Silencing Bytes: An Investigation into the Intersection of Internet Shutdowns and Misinformation
Author: Anurag
Home university: University of Calgary
Education level: PhD Student
Introduction
In recent years, various governments aiming to manage civic activities or maintain order among their citizens have increasingly employed internet shutdowns as measures of control. In 2023, the Indian government implemented 30 internet shutdowns in various regions of the country, lasting a total of 7,821 hours and incurring a financial toll exceeding $500 million (Woodhams & Migliano, 2024). These shutdowns in India are commonly rationalized as a precautionary measure to curb the dissemination of misinformation. This study explores the relationship between mis/dis-information and internet shutdowns through the political economy framework. While doing so, it aims to gain insights into the institutional disruption of internet services by the Indian government in the states of Kashmir, Manipur, and Haryana as a measure to stop misinformation; and the rise of alternative communication channels as grassroots strategies to resist these shutdowns.
Media disseminated by the different modes of communication play a central role in shaping our comprehension and perception of the world. Silverstone (1999) puts it as the “part of the general texture of experience” (2) that informs our collective human experience. The internet takes this experience one step further “as a dimension of individual freedom; as a platform for better democratic participation; as a medium to foster a more critical and self-reflective culture; and, in an increasingly information-dependent global economy, as a mechanism to achieve improvements in human development everywhere” (Banker, 2006, p. 2). As societies worldwide increasingly depend on communication systems, telecommunications, and the internet have seamlessly integrated into social infrastructure, becoming indispensable components of society's communication networks (de Bruijne et al., 2006; Tyers, 2013; York, 2010).
Given its socio-political significance, the disruption of communication networks has been a strategic element in wars, with nations frequently targeting each other's communication infrastructure to gain an information advantage over the opponent, commonly referred as information warfare (Aro, 2016; McDonald, 2006; Ohlin et al.,2015; Thomas, 2014; Thorton, 2015). Historically, the main stakes of war typically involved gaining control of territory, economic resources, determining the type of government, winning over the hearts and minds of the population, and asserting national self-determination with communication technologies like the telephone, television, telegraph, and radio, playing important roles in achieving these ends (Cronin, 2013). In 2022, the intentional targeting of Ukraine's TV tower by Russia during the Russian-Ukraine war and the disruption of internet communication in Gaza amid the Israel-Hamas conflict in the following year shows the strategic recognition of the importance of communication infrastructure (Bashir et al., 2023; Harding, 2022).
However, in a shift over the past decade, governments across the world are shutting down information networks for their own people (AccessNow, 2023). In 2022 alone, internet shutdowns were enforced in 35 countries on a total of 187 occasions (AccessNow, 2023). Ukraine experienced 22 instances of internet shutdowns, while Iranian authorities enforced 18 shutdowns, followed by Bangladesh with six incidents, and additional cases in countries like Jordan, Libya, Sudan, and Turkmenistan, among others. In most nations, these shutdowns were utilized as tools by those in power to establish control and stifle dissent, being imposed during various circumstances such as protests, ongoing conflicts, school examinations, elections, periods of political instability, or significant events like religious holidays or visits by government officials (AccessNow, 2023; Wagner, 2018).
In 2022, India remained the largest offender for a fifth consecutive year with 84 instances of internet shutdowns (AccessNow, 2023). The Indian government authorities justified these shutdowns as a measure to prevent the spread of dis/mis-information, rumors, and maintenance of public order (Hintz & Milan, 2018; Passah, 2021; Shah, 2020; Shah, 2021), but shutdowns have its own cultural and symbolic implications where it has been seen as a tool for political control and corporate propaganda (Sampedro et. al, 2021).
While previous work in the subfield of disconnection studies has particularly looked at the blocking of specific websites i.e. censorship (Meserve & Pemstein, 2018; Dien, 2022; Sampedro et al., 2021), there is a lack of comprehensive scholarly research to fully understand internet shutdowns and its relationship to the spread of misinformation. In addition, according to Gohdes (2015) and Purdon et al. (2015), internet shutdowns have various objectives beyond solely suppressing information. Hence, it is crucial to analyze internet shutdowns as a distinct phenomenon, distinct from internet censorship.
These top-down measures by the government such as internet shutdowns, particularly during periods of political unrest, elections, or social movements, restrict citizens' ability to communicate. In response, grassroots resistance emerges through alternative communication channels developed by individuals and communities to overcome these restrictions when traditional internet infrastructure is compromised. Therefore, the objectives of this study are two-fold: firstly, to advance the conceptualization of internet disconnection beyond the prevailing framework of censorship and conduct an in-depth exploration of the institutionalization of internet shutdowns and explore its relationship with misinformation. Secondly, to explore the emergence of alternative communication channels as bottom-up strategies to resist these shutdowns.
Background and Context
An internet shutdown is more than just a disconnection from WhatsApp, Facebook, or Twitter. The internet, as an infrastructural tool, allows people to access information, and incapacitating people’s access to information is not just an authoritarian practice but also contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Hintz & Milan, 2018; Michaelsen & Glasius, 2018, Passah, 2021, Sampedro et al., 2021). As per data from internetshutdowns.in,Footnote 1 there have been 764 instances of internet shutdowns in India since 2012. It raises concerns that, despite actively promoting initiatives like Digital India,Footnote 2 the country often resorts to autocratic measures such as shutdowns to preserve public order and counter misinformation (Shah, 2021).
The study of internet shutdowns in Kashmir, Manipur, and Haryana in India is significant due to multiple reasons. The state of Kashmir has experienced the longest shutdown in the country. This makes it a critical case study for examining the implications and effects of prolonged internet disruptions. The situation in Manipur, the state with the second-longest internet shutdown, provides an opportunity to understand its relationship with misinformation as all government orders issued by the state government say that the shutdown is being implemented to stop rumors and misinformation. Haryana is an interesting case due to its proximity to the national capital, New Delhi, which adds another layer of significance to the study of how shutdown was implemented in the heart of the country. In essence, by carrying out the case study of Kashmir, Manipur, and Haryana, this study seeks to understand the diverse socio-political factors that have played a role in the institutionalization of internet shutdowns throughout India, while also exploring their relationship with misinformation.
Kashmir's Connectivity Standstill: the world’s longest Internet shutdown
To quell violence, militancy, and online extremism in the region, the Indian government implemented internet restrictions in Kashmir (Rajvanshi, 2023; Shah, 2020). The era of extensive internet shutdowns in India commenced on August 5, 2019, when the Muslim-majority region of Kashmir experienced the world's longest internet shutdown, lasting 552 days (AccessNow, 2023). This action was taken following the controversial revocation of the state's constitutional autonomy and also led to the arrests of several political leaders, activists, and journalists from the region (Shah, 2020). The imposed constraints in Kashmir have exerted adverse effects on economic activities, employment, and educational avenues, impeding students' participation in online learning and raising anxiety among the youth about their future (Shah, 2020). The Indian foreign minister, in a statement to Politico in September, questioned how to sever communication between terrorists and their alleged sponsors while keeping the internet accessible to others (Politico, 2019). According to the Software Freedom Law Center, Kashmir comprises more than 60 percent of the internet shutdown incidents in the country (n.d.). Prior to the longest shutdown, in 2016, the region of Kashmir experienced episodes of violent protests subsequent to the demise of the prominent militant, Burhan Wani. During this period, mobile internet connections were suspended for a duration exceeding four months (Masih & Slater, 2019). Despite opposition from human rights organizations, civil society, and political parties, the Muslim-majority region remains the most severely impacted by the internet shutdowns.
Internet shutdown in the North Eastern state of Manipur
The longest internet shutdown in 2023 was implemented by the Narendra Modi led Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the North Eastern state of India: Manipur, lasting for more than 200 days (The Wire, 2023). The State Government in Manipur had implemented this comprehensive internet shutdown starting from May 3rd, 2023, due to inter-communal violence between two ethnic groups of the state. On July 7, the Manipur High Court issued an order directing the State government to partially lift the internet shutdown. Despite this directive, the Manipur Government has contested the order in the Supreme Court (Amnesty International, 2023). Due to the internet shutdown, there was a significant escalation in human rights violations, prompting the European Parliament to adopt a resolution urging Indian authorities to take "all necessary" actions to stop the violence in Manipur and ensure the protection of religious minorities, particularly Christians (European Parliament, 2023). The authorities in Manipur have justified the internet shutdown as a measure to prevent the activities of anti-national and anti-social elements, aiming to maintain peace and communal harmony. The Government order by the Manipur Home Department, dated July 25, 2023, reads:
the State Government decides to keep suspension of Mobile internet data under Rule 2 of Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 as the preparedness for having effective control and regulatory mechanism for Mobile data service is not technically feasible and there are still apprehensions that the spread of disinformation and false rumours, through various social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc. on electronic equipment like tablet, computer, mobile phones etc. and sending bulk SMS, for facilitating and/or mobilization of mobs or agitators and demonstrators, which can cause loss of life and/or damage to public/private property by indulging in arson/vandalism and other types of violent activities. (Government of Manipur, 2023)
These directives assert that social media is being exploited by "some anti-social elements" as a convenient means to "incite the general public." The orders emphasize the need to halt the dissemination of disinformation and false rumors, as well as to prevent the mobilization of mobs. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting the notion that internet shutdowns effectively contribute to preventing misinformation or instances of violence. On the contrary, it is argued that this shutdown infringes upon the human rights of the people of Manipur, restricting their access to information, freedom of expression, and communication with their loved ones (Goswami, 2023; Lim, 2020; Sampedro et al. 2022; Shah, 2021).
Internet Shutdowns Cast Shadows in Haryana
Haryana is a state adjacent to the national capital Delhi, also suffered a suspension of internet services for three days (Roy, 2023). These were not statewide bans like Kashmir and Manipur but in certain districts and sub-divisions of the state, including Nuh, Faridabad, Palwal, Sohna, Manesar, and Pataudi of Gurugram. The orders, effective for three days until 11:59 PM on August 2, 2023, were a response to communal violence incidents that occurred in parts of Haryana. The rationale behind these orders was the perceived risk of causing communal tension, obstruction, injury to individuals, danger to human life, and harm to public and private property, thereby justifying the imposition of restrictions (Roy, 2023). The justification further included concerns about the dissemination of misinformation and rumors through various social media platforms, mobile phones, and SMS, potentially exploited by agitators and demonstrators, posing a significant threat to life and public and private properties (Roy, 2023).
According to a report by Selva (2019), India is characterized as the nation that has essentially created “the handbook for internet-shutdowns” due to its frequent disruptions of internet services, setting a precedent for other nations to follow the same suit. Scholars studying internet disconnection highlight the troubling aspect of blackouts, as they further marginalize an already disadvantaged community by obstructing their ability to share their experiences and stifling their voices (Lim, 2020). In particular, the events observed in Manipur exhibited the differential impact of internet blackouts, which disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Media reports have highlighted that during instances of ethnic violence in Manipur, a group of men engaged in the public assault and sexual harassment of women who were forcibly stripped naked (Bhat & Chandran, 2022). The imposition of an internet ban during such incidents posed significant challenges in alerting authorities and journalists, hindering the documentation of egregious human rights violations. Advocates for human rights contended that without the internet shutdown, videos of these incidents might have surfaced over two months ago for a more immediate response to address the horror and potentially prevent similar offenses (Bhat & Chandran, 2022). The majority of internet shutdowns primarily target mobile phones, the predominant means of internet access for a considerable portion of the population, especially in rural areas. This restriction results in women facing challenges in communicating with their families through WhatsApp, accessing news updates, conducting mobile payments, and even recharging their mobile plans (Bhat & Chandran, 2022).
Literature Review
The subsequent section outlines the body of literature that informs this study. While internet shutdown does not constitute an independent subfield, its foundations lie predominantly within censorship and surveillance studies (Hintz & Milan, 2017; Howard et al., 2011a; Michaelsen & Glasius, 2018), internet studies (Gohdes, 2015; Purdon et al., 2015), telecommunication studies (Wagner, 2018) and disconnection studies (Kaun & Tere, 2018; Lim, 2020). However, there exists a significant gap in scholarly understanding regarding the phenomena of 'internet shutdown' and its correlation with 'misinformation,' given their relatively recent emergence. As mentioned earlier, governments globally justify the imposition of internet blockades as a pre-emptive strategy to curb the dissemination of rumors, misinformation, and inflammatory messaging (Lim, 2020; Shah, 2021).
Moreover, the literature review revealed that the terms 'shutdown,' 'blackout,' 'ban,' and 'kill switch' are employed interchangeably to denote the interruption or disconnection of the internet. Therefore, this study adopts these terms without distinction. The concept encompasses two primary measures: one involving the 'withdrawal' of specific websites and the other encompassing a partial or comprehensive restriction of access to the internet within designated geographic areas, access points, or user groups (Sampedro et al., 2021).
Internet shutdown can be defined as the 'deliberate interference with internet or electronic communications, rendering them inaccessible or effectively unusable, targeting a specific population or within a particular location, often for the purpose of controlling the information flow (AccessNow, 2018: 2). Literature on internet shutdowns also emphasizes on the accountability of the political authorities, suggesting that an internet shutdown occurs when an entity, typically a government, purposefully disrupts the internet or mobile applications to regulate the expressions and actions of individuals (Olukotun, 2016). They further argue that such actions require collaboration, whether voluntary or coerced, among governments, telecom companies, and internet service providers. This collaboration is seen as indicative of a deficiency in democratic quality.
Sampedro et al. (2021) categorize internet shutdowns based on ‘political system’, ‘recognition strategy’, ‘activation mechanisms’, and ‘scope’ (129). The legal and political context, as discussed in the previous section, serves as a distinguishing factor, with shutdowns taking place in democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial, or failed state environments, each providing varying levels of protection to fundamental rights (Lim, 2020; Sampedro et al., 2021). ‘First-generation internet shutdown practices’ involve selective repression with specific goals, while ‘second-generation practices’ lack clear objectives (129). ‘Activation mechanisms’ include ‘preventive shutdowns’ anticipating threats and ‘reactive shutdowns’ responding to detected threats (Shah, 2021; Sampedro et al., 2021; Wagner, 2018). Shutdowns are further classified into total (affecting all communication structures) and partial (affecting only part of the network) blackouts. The collaboration between governments, telecom companies, and internet service providers in implementing these shutdowns is seen as indicative of a democratic deficit and authoritarian practice.
