EDITORIAL

Why Internet gags?

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

Putting curbs on the Internet has become a staple for the authorities here each time they fear some trouble. The measure may no doubt be of some help in curbing rumour-mongering, but it is also true that it puts the general citizenry to enormous amounts hardship.  At a time when communication via Internet has evolved to become a backbone of commerce and almost all other spheres of human activity, denying people the access to this important tool cannot be brushed aside as just a routine administrative measure.

In democracies, even as the governments are originally and inherently designed to facilitate the self-fulfillment of its citizens, yet they have tendencies to subvert free marketplace of communication which is essential for that purpose. The reason being that encouraged by absolute unaccountability and general absence of necessary checks and balances, these governments, usually described as the “servant of the people” often acquire appetite for power, which subsequently transform the servants into masters. According to Franklyn S. Haiman “among the manifestation of this arrogation of authority”, are “unnecessary demands” — that people do what governments want them to do – eat when asked to, sleep when told so, and perhaps read newspapers or watch TV only when allowed to do so.

The government here seems to believe that access to Internet “has” or “could” or “might” or “may” be prejudicial to the “national interests” and the general public order. This conjecture that untoward consequences may result, which will further imperil the already turbulent situation if people continue to have access to the information superhighways, is therefore a reason to clamp down on Internet every now and then!

In the spring of 1987, a team of academics from some prominent universities were taken on a visit of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC) based in Omaha, Nebraska. According to a Harvard professor William Ury, on the tour, the academics received a thorough briefing on every aspect of American preparedness for a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. They were led into the underground headquarters and showed how one could communicate with every missile silo and bomber base in America. At the end of the visit, the academics were finally taken on board the giant aircraft and told that this was the plane the U.S. President would use during a nuclear attack. The plan, they were told, provided for the President to lift off in the plane to escape the attack and continue to direct the war. The plane was jam-packed with communications gear and trailed a huge antenna so that the President could communicate even with a submarine commander submerged in the depths of the Pacific Ocean. Everything was planned down to the last detail – and a trained crew of 80 people stood ready to take to the skies at any time of day or night.

The tour followed a question-answer session and the team of academics started asking questions they wanted to ask. Ury, who was also part of the visiting team, raised his hand and asked the guide, a Department of Defense official: “… If I were in the president’s shoes in the middle of a nuclear crisis, the first person I would want to talk to would be the Soviet premier so that we could figure out how to stop the war. Do you have a communications link on this plane to the Hot Line and a Russian translator on board?”

Obviously there was nothing of the sort on board the President’s plane or at the SAC headquarter. So, perturbed by this query, the Department of Defense official replied: “Communicating with the Russians is not ‘our’ job. It’s the job of the State Department.”

This is exactly what the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi seem to think and believe – that talking with the aggrieved and agitated people of Valley, even at this crucial juncture is not their job. Nor is it to ensure free flow of communication here. The frequent gags put on Internet communication proves the point. Now if government has chosen not to keep the channels of communication open with and among “its own people” at a time when communication is the only chance and hope, one wonders how else does it think of salvaging the situation.

Peace and calm are too important to be sacrificed to the whims of some hot-headed security experts, or the so-called political and strategic advisors, who have proved that they certainly lack the extraordinary foresight and leadership qualities. State’s and its people’s interests, as well as the prospects of peace cannot be made subservient to any abstract entity like governmental ego. Communication is important and it becomes far more important during crises situations.

History is witness there are only two ways of dealing with conflict – one is to go for war (as the government has done so far), and the other is to talk it out. Government seems to have made its choices known.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *