One step forward and then a quick one step back. This seems to be the practice of late, as far as the Central government is concerned. Or at least in the Communications Ministry. In late July, the ministry, headed by Ravi Shankar Prasad issued a note banning 857 adult sites, or, in simpler terms, pornographic sites. Of these, a few were also non-porn sites, which came under the eagle eye of our babus.
There was a huge outcry, and not just from porn-lovers, but also from those who said that the government had no business prying into people’s private lives—what someone does on his computer is strictly his business. Why should the government play nanny? The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) were annoyed too—they couldn’t go around blocking so many sites. And of course techies pointed out that there were several ways to go around the government’s order and access those sites. Within less than a week the government withdrew the directive, clarifying that only specific child porn sites would be blocked.
Now, the government has done the quick U-turn once more. A day after a draft policy that effectively demanded that people keep their Whatsapp conversations on their phones for up to 90 days – that is three months! – has been withdrawn. Again by the same ministry. Again after an outcry on social media, where people pointed out the impracticality and absurdity of it all. Imagine that a Whatsapp user – and there are millions of them – has to keep every conversation, with his friend, colleague, spouse, lover, child etc for 90 days. It would become a nightmare. Moreover, why should these conversations be kept? So that the police can ask to see them at any time? That’s gross invasion of privacy. Can every citizen be treated like a potential criminal?
That the government was clearly alarmed at the hostility on the social media was evident at the speed with which Prasad withdrew the draft. It may have also had something to do with the fact that the draft came at a time when the Prime Minister was heading to Silicon Valley to spend a couple of days with tech majors such as Google and Facebook. What if someone asked him a question about censorship? Already the petition signed by Indian academics in the US about the rising tide of digital monitoring in India is making waves; rightly or wrongly, this impression has gone around that India is putting in place too many controls to monitor citizens. There is a call for a demonstration against him when he visits Silicon Valley. The Whatsapp decision could have created a storm, even if no one asked a direct question about it.
Whatever be the reason, withdrawing the draft is a good decision, though it does show the ministry in a very poor light. It reflects badly on the minister and in the end, on the government itself. The government can say it is alert to public opinion, but why get into this mess in the first place? Wasn’t there adequate discussion and thinking? Or indeed about the timing?
Ravi Shankar Prasad was the designated spokesperson of the BJP during UPA rule; he came to be known as Resignation Prasad, for his constant refrain that the Prime Minister (and other ministers) should resign for some reason or the other. Now, he is being lampooned with one website declaring that he has asked himself to resign for the shoddy decision making of his ministry.
Poor and uncoordinated decisions are not the monopoly of this government. Often, the way the bureaucracy is structured leads to such errors. The difference is that the BJP had come to power declaring that it would not be like the UPA, that it would be more efficient and decisive and that it was committed to governance and nothing else.
Moreover, these two are just a few of the recent decisions that indicate that there is a tendency to keep strict control over the Internet and also stifle dissent. The Bombay High Court has asked the state government to explain its circular on sedition, which knocks the bottom out of the administration’s claim that it had just translated an old circular into Marathi. In Gujarat, Internet services were shut down when the Patels were on the warpath, effectively applying section 144, which can be used to impose a curfew, on online communications. This sets a precedent and one senses that it is going to be challenged sooner or later.
Is this all part of a plan, or is the government taking decisions on an ad hoc basis? Why does the government want to keep an eye on its citizens? What will be the next measure? And most of all, are these just early tentative steps to see how much the citizens will bear and then move forward? Whatever it is, citizens will have to be alert. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, it is said. This is the time to truly understand and apply the meaning of this saying.