Freyburg and Garbe (2018) raise another important aspect i.e. the ownership of internet infrastructure (ISP: internet Service Provider) and how do they associate with shutdowns. ISPs can be seen as centralized points of control or “gatekeepers” of the internet as they control the gateway through which data flows in and out (DeNardis, 2014, as cited in Freyburg & Garbe, 2018). The study highlights an intriguing observation that even free and independent ISPs cannot evade shutdowns, as governments in the sub-Saharan region were able to disconnect people during elections. In other nations of the region, governments adopted the method of ‘slow-shutdown’ which involves a series of flexible state regulations implemented over time to establish a legal framework that facilitates the ease of implementing internet shutdowns (Parks & Thompson, 2020). This study aligns with my research, as it shares a comparable framework that allows the government authority for the straightforward implementation of an internet shutdown.
Wagner (2018) broadened the concept of internet shutdowns, defined as deliberate disruptions of digital communications by government authorities, to include "communicative ruptures" (3919). This term refers to the consequences that occur after a shutdown is implemented, resulting in the disconnection of a community. His research establishes a clear differentiation between censorship and shutdown that advocates for a separate study of shutdowns. He argues that internet shutdowns, unlike content-specific censorship, indiscriminately block all forms of digital communication, including mobile phones and telephony, making digital communication nearly impossible, with no access to uncensored content (Wagner, 2018).
The internet has a dual nature, serving as both an infrastructure and a communication medium (Giacomello, 2005 as cited in Vargas-Leon, 2015), a tool for economic growth (Braman, 2010), and, to some extent, a catalyst for political changes (Lotan & Graeff, 2011). It functions as both infrastructure and communication medium, supporting various distribution networks and facilitating the transmission of diverse data (Radvanovsky & McDougall, 2010 as cited in Vargas-Leon, 2015). It is also considered as "critical infrastructure," enabling communication for utilities, personal emails, articles, and transactions (Giacomello, 2005 as cited in Vargas-Leon, 2015).
Internet serves as an infrastructure for essential communication for more than 750 million mobile users in India. As a technological backbone, it has become indispensable in providing real-time communication, connecting the vast geographical and diverse demographic landscapes. As a crucial infrastructural tool, the act of shutting down the internet is not merely a threat to the digital infrastructure but also carries profound symbolic implications. It serves as a demonstration of cultural significance and represents the state's expression of power. From this perspective, any action that impacts the internet infrastructure, such as shutting it down, directly influences the communication process.
Governments worldwide have sought control over the internet, as outlined by Vargas-Leon (2015). Several countries, including Australia, Russia, the UK, and the USA, have experienced discussions or incidents related to the potential shutdown of the internet (Vargas-Leon, 2015). In Australia, state-owned ISP Telstra faced outages in 2009 and 2012, which sparked suspicions of government testing, though it was denied. Russia proposed a bill in 2014 allowing the president to cut off the internet during emergencies, but it was criticized for its impact on freedom of expression (Vargas-Leon, 2015). Prime Minister David Cameron suggested internet shutdowns in the UK after the 2011 London riots that faced strong opposition (Vargas-Leon, 2015). In the USA, the 2010 bill called Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act aimed to grant the president the authority for a cyber emergency shutdown, known as the "internet kill switch," but the bill did not pass (Vargas-Leon, 2015).
These kinds of attempts from the end of the government to shutdown the internet can be seen as top-down measures that often coincide with periods of political unrest, elections, or social movements, limiting citizens' ability to communicate and access information. In response to these challenges, there has been bottom-up resistance manifested in the form of alternative communication channels developed by individuals and communities. These alternatives seek to bypass restrictions and maintain communication in situations where the traditional internet infrastructure is compromised.
Theoretical Framework
For this study, I propose critical political economy to study the relationship between internet shutdowns and misinformation. As outlined in the preceding section, the act of internet shutdown can be also interpreted as a manifestation of power and control over communication infrastructure. Scholars in media and communication commonly examine such issues through the lens of media control (Chomsky, 2002), investigating how governments exert influence over the channels of mediated communication, such as the internet or web-based platforms, with the aim of overseeing and managing expressive content. Political economy as a theoretical framework seeks to “decenter the media of communication” (p. 66), considering the communication system as an essential component of underlying economic, political, social, and cultural processes within society (Mosco, 2009).
Political economy as a framework of inquiry provides us with the tools to study the social and power relations that are responsible for the production, distribution, and consumption of resources (Mosco, 2009). From this vantage point, having the ability to control the internet provides a strategic advantage in shaping narratives, controlling information flow, and influencing public opinion. Governments, for instance, may justify internet shutdowns by citing concerns about misinformation, national security, or public safety. However, such actions raise questions about the balance between security measures and the preservation of democratic values, freedom of expression, and the right to access information. It demands a focus on underlying forces and mechanisms to discern how social relations are structured around power, determining their capacity to govern individuals, processes, and entities (Mosco, 2009).
