Skip to main content

Internet Policing in India

Yes, it has happened. While we were so busy fighting PIPA, SOPA and all other acts that threatened freedom on the internet, we ignored the events brewing in our own backyard. It is with great sorrow that I write about the sad state of freedom in India.

Yes, we are free. Yes, the constitution declares that we are sovereign. The people are sovereign. The representatives of the people are sovereign. Consequently, the parliamentarians are sovereign. Hence, they are in a position to bring about draconian acts that curb freedom of speech, acts which benefit them and them only, acts which make it illegal for you or me to criticise the government; yet, we must bow down and accept meekly, cause the parliament is sovereign, and anyone questioning the sovereignty of the parliament is a traitor and anti-national.

I've always found India to be a strange place, and the series "It happens only in India" on this weblog, under which the current post too is filed, is a collection of things that I find strange, and have had time to write about. While a post on the parliamentary system is long due, a message in my web-browser while hunting for tutorials for Blender said

Access to this site has been blocked as per Court Orders
Why would a court want to ban access to tutorials for a popular, free and open source 3D animation software?

I found this extremely strange. Why would a court want to ban access to tutorials (released either in the public domain, or under creative commons licenses) for a popular, free and open source 3D animation software? However, later in the day, reality sunk in, with the internet abuzz with horror filled stories of how popular websites were banned by ISPs on the basis of a John Doe order. The trouble with John Does is that they are used by people so dastardly, they prefer to hide behind pseudonyms and anonymity.

The trouble with John Does is that they are used by people so dastardly, they prefer to hide behind pseudonyms and anonymity.

A lot of searching on the internet did not yield conclusive results. Everyone seemed to agree that websites including Vimeo, Daily Motion, Pastebin, along with a number of torrent websites could not be accessed. The reasons were unclear. One stream of thought claimed that a copyright firm called (applause at the creativity expressed here) "Copyright Labs" had filed an order with the Madras High Court, asking that distribution of illegal copies of the movie "3" be stopped.

The other stream, and the one I subscribe to, said that Reliance Entertainment was responsible. I think this is more likely, as Reliance Communication was one of the first ISPs to implement the ban.

Whatever be the reason, I see no way to justify the ban. So the court implemented it. The court ought to be responsible, and ought to have a good reason behind its actions and judgements, right? Sadly, this belief held by me and many others has been questioned put through the third degree in recent (?) days. Judgements on 2G scams notwithstanding, the court has also elevated the assertions of a man who has hurled the vilest abuse, advocated violence, and lauded the British rulers--by citing them in its judgement, with manifest approval.

Banning entire websites because some people use them to distribute infringing content is akin to banning knives because some people use them to kill others. Hang on; murder is not as grave an offence as copyright infringement. Big money is involved in copyrights; while lobbying for better protection of copyrights is legitimate business in the US, it's still done under the table here.

Banning entire websites because some people use them to distribute infringing content is akin to banning knives because some people use them to kill others.

The ban is just the tip of the iceberg. Not long ago, the minister for Human Resource Development (ironic, since he does not qualify as a "resource", anthropophagy being illegal in India) wanted to set up a team of people to monitor comments on social networking websites, and prevent any "harmful" comments from being published. (Pause for a moment while you get back on your chair after rolling on the floor laughing your arse off.)

What prompted the government to read the nonsense spewed by a billion people? Apparently, some politically aware youth (yes, such people exist) had shared some cartoons critical of the "Mistress". The travesty must be stopped. The people are sovereign. The representatives of the people are sovereign. The majority of the representatives of people are sovereign. Consequently, the Mistress is sovereign. Anyone critical of the sovereignty of the Mistress, consequently, is anti-national and anti-people.

The people are sovereign. Consequently, the Mistress is sovereign.

Right now, the government has brought in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules. These rules call for censoring content that is "grossly harmful", "harassing", "blasphemous" (this bit is really funny, cause we don't have a blasphemy law in India), "defamatory", "disparaging" along with a number of other ambiguous terms. As I previously blogged, almost anything can fall under these terms. Does this mean that the internet ought to be shut down in India?

Just last October, the Government moved a proposal in the United Nations to have a 50 nation strong team to govern the internet. Laughable, as it shows the ignorance of the Government on the workings of the internet, but we can hardly expect any intelligence from people who make it a point to descend to increasingly vulgar displays in an effort to show that they are like the आम आदमी, the common man.

