Kashmir had no means to communicate with their family or friends outside the heavily militarized state, and no one could reach them for help. The healthcare services continue to be severely disrupted as patient data and medication details are often stored online. All work and education was suspended, with the state in a terrifying, silent limbo. Stephen Graham, who studies the links between human geography, urbanism, and the sociology of technology, calls communication blackouts and curfews as “infrastructural wars”, and a form of modern political violence, directed against civilians.

The social, physical, psychological and even economic damages of internet blackouts are immense. In 2016, the UN passed a resolution condemning Internet shutdowns and reiterating that people have the same human rights online as they do offline. There is a growing consensus that internet blackouts not only violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by a country’s constitution, but human rights that are recognized universally, including not only the right to free speech and expression, but also the right to freedom of association, health, education, and religious beliefs. It is this consensus that must be built upon in order to pressurize governments to cease relying upon such blackouts to control a population.

Seen through this human rights framework, there are increasing doubts about whether internet blackouts can ever be justified. Under international human rights law, restrictions on free speech must pass the three-prong test of legality, necessity and proportionality. Given that such restrictions are often taken as ‘precautionary measures’, such prior restraint also requires the government to clearly show that there is an imminent danger of public disorder.

The opaque nature of government reasoning about the actual harms it seeks to protect, coupled with the lack of temporal and geographical limitations on internet shutdowns, make such internet blackouts manifestly illegal. Further, overbroad and outdated legislations, relying on vague concepts of “national security” and “public order”, do not meet the test of legality. Such legislations frequently lack a sunset clause, adequate safeguards, and mechanisms to ensure transparency. A case in point is the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, drafted by an imperial government to quell any signs of a dissent, and passed in an era when technology did not have the bearing it does on life today.

India, the world’s largest democracy, has had 159 internet shutdowns since 2016, and stands at the top of the growing stack of countries that are frequently cutting off civilian access to communication services to silence protests. Given this continuing trend, it is thus high time we view such blackouts for what they are: human rights violations on a mass scale, and one of the biggest threats to democracy today.

I don't disagree with anything you have said here. The rhetoric is strong, but also familiar. The most important part of the next draft will revolve around your idea, rather than other peoples' contributions. Put your voice first, saying what you have new to say from the outset, so that the rest of the context can take up less of the space than it takes here.

I'm not sure I know what your thoughts are, because the current draft is too modest about them. But it does seem to me that you can more clearly address the central problem the current draft identifies. There's nothing unlawful about the extensive use of shutdowns in India, because the law is exhaustively supportive of executive authority. Offering human rights objections to a course of action specifically made lawful domestically works only to the extent that there are significant supranational enforcement possibilities. This is not quite true in Europe, as the Polish and Hungarian situations with respect to rule of law enforcement in the EU show. Nowhere else is it even close to true. What role can non-Indian fora play in enjoining or interfering with activity which is made lawful by Indian legislation?

This is the primary puzzle, as you show. But your rhetoric doesn't address it. The next draft should.

---

You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, NiveditaMukhija
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.