Herman and Chomsky (2002) do acknowledge the positive aspects of the internet, such as its role in “breaking corporate stranglehold” and “opening an unprecedented era of interactive democratic media” but while doing so, they caution about the risk of control and commercialization of internet which would limit its democratic potential (p. 16). They write, “The privatization of the internet’s hardware, the rapid commercialization and concentration of internet portals and servers and their integration into non-internet conglomerates (…) and the private and concentrated control of the new broadband technology, together threaten to limit any future prospects of the internet as a democratic media vehicle” (p. 17). As they predicted, the concentration of control over the internet infrastructure by the government and powerful entities has amplified the risks they highlighted. When governments have the authority to shut down the internet, it exemplifies the potential for centralized control, limiting the democratic potential of the internet as a free and open space for information exchange. The issues they raised about commercialization restricting the democratic character of the internet can be extended to internet shutdowns instances in India, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, sub-Saharan nations, (Lim, 2020; Parks & Thompson, 2020; Shah, 2020; Shah, 2021, Sampedro et al. 2022, Wagner, 2018) where it has been used as tools for control and censorship. It further emphasizes the importance of preserving an open and decentralized internet for democratic values.
Mosco (2004), in his work, The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace, suggests that the internet, or cyberspace often focuses on its technical and political aspects—how it's built and governed but its cultural and mythic character is ignored. In other words, beyond technology and rules, cyberspace has a symbolic and cultural significance. It's not just a product of technology and politics; it's also shaped by cultural beliefs and myths, making it a space that holds both technological and cultural meanings. In the context of this study, the unprecedented control over communication networks can be seen as an expression of authority and control by those who are in power. The act of restricting internet access may carry symbolic weight, representing a limitation on the flow of information, freedom of expression, and access to digital spaces. From a cultural standpoint, it may signal a desire for control over narratives, dissent, or information dissemination. It can be perceived as a tool for shaping public opinion, restricting alternative viewpoints, or maintaining social order. Although the cultural meaning can vary across different societies, reflecting their unique values, political climates, and historical contexts.
Pickard (2020) writes that an “informed society” is the “bedrock of self- governing society” (p. 165). He further writes that as a society, we rarely reflect on the infrastructures and policies that are required to maintain a healthy press and information system. It is often influenced by 'structural vulnerabilities,' which encompass access to the internet, new types of discrimination and censorship, concerns about net neutrality, ownership and governance of infrastructure, increased levels of disinformation and misinformation, and extensive corporate and state surveillance (Pickard, 2020). These factors not only impact journalism but also have broader implications for the flow of information in general. An approach grounded in political economy enables us to comprehend how power is concentrated in institutions, the ownership and control of information infrastructures, and the power dynamics that shape the democratic potential of a society (Pickard, 2020).
Building upon the existing theoretical foundations, this study also seeks to expand the conceptualization of the political economy of communication within the context of internet shutdowns, viewing them as a systematized "control of information" (Murdock & Golding, 1973, p. 226) that engenders a "consolidation of consensus" (Murdock & Golding, 1973, p. 226). This framework will facilitate an assessment of the effectiveness of media and communication systems by analyzing how they influence social and political power and if they, overall, are a force ‘for’ or ‘against’ democracy (McChesney, 2013).
Additionally, the theoretical framework of this study will also extend to explore the relationship between telecommunications companies and the government, market concentration within Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and the societal implications of differential access to Internet infrastructure, often reflecting class distinctions (Block, 2019). In addition, this study will draw upon infrastructure studies to analyze the infrastructural, material, technical, and legal affordances that have enabled internet shutdowns in India (Sampedro, 2019; Shah, 2021, Vargas-Leon, 2015). Lastly, insights from the resistance and activism discourse (Lim, 2020), particularly in alternative media literature, will inform the understanding of how communities in affected areas reclaim communication infrastructure, work around restrictions, and employ subversive strategies to address the challenges posed by internet shutdowns.
Research Questions (RQ)
This research seeks to investigate and analyze the prevalence of internet shutdowns in India spanning from 2013 to 2023. The primary objective of this study is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the nature, underlying purposes, and motivating factors behind these shutdowns. Scholars in the domain of disconnection studies consider internet shutdown as a crude authoritarian practice to enact a sophisticated form of repression by disabling the access to information of citizens, ultimately disabling their voices (Glasius, 2018; Hintz & Milan, 2018; Lim, 2020). Therefore, this study also indulges in understanding the ties between internet governance and the disconnection of the internet. To do so, I ask:
Q1. In what manner does the government articulate the framing of supposed social threats, such as rumors and misinformation mediated by the internet?
- (a) Why has the recurrent use of internet shutdowns evolved into a common mode of governance among other levers within the regions of Kashmir, Manipur, and Haryana?
Q2. What are the lived experiences of individuals in regions of Kashmir, Manipur, and Haryana who have encountered internet shutdowns?
- (a) What alternative communication channels develop during an internet shutdown, and what impact do they exert on the dissemination and containment of misinformation within the information ecosystem?