The policy of the government on the Internet and a variety of issues seems anti-citizen. On one hand, the government is brazenly opposing the freedom of speech of citizens who have access to the internet. What this means is that in the future, I would not be able to write my mind freely, I would not be able to continue this blog within India. It would mean that we would have to use "extraordinary means" to access "ordinary" information and to achieve "ordinary" ends. It means that the government would have us all turn felons if we were to use our right to freedom of speech on the internet.

But then, does the आम आदमी have access to the internet? Can the आम आदमी afford access to the internet on 30 rupees as day (around 50 cents a day)? So, the only people with access to the internet are the bad-bad middle class. They have, since time immemorial been denying the आम आदमी the progress that is due to him. They are troublesome. They are aware and educated. They criticise the government on various policy issues. The conclusion is clear. They are anti-national and anti-people.

No, the आम आदमी is sovereign. Anyone representing the आम आदमी is sovereign. Consequently, the majority of the people representing the आम आदमी is sovereign. Consequently, the "Mistress" is sovereign. The middle class is just vermin sucking away the benefits due to the आम आदमी. The middle class pays taxes, and then demands good roads, better hospitals, better sanitation. Are they effing crazy? That is not what the आम आदमी wants.

The आम आदमी just wants to feel that he is being discriminated against by the other. And this the polity provides in abundance. So, it is the middle class that has held up progress of the आम आदमी. English and Computers discriminate against the आम आदमी, the common man, so let's ban English education and Computers from the workplace.

When I first wrote about the website ban on Google+, I received the following comment

What the hell is going on with Indian politicians at the moment? With the amount of IT talent in India at the moment they should play to that strength and open the net as much as possible!

I still have a bruise on my forehead from when I fell off my chair laughing. If only the Government worked that way...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On Harry Potter and why I dislike the series

There could not be a better time for this post. There could not have been a worse time for this post. Now that the penultimate movie of the series is out, and my facebook wall filled with people who loved the movie. But this is something I really wanted to say, and I shall say it anyway. Harry Potter is pathetic literature. Now, you must be wondering why I say that. There are many reasons. Firstly, the storyline itself is flawed. When a writer sits down to write anything, he/she must set up some essential rules about what is happening. These rules must remain constant irrespective of how many times he/she changes his/her mind. This is so that the readers are allowed to have some sensibility in what they are reading. In the fourth book, Rowling goes ahead and kills Cedric. Then, at the end of the book, the horseless carriages are there again. Nothing special. We all knew that they are horseless. But then comes the fifth book, and BAM, the horses are actually winged beasts that only thos...

On the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard

This is a post that I have been meaning to write from quite some time. Long hours spent typing code on my computer left my hands fatigued, and left me with a lot of pain in my wrists and fingers. That is when I decided to use the Dvorak. But I have got the same bad habit as Dr. Watson, to tell a story backwards. Of course, you must be wondering what the Dvorak is. The story of keyboards starts with the invention of the typewriter. Christopher Sholes, the inventor of the typewriter, tried with a two row piano style keyboard. But then, he got into many difficulties with the design. Then he finally settled for a four row design. This was similar to the QWERTY layout that most computers and typewriters today possess. The engineers at Remington, to whom Sholes had presented his design modified the layout a little further, and then the QWERTY was born. As typewriters became popular, people got used to the layout, and started practising touch typing, i.e. typing without looking at the keys...

The paradox of government

I'm fascinated by the concept of government, and the paradoxes it presents. On one hand, governments grant us a certain set of rights or liberties. On the other hand, they work to strip us of the very liberties they promise. Now, I don't mean that all governments strip people of liberties, but there are liberal regimes, and there are sufficiently restrictive and dictatorial ones. Both models may have results to show, it does not mean that people in a restrictive regime are unhappy (refer to Dan Dennett's TED talk , where he states that ideas or memes can be dangerous when taken from one part of the world, where they are widespread, and, using the virus analogy, where people are immune to the memes; to a part of the world where they are foreign, where people may not be immune to the memes and where people may get infected). History has shown that people were sufficiently satisfied with autocratic governments with a benevolent dictator, and that people in other parts of the ...