Methodology
To answer these questions, a comprehensive multi-method approach involving interviews and textual analysis will be employed, drawing insights from three primary data sources: interviews, analysis of government papers, legal amendments, policy documents, and media reporting. I divide my methodological approach into two parts: critical textual analysis and process tracing, and semi-structured interviews. The first part of the methodology employs ‘critical textual analysis’ and ‘process tracing’ which involves a close reading of government papers, legal amendments, policy documents, and media reports. This aims to address Research Question 1 which focuses on the top-down approach employed by the government in framing and addressing misinformation by the means of internet shutdown. The next part involves conducting semi-structured interviews with residents impacted by internet shutdowns, along with lawyers, journalists, and digital activists actively engaged in initiatives against internet shutdowns in India. By engaging with various stakeholders, this part seeks to understand the bottom-up resistance mechanisms and examining the role of alternative communication channels during shutdowns and their impact on the dissemination and containment of misinformation within the information ecosystem and answer Research Question 2.
Critical textual analysis
Critical political economists of communication examine institutions possessing significant market power and the capacity to impact the production, distribution, exhibition, or access to communication resources. Additionally, they scrutinize government actions and actors involved in these processes (Caranana, 2024). Methods like interviews, participant observation, and ethnography enable the direct observation of the life processes of specific individuals as they engage in or generate material outcomes (Caranana, 2024). However, in situations where access is limited, documentary evidence and scrutiny of governmental activities become particularly crucial (Caranana, 2024). Such information can be sourced from various documents created by or pertaining to the government, encompassing public records, media reports, and more (Caranana, 2024). Robert McChesney (2013) argues that policymaking is “the nucleus of the atom” for critical political economy of communication (as cited in Caranana, 2024).
Therefore, for my study, I will perform a critical analysis of recent legal amendments that have faced substantial criticism for their regressive attributes, potentially granting extensive regulatory powers to the government over data, the internet, and various forms of information infrastructure. In particular, the recently enacted Telecom Act of 2023, which passed by the Indian Parliament on December 21st, 2023, has been described as a "draconian reincarnation of a colonial monstrosity" and a decisive move towards transforming India into a "surveillance state" (Sharma, 2024; Tharoor, 2024). In addition, my study will also read government orders, notifications, parliament proceedings, policy consultation papers, and media reports available in the public domain. These secondary sources will provide valuable context, analysis, and additional perspectives on the phenomenon of internet shutdowns in the specified regions, contributing to a more comprehensive and well-informed examination of the issue.
Process Tracing
Process serves as a helpful “analytic tool for drawing descriptive and causal inferences from diagnostic pieces of evidence—often understood as part of a temporal sequence of events or phenomena” (Collier, 2011, p. 824, as cited in Parks, 2020). Bennett and Checkel (2015) define process tracing as “the analysis of evidence on processes, sequences, and conjunctions of events within a case for the purposes of either developing or testing hypotheses about causal mechanisms that might causally explain the case” (p. 7). In other words, by examining how events unfold over time and understanding the connections between them, process tracing, as a method, helps in gaining a more detailed understanding of the complex causal relationships of a series of events. Its strength lies in its capacity to go beyond a simple historical account and systematically investigate the interactions among various factors and their influence on outcomes over time (Bennett and Checkel, 2015). Process tracing is apt for studying internet shutdowns to understand the legal developments by the government of India, which directly affect the communication infrastructure and internet.
Semi-structured interviews
Qualitative interviewing is a versatile methodology in communication research, especially suitable for exploring phenomena that lack direct observability (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). It provides in-depth insights into the initiation, development, sustenance, and termination of relationships, offering valuable perspectives not easily observable through other means. In the context of studying internet shutdowns, qualitative interviews will be required in gaining rich understandings of individuals' thoughts and feelings that will provide a nuanced exploration of their perceptions in their own words (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). Additionally, qualitative interviewing also serves as a tool for triangulation by allowing member checking, a process where preliminary findings from one method are verified by comparing them with the perspectives of the participants (Baxter & Babbie, 2004).
For the most part, qualitative interviewing relies on semi-structured and unstructured protocols. A semi-structured protocol generally consists of a list of open-ended questions that the interviewer wants answered by the interviewee (Adams, 2015; Gubrium & Holstein, 2001). However, in contrast to structured interviewing, semi-structured interviewing is characterized by substantial freedom on the part of the interviewer (Adams, 2015; Gubrium & Holstein, 2001). In interviews with individuals who have encountered internet shutdowns, employing this methodology becomes essential to comprehend the extent to which the imposition of internet shutdowns disrupts the usual information flow, creating a void and potentially contributing to the spread of misinformation. It aims to investigate how users, deprived of immediate access to accurate and reliable sources, navigate the challenge of verifying information obtained from less trustworthy channels during internet shutdowns. Additionally, it seeks to explore the emergence of alternative communication channels amid such shutdowns and the consequential impact on the dissemination and control of misinformation within the broader information ecosystem.
Tentative Findings and Future Work
Legislative Maneuvers: Internet Disruptions as a Defense Against Misinformation
The escalating frequency of internet shutdowns coupled with the absence of legislative safeguards to guarantee uninterrupted internet connectivity, has prompted significant questions in the Indian judicial realm. It has prompted considerations regarding the equilibrium between state authority, exercised for various reasons such as curbing misinformation, ensuring national security, and the preservation of individuals' rights to access information to allow them to engage in communication and express themselves freely. This brings up several questions: How has the Indian government gained immense control over the communication infrastructure and institutionalized the internet shutdowns? What factors contribute to the heightened frequency of internet shutdowns in a democratic system like India? Is the due legislative process being adhered to when issuing orders for shutdowns?
Furthermore, it also represents a departure from the bold and progressive history of India's telecommunications sector. In its commitment to provide a free and open internet for the country's 1.3 billion residents, the Indian Telecom regulator (TRAI) ensured that internet service providers were prohibited from segmenting India's internet into slow and fast lanes, throttling speeds, discriminating against content in any manner or give preferential treatment to any content provider (Prasad, 2018). TRAI’s efforts garnered global acclaim as it reflected a dedication to upholding the principles of net neutrality and creating an environment where information and online services could be accessed without prejudice or undue restrictions.
Scholars studying platforms encryption and privacy do consider the fact that due to the absence of accountability on social media platforms (Van Dijck & Poell, 2013) and the encrypted nature of private online communication tools, the loss of control over information content has led to the perception that shutting down communication infrastructure is the sole available recourse. While governments possess reasonable rights to assert control over these infrastructures for the protection of their people and the security of their territories (International Telecommunication Union [ITU], 2001), the Human Rights Watch World Report (Roth, 2020) extensively elucidates that employing shutdown as a regulatory and governance strategy is both ineffective and counterproductive.
Until 2017, India lacked a formalized law for implementing internet shutdowns, and the authority to do so rested with district magistrates under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). The District Magistrate is typically a civil servant appointed by the government and is responsible for the overall administration and law and order in the district. In 2017, new regulations governing internet shutdowns were introduced through amendments to the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885. These regulations, known as the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) rules, stipulate that the power to order internet shutdowns is now exclusively vested in the home secretary of the union or state governments. Shutdowns may be authorized when deemed "necessary" or "unavoidable" during a "public emergency" or in the "interest of public safety" (Ministry of Communication, 2017).
In theory, the rules suggest an improvement in difficulty and transparency in the process as the authority to order internet shutdowns has now shifted to a higher-ranking official, which is considered positive. However, the practical implementation tells a different story. Non-adherence to these rules is widespread, with District Magistrates persisting in issuing internet shutdown orders, as was the practice under Section 144. The non-compliance with these rules was seen in several states, such as New Delhi, where the internet shutdown orders during the citizenship law (CAA) protests in December 2019 were issued by the deputy commissioner of police – who is not a home secretary. Likewise, in Rajasthan, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh, the shutdown orders were issued by District Magistrates, who is not authorized under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) law. This indicates a violation of the law (Sarkar, 2023).
In addition, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637, affirmed that the right to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to pursue one's profession guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, encompasses the medium of the internet (Supreme Court of India, 2020). Internet shutdowns, being executive actions that restrict internet usage, evidently affect citizens' ability to access the internet, consequently impacting their rights to educational resources, conducting trade and commerce, and receiving healthcare, among other rights.
The government's exertion of control over communication infrastructure persisted beyond the 2017 act, and recently, the Ministry of Telecommunications revamped the entire Indian Telecommunication Act of 1885. The newly introduced Telecom Bill of 2023, unveiled on December 18, 2023, maintains the extensive surveillance and internet suspension powers vested in the Union government. Section 20(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Central Government, State Governments, or authorized officers to suspend telecommunication services or classes of services in the interest of public safety or sovereignty (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2023). This provision allows the government to take necessary measures during emergencies or in the interest of public safety. Notably, the act lacks explicit safeguards for this power, and it is anticipated that guidelines will be introduced through rules. This grants the government broad grounds and authority to direct the suspension of any telecommunication service or class of services transmitted or received by any telecommunication service or network, without substantive checks and balances. The absence of clear directives on the exercise of such expansive power raises concerns about the potential for arbitrariness or misuse through reactive suspension of telecommunication services.
Even from an economic perspective, internet blackouts have had unfavorable consequences for India. Research has indicated that the 16,315 hours of internet shutdowns in India between 2012 and 2017 resulted in an estimated economic loss of around $3.04 billion (Kathuria et al., 2018). Therefore, it is essential to examine why an authoritarian method historically associated with information control during times of war is being implemented within a democratic nation like India for its own citizens. This study will conduct a thorough examination of legislative amendments and modifications in existing laws, ostensibly made in the name of national security and public order, with a purported aim to combat misinformation.
Future directions:
Interviews with digital rights activists and residents of Kashmir, Manipur, and Haryana, along with critical textual analysis of consultation papers, media reports, and government documents pertaining to internet shutdowns.
In a conversation on November 6th, 2023, with Apar Gupta, the Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, important insights were gained regarding the legal changes implemented by the government to institutionalize communication infrastructure. Mr. Gupta shed light on the banning of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in India, a significant measure affecting internet users. The conversation provided valuable insights into the evolving landscape of internet governance in India, reflecting on the intersection of legal changes, technological measures, and overarching government policies that shape the communication infrastructure and impact the digital rights of citizens.
As this study progress, Mr. Gupta agreed to future interviews for a more in-depth discussion on this topic. Additionally, he recommended reaching out to Indian lawmakers and parliamentarians who have been actively involved in drafting and advising on the Telecom Bill, 2023, and other legislation related to telecommunications, to gain a more thorough understanding.
Starting in July 2024, this study will also incorporate indepth interview of resident of Kashmir, Manipur and Haryana from a diverse demographic profile i.e gender, age and socio-economic background, education level and recruit 10 participants from each state. These semi-structured interviews with the participants will focus on their experiences with internet shutdown, sources from where they consumed information and their experiences with misinformation. Discussions will revolve around how people accessed information, the difficulties encountered in obtaining reliable news and updates, instances of encountering false or misleading information, and the reliance on alternative communication channels during shutdowns.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the study explores the concerning trend of governments employing internet shutdowns as a means of control in India. It aims to understand the relationship between misinformation and these shutdowns through the political economy framework. The significance of communication networks, especially the internet, in shaping our collective understanding of the world is highlighted throughout this study. The disruption of these communication networks, as observed in instances of internet shutdowns, poses not only economic challenges but also raises fundamental questions about freedom of expression and access to information. By situating internet shutdowns within the historical, legal, and political contexts, the study provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the motivations, implications, and consequences of such actions and institutionalization of such measures as a form of governance. The cases of Kashmir, Manipur, and Haryana in India serve as specific examples for a nuanced analysis.
References:
AccessNow. (2023). Five years in a row: India is 2022’s biggest internet shutdowns offender.
Aro, J. (2016). The Cyberspace War: Propaganda and Trolling as Warfare Tools. European View, 15, 121–132.
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. R. (2004). The basics of communication research. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.
de Bruijne, M. L. C., van Eeten, M., Roe, E., & Schulman, P. (2006). Assuring high reliability of service provision in critical infrastructures. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 2(2/3), 231–246.
European Parliament. (2023). India, the situation in Manipur.
Government of Manipur. (2023). Government of Manipur Sercetariat: Home Department.
Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2001). Handbook of Interview Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2010). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Book.
Hintz, A., & Milan, S. (2018). Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age| “Through a Glass, Darkly”: Everyday Acts of Authoritarianism in the Liberal West. International Journal of Communication, 12(0), Article 0.
Michaelsen, M., & Glasius, M. (2018). Authoritarian Practices in the Digital Age—Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 12(0), Article 0.
Ministry of Law and Justice. (2023). THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT, 2023.
Mosco, V. (2004). The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. The MIT Press.
Ohlin, J. D., Govern, K., & Finkelstein. (2015). Cyberwar: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts (Eds., Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Olukotun, D. (2016). internet shutdowns – an explainer. DW.COM.
Parks, L., & Thompson, R. (2020). internet Shutdown in Africa| The Slow Shutdown: Information and internet Regulation in Tanzania From 2010 to 2018 and Impacts on Online Content Creators. International Journal of Communication, 14(0), Article 0.
Rajvanshi, A. (2023, August 15). How internet Shutdowns Wreak Havoc in India. TIME.
Roth, K. (2020). Annual review of human rights around the globe.
Silverstone, R. (1999). Why study the media? Sage.
Tharoor, S. (2024, January 12). Telecoms bill makes 2024 look like 1984. The New Indian Express.
The Wire. (2023). internet Shutdown in Manipur Has Now Crossed 200 Days. The Wire.
Thomas, T. (2014). Russia’s Information Warfare Strategy: Can the Nation Cope in Future Conflicts? The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 1, 101–130.
Thornton, R. (2015). The Changing Nature of Modern Warfare. Responding to Russian Information Warfare, The RUSI Journal, 4, 40–48.
Tyers, A. (2013). Without a mobile phone, you basically don’t exist. The Telegraph.
Vargas-Leon, P. (Ed.). (2015). Tracking internet Shutdown Practices: Democracies and Hybrid Regimes. In The turn to infrastructure in internet governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wagner, B. (2018). Understanding internet Shutdowns: A Case Study from Pakistan.
Woodhams, S., & Migliano, S. (2024). The Global Cost of internet Shutdowns | Top10VPN.
York, J. (2010). Policing Content in the Quasi-Public Sphere (Open Net Initiative Bulletin).
- Date modified: