Author: Bedavyasa Mohanty

Why Miranda House Disrupted ABVP’s Manifesto Reading Ahead of DUSU Elections

“They can’t claim freedom of speech when they constantly create a culture of fear, violence and harassment.”

Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections are a mega-event, to say the least. They involve SUVs and convertibles sports cars with men in sunglasses and saffron scarfs hanging out the windows or sitting on the roof. They involve big billboards with oddly spelt names on every corner of campus and thousands of small paper pamphlets littered across streets. 

WhatsApp groups are flooded with invites to trips and promises of free goodies, mainly by the student wings of the two major political parties in India – Akhil Bhartiya Vidya Parishad (ABVP), the right-wing student vertical of the BJP and National Students Union of India (NSUI), the student body of Congress. Apart from them are the left-leaning parties such as All India Student’s Association (AISA), Student’s Federation of India (SFI), etc. 

An example of how student parties try to induce students into voting for them. Credit: Ritul Madhukhar.

A major part of the ‘democratic’ process of DUSU elections is manifesto reading.

Throughout August and early September students are greeted, and sometimes disrupted, during class with candidates wishing to speak to us informally about the upcoming elections. However, manifesto readings are a formal way for candidates and representatives to put forth their ideas and respond to questions regarding the same. 

On September 9, a whole chunk of the day was cleared from Miranda House’s daily schedule to accommodate the manifesto reading. The event started with Miranda House Students Union (MHSU) candidates’ speeches. This year turned a new chapter for MHSU since the college saw a surge in the number of candidates contesting for each post, in contrast to last year when the president’s position went uncontested and there was a single candidate for vice president.

Around 2:30 pm the DUSU candidates were given the podium to speak, starting with ABVP’s vice-presidential candidate, Pradeep Tanwar. However, he was immediately met with chants of “ABVP, go back!” from the entire auditorium. Students stood on chairs and continued their slogans over the party’s attempts to speak. This went on for over seven minutes, post which they ultimately gave up on trying to address the students and left after showing their ballot number. This was immediately followed by friction between the ABVP members in Miranda House and the other students opposing the party where claims of curbing their freedom of speech were made from the party’s side. 

This isn’t the first time Miranda House students have not allowed ABVP to speak during the manifesto reading. Last year, a smaller group of people raised slogans against the party, accusing them of allegedly ignoring sexual harassment cases against their candidates. Resultantly, the party had to leave without addressing the audience. 

This year, the push-back from Miranda House was bigger.

This was presumably on the grounds of the party’s history of enticing violence on campus. Yogit Rathi – ABVP’s candidate standing for the post of secretary – is allegedly responsible for the 2017 violence in Ramjas College. Last month, ABVP disrupted a screening of Anand Patwardhan’s documentary Ram ke Naam at Ambedkar University (Kashmere Gate campus) and damaged college property. 

Another, more important reason for this response from the students was that ABVP members had disrupted Tempest 2019, the Annual Cultural Fest of Miranda House. Men from the party had banged and pushed on the college gates, demanding entry in lieu of Hindu College’s V-Tree protest which was on the same day in February as the fest. 

Campus streets littered with fliers for DUSU election candidates. Credit: Giitanjali

A student from Miranda House, who wishes to remain anonymous shared her views on the matter, “I think the immediate slogans happened for a specific reason – Tempest security was compromised because of them. They are the reason a lot of us have stopped attending our own fest. ABVP constantly uses the front of freedom of speech but they only deserve a platform in democratic spaces when they respect that process. From the use of violence, constant harassment plus the lack of accountability they’ve shown over the years I don’t think they do. Instead, they use the manifesto reading as a way to speak a sanitised version of themselves different from their rallies and their behaviour as a party. They can’t claim freedom of speech when they constantly create a culture of fear, violence and harassment.”

Muskan Dhar, a third-year History student pointed out that they were given the time to speak. “One of the ABVP women from Miranda House was standing for the post of the central councillor. She was speaking and we even counter-questioned her when she said she supported the installation of the Savarkar bust. She went on to say that India is a Hindu Rashtra and this land belongs to Hindus! She said that in our college and was received beautifully.”

Following ABVP’s exit from the auditorium, AISA took the stage and was received with cheers from Miranda House.

While they were allowed to address the students, they were not without issues. Students claimed that they just took the anti-ABVP stand; their manifesto mainly consisted of what ABVP does wrong, rather than what they want to do right. The questions raised to them were also not answered satisfactorily. 

“I asked the previous year’s AISA Presidential Candidate why he did not talk about the need for an anti-discrimination cell when he talked about internal complaint committees in his speech at Miranda House. Why a manifesto that talks about gender justice so conveniently ignores social justice. He said that they have this issue in their demands and he will bring it forward. This year also, the presidential candidate from AISA did not talk about the issue that AISA said they will raise. So, I question the hypocrisy of the student’s organisation,” said Tejaswini Tabhane, an Economics student at Miranda House.

DUSU elections are somewhat of an inconvenience to most students – something to be endured and avoided until it’s over. I take rickshaws instead of walking because it’s not safe during election season. But taking a rickshaw means leaving 15 minutes earlier because the Arts Faculty road is bound to be log-jammed. 

Miranda House is a safe space for its students. For the most part, it shelters us from what goes on outside. Manifesto readings are one of the few times outsiders come into our little bubble. Today’s response to ABVP is a reassurance that everyone we share this space with stands together to oppose what we know is wrong. 

Featured image credit: Ritul Madhukar

Students and Faculty of DU March in Support of Academic Freedom

“In no uncertain terms, I’d say that this is the death of our university,” said Nandita Narain, Mathematics professor from St Stephen’s College and DUTA’s ex-president.

On July 23, scores of students, student bodies – such as All India Student’s Association (AISA), Students Federation of India (SFI), Pinjra Tod – and faculty members marched in defence of academic freedom at the Arts Faculty in Delhi University’s north campus. 

The protest was in response to the recent change in the undergraduate English syllabus, where a story allegedly mentioning the 2002 Gujarat riots and a paper called ‘Interrogating Queerness’, amongst others, was dropped. This change came after members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad (ABVP), according to professors, gheraoed the vice-chancellor’s office when the academic council’s meeting was underway on July 16. 

Only July 21, Delhi University released a list of the revised undergraduate syllabus online. Aside from alternations in the courses of the major departments under objection, slight changes can be noticed in various other arts subjects as well. For instance, in Philosophy, a unit consisting of a section by Hamid Dalwai’s Muslim Politics in Secular India was also removed from the second year syllabus. While the Philosophy department was not mentioned in the media, this change is arguably similar to the other attempts by the ABVP and RSS-backed National Democratic Teacher’s Front (NDFT) to alter DU syllabi. 

Also read: ABVP Calls DU’s Revised Syllabus ‘Anti-RSS’, Protests Outside VC’s Office

Kawalpreet Kaur, the president of AISA Delhi, addressed the protestors at the beginning of the march. She spoke about how the BJP government threatened educational institutions in their first term by reducing expenditure on research and with fee hikes. (In November 2018, JNU Teacher’s Association alleged the college of cutting down the average academic expenditure.)

Now In their second term, she said, this government is attacking what students study in DU. “The ABVP, the student wing of the BJP, and the NDFT have used force, power and hooliganism to threaten the democratic way in which the syllabus is made,” she added.  

Kawalpreet Kaur, President, AISA (Delhi), addressing the crowd

According to Kaur, DU is where many people are exposed to caste, queerness and the issues of the marginalised groups, which is what they wish to discourage. Speaking to LiveWire, she said, “ABVP continuously lies [to the media] about how the English Department wants to teach about the Gujarat riots, but the truth is that the story wasn’t even in the proposed syllabus. This is how they’re planning to target all the humanities departments – English, History, Sociology, Political Science – anything that involves critical thinking and requires that the students ask questions.” 

She added, “If our teachers don’t make the syllabus, and instead, a third party like ABVP tells them what they can or cannot teach, then there’s no point in having a university. Nobody other than the teachers should have the right to prepare the syllabus.”

The march took to the streets after leaving the Arts Faculty but was interrupted – almost immediately – by another group of men, chanting opposing slogans. Presumably the members of ABVP, they screamed, “Karl Marx ke bachchon ko, ek dhakka aur do.” They were promptly stopped from proceeding by some of the police officers present, after which the protestors continued.

They returned to the Arts Faculty after marching past Kirori Mal College, where more ABVP members, along with DUSU members, were waiting with banners and opposing slogans. “Tum naxalvaad se desh todoge, hum rashtravaad se jodenge,” they said, criticising the leftist forces and the so-called ‘urban Naxals’ on campus. 

ABVP and DUSU members countering the protest

Delhi University Student’s Union and ABVP President, Shakti Singh, told DU Beat, “The way in which Hindu deities are being depicted in the syllabus is very unfortunate. The entire left-wing professors and the administration of Delhi University must be held responsible for this. We have written to the Chancellor of DU for the students’ representation in the syllabus-making process, and we demand the administration to bring in a new syllabus considering the demands of the students.”

Also read: DU’s English Department Drops Sections on Gujarat Riots, LGBTQ From Syllabus to ‘Not Hurt Sentiments’

Faculty members were also present at the protest, to stand in solidarity with the students and present a united front in favour of academic freedom.

Nandita Narain, ex-President of the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA) and currently a Mathematics professor at St Stephens College, said, “It was absolutely unprecedented that the ABVP was allowed inside the vice-chancellor’s complex. I was president of the DUTA for four years, and I was not allowed inside without appointment. So clearly, there was some instruction from the university administration to allow those people in and that is absolutely shocking. And there is an abdication of all responsibility by the vice-chancellor and his team.”

She reiterated the fact that the syllabus-drafting process is long and democratic and the way it was mocked and interrupted by ABVP and NDTA is wrong. She further added, “The decision of what goes into a syllabus and what doesn’t is an academic exercise, and cannot be done by political interference. That too by one political group which is currently in power and feels that it can take away from history and literature, however it pleases. In no uncertain terms, I’d say that this is the death of our university.”

Abha Dev Habib, a Physics professor at Miranda House and an ex-member of the executive council of DU said that she thinks this will be a long fight. “We really have to keep the fight on and add to the strength if we want to save the university and it’s the autonomy of what will be taught and how,” she added. 

After the march, students gathered outside the Arts Faculty to continue the protest

The subjects under consideration are undoubtedly and incurably political in nature. Attempting to curb what is being taught in a university on the grounds of nationalism doesn’t only defeat its purpose, but also makes for an ill-informed, improperly equipped –  albeit, nationalistic – youth, incapable of discourse and critical thinking. The fact that queerness and historical truths are being dismissed and deemed ‘unfortunate’ threatens the progressive grounds on which Delhi University prides itself. 

Education must be prioritised in an educational institution. Academic fervour cannot be compromised on political grounds.

All image credits: Ritul Madhukar 

Is the Viral ‘FaceApp’ Misusing My Data?

The company owns a never-ending and irrevocable royalty-free license to do anything they want with it… in front of whoever they wish.

There’s been a recent spike in the use of the Russian face-editing app FaceApp, ever since the ‘AgeChallenge’ started trending on social media a couple of days ago.

In the challenge, people – everyone from your friends on Facebook to celebrities across the globe – are using the app to artificially augment their selfies to look older. However, this time it’s not the nature of the app’s features that have raised eyebrows. Instead, people are concerned with the information the app is taking from its users, and what it intends to do with it. 

The app gained popularity with its launch in 2017 when users were given the option to add augmented smiles to someone’s face – alongside some problematic features that also garnered the app considerable backlash. Among these were the ‘hot’ filter, which often just made you paler, and an ‘ethnicity filter’ which was understandably accused of being racist, inviting widespread digital resistance.

As is with nearly every internet fad, people start finding reasons why you shouldn’t partake. With this one in particular, however, the red flag comes from the app’s terms and conditions. 

While according to FaceApp’s terms of service, people still own their own “user content” (read: face), the company owns a never-ending and irrevocable royalty-free license to do anything they want with it… in front of whoever they wish:

You grant FaceApp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid, transferable sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, publicly perform and display your User Content and any name, username or likeness provided in connection with your User Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed, without compensation to you. When you post or otherwise share User Content on or through our Services, you understand that your User Content and any associated information (such as your [username], location or profile photo) will be visible to the public.

Initial claims that the app uploads your entire photo gallery to its server have since been refuted by the founder, Yaroslav Goncharov. Responding to Forbes, he said, “We only upload a photo selected by a user for editing. We might store that photo in the cloud. The main reason for this is performance and traffic. Most images are deleted from our servers within 48 hours from the upload date.”

However, it becomes important to note that they could perform the edits on the user’s phone itself, without uploading them to servers. But they choose not to do so because sticking to their own computers means better training for their AI.

The company is based in Russia, which has arguably been the other source of public discomfort. But, Forbes confirms that these hosting servers are not physically situated in Russia, but rather in the Amazon data centres in the US. 

So, what’s the worst that could happen with your data?

PhoneArena’s Peter Kostadinov says, “You might end up on a billboard somewhere in Moscow, but your face will most likely end up training some AI facial-recognition algorithm.”

Whether that matters to you or not is ultimately your decision.

While your information will probably not be sold to Russian Intelligence or the government, that doesn’t mean this policy is absolutely harmless. An application doesn’t have to be doing something nefarious today to make its users cautious of its intentions. 

If there is one takeaway from the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal from last year, it’s that you cannot really trust how your data is handled. There’s an old and oft-overused cliché in tech that if you aren’t paying for a product, you’re not the customer — you’re the product.

It’s overused because it’s often true. While the app isn’t currently selling its (your) data to third parties, there’s no stopping it from directly or indirectly doing so in the near – or distant – future. 

Then again, maybe we’re being too hard on FaceApp. After all, we agree with nearly the same terms and conditions when we use Twitter and Snapchat. The latter even collects geographic information, obtains private messages and contacts.

Perhaps we’re not panicking because they’re American and we’ve already integrated them so seamlessly into our lives.

Featured image credit: Pixabay

Students and Faculty React To UGC’s Move to Do Away With Black Convocation Robes

“DU is under the stress of being privatised, students are protesting for basic rights and all they care about is what we wear on our convocation?” says a recent graduate.

In a circular released in early June, the University Grants Commission (UGC) asked all affiliated public and private universities to adopt ceremonial robes made out of Indian handlooms for their convocation ceremonies. The commission asked for an ‘Action Taken Report’ from the universities regarding the same.

The circular referred to a letter from 2015 in which Prime Minister Modi had advised colleges to make the change. Citing the revival of the Indian handloom industry as the foremost reason, the letter added that such a switch would bring a sense of pride and would be more comfortable in hot and humid weather.

A direct implication of this could be the complete removal of the black, western ceremonial robe and mortarboard.

Some faculty members support this new guideline. “Having Indian style clothes is not a bad thing. It’s more in keeping with our climate and our general ethos in the country. Sometimes, it looks very awkward to see people wearing robes, hats and caps, which are rather colonial – this will just be nice,” said Dr Ramakrishna Ramaswamy, Visiting Professor, IIT Delhi.

Speaking on how it would affect the students, he said, “They should be relieved that they don’t have to go out and hire a separate set of robes – it’s one less thing to do, one less expense.”

Calling the western garb a ‘relic from the past’, a professor at the private university said, “I don’t mind this change, as a visible symbol of the fact that the pedagogy and the process of education in India – as in all post-colonial countries – should not be built on a Western hemisphere-centric model.”

Dr Charulata Singh, Dean, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies also supports the move. She said, “We need to follow our own cultures and traditions and be proud of it. Many universities in India are already following it.”

After the 2015 UGC guideline, many institutions of higher education, including IITs of Kanpur and Bombay, introduced traditional attire for convocation ceremonies. In 2018, JNU’s second convocation ceremony, held after 48 years, mandated everyone present to wear white Indian attire.

However, the ceremony was boycotted by the JNU Student’s Union in protest against the alleged “systematic destruction of the campus” by the VC.

 

Also read: ‘On The Edge’ – our series on caste-based discrimination on campuses – Jadavpur University: How a Dalit Student is Fighting Against a Casteist Professor

But a professor from Delhi University raised some concerns. She said, “I have a problem with this ‘sense of pride’. Everything we do is being disciplined and conditioned towards ‘nationalistic pride’ and ‘being Indian’. I have an issue with this forced nationalism – now do we need to see it in clothes also? India is not a homogenous country. There are many traditions and creating a single narrative for everything is not a positive approach.”

Krithi Ramaswamy, a second-year Sociology student at Hindu College had a similar opinion about the intent of this move and said, “The whole ‘one country, one attire’ bit sounds eerily similar to something else.”

Another problematic side of this step is the potential lack of choice for the students to wear what they want. “The issue I have is with my free will to dress in whatever formal attire I want, not something that is forced on me in what could be an apparent attempt to ‘saffronise’ places of higher learning. The circular is also too vague and open-ended for me. Say, what happens if a student doesn’t want to wear Indian traditional [attire], will the UGC force the University to not confer a degree on that particular student?” said Shauryavardhan Sharma, a second-year History and International Relations student at Ashoka University.

Finding common-ground, Surmayi Khatana, a second-year political science student at Miranda House said, “The students can wear any article of clothing that they desire under their western robes, which won’t be an option if this decision comes into practice. Promotion of ‘Indian handloom’ and use of the robes are not mutually exclusive, both of them can co-exist as practices.”

Also read: UGC Comes Under Scrutiny after Student Barred from Exam for Wearing Hijab

Pranjal Asha, a recent graduate from Miranda House said, “I chose to wear a saree at my farewell, same as the rest of my batch. But, when you’re enforcing it on me, that changes the entire dynamic – you’re taking away my freedom to wear what I want on the day that belongs to me.”

She added, “I absolutely feel this guideline is nonsense. UGC doesn’t have time to address the issues of ad hoc professors; the cut-offs are still high, DU is under the stress of being privatised, students are protesting for basic rights and all they care about is what we wear on our convocation?”

Finally, there is no denying that in this post-liberation era, we grew up on a diet of Western college shows, where an almost iconic scene is one when graduating seniors throw their mortarboard hats at the end of the ceremony. Shauryavardhan Sharma, much like the other students, called it an experience he wants to partake in.

But as Dr Ramaswamy pointed out, at a recent convocation he attended, it was awkward to see these kids throwing their shawls. “That doesn’t quite have the same effect. No spin,” he said.

Featured image credit: Unsplash 

‘Sex Education’: What Netflix Gets Right but India Doesn’t

It speaks openly about masturbation and sexual exploration – while for most of us, sexual autonomy as a teenager is unimaginable.

I recently moved into a new house. In the process of unearthing hoarded goods, I came across a box of my textbooks from middle school. One particular book’s contents evoked mixed emotions, given the newer contexts in which I have explored it – as a former adolescent, a brand new adult; a science student in high school but an arts student in college; and as a heavy consumer of literature and media.

The notorious couple of chapters from my eighth-grade science book – ‘Reproduction in Animals’ and ‘Reaching the Age of Adolescence’ – were our first, and for most the only exposure to sex, or at least it’s education. CBSE’s prescribed textbooks circle back to the concept in tenth, but insufficiently. By the time it delves into details in the 11th grade, it is reduced to an optional discipline.

Of course, it is impossible for me to put ‘sex’ and ‘education’ together without referring to the eponymous Netflix series. The show revolves around Otis, a high-school student struggling to navigate his ambivalence towards sex and his peers’ obsessions with the same. With the addition of Jean, his sex-therapist mother, the show has a refreshing and bold take on the subject, especially for Indian audiences.

Also read: Disney’s ‘Nutcracker’, Netflix’s ‘Sabrina’: Why Fairy Tales and Other Favourites Are Getting Darker

In Sex Education, the parents play an active part in their children’s lives, sometimes to a fault. They’re flawed, scared and make mistakes, and their kids are often left to deal with the repercussions, exemplified by Maeve’s absconding parents or Adam’s military dad. The teenagers themselves stem from clichés, but are treated as wholesome and mature characters. Eric isn’t just the gay best friend, Aimee isn’t simply the dumb blonde girl and Maeve is more than her bad girl persona.

The show dares to talk about sexual health and how it derives from and affects an adolescent’s mental health – all while India struggles to normalise mental health itself. It takes sex beyond its cisgender heteronormative confines, exploring how it fits into varying gender identities and sexualities, whereas we’ve yet to normalise the former. It speaks openly about masturbation and sexual exploration – while for most of us, sexual autonomy as a teenager is unimaginable.

Flipping through the pages with diagrams of the male and female reproductive system, alongside terms like ‘secondary sexual characteristics’, I can distinctly remember the utter discomfort of studying topics like menstruation in class.

“There was a lot of giggling and avoiding eye contact with the other gender. Many people would sit in the back bench and flip through the chapter way before it was even meant to be taught. Our teacher did her best to control the giggles, but she was probably very used to this reaction,” said Gauri Kumar from R. N. Podar School, Mumbai.

It wasn’t until the 11th grade, when I opted for Biology, that I found out that there exist a plethora of contraceptives beyond condoms and that AIDs is not the only incurable STD. Only about 30 out of 150 students in my batch got this information.

Things are done in a similar manner all across India.

I spoke to people who went to school in Delhi, Mumbai, Raipur, Patna and Chennai, and – not to my surprise, unfortunately – none of them received any formal sexual education. While teachers tried to open a dialogue at some places, at others, such an effort wasn’t even made.

“Some of my teachers would hesitate while teaching this – rush through the chapters and not talk about the diagrams. This would engrain the belief into the students’ minds that this is something that shouldn’t be talked about publicly,” said Jatin Jha from Don Bosco Academy, Patna.

Also read: ‘Black Mirror’: Season Five is a Blunder its Cast Cannot Save

The topic is also not broached by most parents, with a few exceptions. But even those attempts remain severely deficient.

“My mom gave me the most awkward sex prep talk when I was 11. She just to tell me to not get physically too close to a guy because I can end up pregnant and she told me that rape is very very painful,” said Anubha Gupta.

The focus is more on sexual awareness in terms of harassment and ‘good’ or ‘bad’ touch. While extremely important, this adds to the narrative of how dangerous and ill-advised sex is for teenagers and does nothing to help them accept it as a natural part of growing up.

On the one hand, our adults evade this topic and on the other, we delve into it anyway – armed with little guidance and a potential plethora of misinformation. Just because a subject is not discussed, doesn’t magically make it any less of a reality for teenagers across the country. Despite the awkwardness and the unwillingness to have holistic discussions about it, we end up engaging in sexual activities anyway, and in doing so pose a threat to our own physical and mental health, and to others’.

“The internet mixed with teenage hormones gave us some really odd results. We discovered porn and sites like Omegle, with its standard question of ‘asl?’. All these instantaneous inputs not only gave us information that no one taught us how to handle but also made so many of us vulnerable to manipulation. With puberty and dating, teens – especially girls – started getting sexualised for their breasts and locker room talk became a thing. Before we knew it, we started doing things that we just did not understand,” said Srishti Sensarma from The Shri Ram School, Moulsari, Delhi.

The systematic ignorance and societal oppression of all things related to sex for high school students leads to this severe lack of awareness and knowledge. Left at the mercy of the internet, it’s no surprise there are huge gaps in our understanding and acceptance of this.

“How did you receive sex education?”, Netflix asks a grandparent for a video “Indian Grandparents Talk Sex” and very promptly, we hear the reply, “Same way I learnt to laugh, cry, walk. It’s a natural phenomenon.”

But it is this ignorance that leads to the question from India in this video to the cast of Sex Education: “I’m a 20 year old woman. Can I become pregnant after watching porn?”

‘Black Mirror’: Season Five is a Blunder its Cast Cannot Save

Black Mirror’s new season premiered on Netflix on June 5.

Disclaimer: This review contains spoilers. Close the page if you haven’t seen season 5 yet, but definitely come back once you have!

Black Mirror came out with its fifth season on Netflix this Wednesday and the product is… interesting.

The season narrates tales of sexuality and gender fluidity in an age of immersive virtual reality. It stars Miley Cyrus in a story about a disillusioned teen pop-sensation who wishes to break out of her sparkly yet manufactured image. And my personal favourite – a contemporary story about the grave implications of our digital addiction and the power that resides with social media giants.

While this could easily spell out a wonderful season with episodes joining the likes of San Junipero and USS Callister, they aren’t really quite there. The season raises some fascinating new questions but fails to conclusively answer them. The technology, too, is recycled from previous episodes, so much so that the only good new thing they bring is the manner in which the end credits are accompanied by cuts of the story’s conclusion and some very fitting music. Bare respite comes from its cast, but unfortunately, the season overall falls short of impressing – especially in comparison to past seasons.

Also read: The Illusion of Choice in Netflix’s ‘Bandersnatch’

Striking Vipers

The first episode stars Anthony Mackie as Danny and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Karl, two long-time best friends who used to live together and play Striking Vipers – a fighting video game.

After almost a decade, Karl meets Danny and gifts him the newest version of a game they used to play, Striking Vipers X, along with a virtual reality disc. However, once immersed in the virtual game, instead of fighting, they end up kissing as their digital avatars – Karl as a woman and Danny, a man. This quickly spirals into a toil of guilt and pleasure given that Danny is married.

Are you cheating on your wife if you’re attracted to your male best friend’s virtual self – who’s a woman – but not to his physical self? What does it say about your sexual orientation and gender identity, if you’re into women in the physical world, but a man – as a woman – in the digital realm? Is there a line to be drawn between your sexual identity in the digital world and physical reality?

Only Black Mirror makes it possible to broach such questions, but the episode does not satisfactorily answer all these. Its continued obsession with the physical aspect of Danny and Karl’s virtual relationship makes it extremely one dimensional – lacking in the intimate, more emotional aspects of it, or how those would translate in a digital space. There was a lot to be said here about this relationship, that the episode just doesn’t.

The episode ends in true, twisted Black Mirror fashion, that somewhat redeems it. All thanks to Theo, Danny’s wife portrayed by Nicole Beharie, injects a unique perspective of a wife into this situation. She called out her husband’s inclination towards role-playing in an easter egg right at the beginning of the episode. One sympathises with her as she blames her own body for their relationship losing its spark. And when you see her find common ground towards the end, you feel proud of her for bending the norms of marriage.

Smithereens

Andrew Scott does a stellar job as Chris Gillhaney, a grieving cab driver who’s obsessed with driving employees only from ‘Smithereens’, a social media company. As he kidnaps an intern, things quickly go south. He finds himself stranded in a field surrounded by cops and it’s revealed that he wishes to speak to the CEO of Smithereens with no intent of extortion but just to ‘‘say his piece.’’

To me, this episode works on three levels.

First is Chris, a man ridden with the guilt of causing the accident that killed his girlfriend. One that could be prevented if not for his addiction to social media. Second, we find a mother trying to log into her late daughter’s social media account hoping to find answers about her suicide. But in vain, as the company refuses to divulge the password, citing reasons of privacy.

Third, we see the disproportionate manner in which access to information is distributed and concentrated amongst corporate and government establishments across the Western world. Smithereens has access to more direct and indirect information than the police – a commentary on how our social media presence says more about us than how we’re actually understood by society.

Topher Grace as the CEO almost has us empathise with him. He innocently tells Chris how “they” continue to make his platform more addictive and how he can no longer control or stop that.

The episode is well-paced, and the urgency and relatability of the story makes it that much scarier and engaging. We all admit to spending far too long on our phones. The Apple encryption dispute of 2016 is a testament to how privacy laws can interfere with justice. The Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal of 2018 showed the world how our personal information can be harvested at will by the very platforms we used to trust.

Black Mirror’s best served stories feel distant yet absolutely inevitable. This episode, on the other hand, progresses as something we could hear on the news today, adding a sense of immediacy and panic to the story, making it my favourite in the season.

Also read: Sacred Games: Finally, a Show That Doesn’t Shy Away From Religion

Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too

While Smithereens was my favourite in the season, this episode might easily go down as one of my least favourite in the entire show.

Rachel’s story leaves a lot to be desired. She’s a diffident teenager, obsessed with a popular singer, Ashley O. With the launch of the AI doll – ‘Ashley Too’ – created to mimic the singer’s personality, Rachel finds a new best friend, only to receive insincere compliments. Her ultimate failure at her school’s talent show leaves Rachel where she started – under-confident and retreated. All this seems to be a lot of build-up to no clear pay-off as Rachel is just “a big fan” throughout the episode, with no real personality growth or character development.

And if you hoped her older sister Jack would be an improvement, there is nothing but disappointment there, too. Jack was served the ‘Manic-pixie-girl-punk-rocker-who actually has feelings’ card, which is so overdone that her narrative progression feels contrived and forced. With the addition of a father who lands on the opposite end of the parenting spectrum than the mother from Arkangel, there is hardly anything of substance in this family.

Moving on to the star Ashley O, while her character of a troubled teen-sensation has been visited countless times before, casting Miley Cyrus in the role is oddly fitting given her history with Hannah Montana. I couldn’t help but relate her final Nine Inch Nails’ cover to her own post-Montana album ‘Bangerz.’

But, that is just about the only thing I thought was fitting in the season.

Black Mirror’s signature tech-gone-wrong is given a back seat. I wanted to be engaged in her story, the way her aunt used technology we’ve previously seen on Black Mirror to mine songs from her brain after drugging her into a coma. The way she artificially manufactured music and altered its lyrics and moods at will. I was more interested in the 10-feet-tall digital version of Ashley O than most of what the episode tried to focus on.

Its sad attempts at humour barely ever worked and the tragic tale of the disillusioned teen pop-sensation lost its appeal once you get over Cyrus being cast.

Black Mirror is one of those shows I frequently rewatch. To relive the thrill, the horror and the odd episode which ends happily. To remind myself of everything that technology and our society can be – for better or worse. Season five would be a first that I rewatch solely for the cast, if at all.

Why I Support Free Public Transport For Women in Delhi

As someone who takes the metro nearly everyday and pays roughly Rs 4,000 per month, I see myself siding wholly with this decision.

Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) new announcement to make metro rides and Delhi Transport Corporation buses free of cost for women has stirred a lot of dialogue among the people. The decision aims to encourage women to use public transport and reduce instances of harassment.

Rightly being called a ‘landmark’ proposal, this would put Delhi in league with cities like Luxembourg city in terms of providing free public transport.

As someone who takes the metro nearly everyday – often at late hours – I see myself siding wholly with this decision.

In 2017, the central government had decided to hike prices of the Delhi metro in spite of the state government’s opposition to such a move. Since then, the number of women commuters has taken a hit. As of now, only 33% of metro commuters are women, according to AAP leader Atishi Marlena.

A direct consequence of this is that fewer women are able to undertake the last-mile commute, which is often covered by shared rides or on foot. I’ve yet to be in an UberPool or an e-rickshaw which has more women than it has men. My friends and I always carry pepper spray, even while walking home in broad daylight, simply because all we see around us are men – as drivers, vendors or just walking home like us. An increase in the number of women travelling by the metro would help reclaim these public spaces and also make that last mile commute safer.

However, my issue with the ongoing debate is weighing empowerment against equality.

Is it not more uplifting to introduce concessions rather than a blanket exemption? The simple answer to that, for me, is that the scheme is voluntary. The current outrage from women claiming that they are capable of paying their own metro fare comes from an extremely privileged position. This privilege needs to be checked. Most of us have the option and wherewithal to pick and choose our mode of transport, depending on our location, the distance we have to cover and the weather. I often take a cab if it’s too hot outside, or an auto if I know the metro would be too crowded at that hour. I have never taken the bus since I graduated high school.

However, the same options are not available to every woman.

If you are currently comfortable paying for your travel costs, then this scheme, by no means, curtails you from doing so. I pay roughly Rs 4,000 per month travelling to my college by metro. While this amount may be of almost no significance to some people, for others it surpasses their monthly income. This amount, or even a mere Rs 20 bus ride, determines whether they can afford to go to school, college or work. This measure, therefore, is more for them than for those of us whom it doesn’t necessarily affect as much.

However, this entire plan is yet to be proposed to the Delhi Metro Railway Corporation and would tentatively take two or three months to become operational. On top of that, there are many questions about how the Delhi government plans on implementing this in practice and how it would affect commuters and metro staff.

Despite your personal stance on this, the single, most untenable stand is the one that most cisgender savarna men, and sometimes even women, seem to take. A stand where they only accept gender sensitivity and its nature as a spectrum when it’s convenient for them. And in this case, it is convenient for them to say that men must simply ‘identify’ as a different gender every time they need to use the metro or the bus.

Memes circulating on the internet about how men need to simply dress as a woman to work their way around this change is transphobic in my opinion. It trivialises and makes a mockery out of what it means to identify as a separate gender. It also displays the epitome of insensitivity and how hostile they are towards changes that are not in their favour.

Finally, some are arguing that the timing of this decision is questionable.

In the wake of the assembly elections coming up in 2020, it is easy to call this a populist move. While this might be valid to an extent, it is essential to mention that a political party’s power lasts for five years. And simply because a change is proposed at the tail end of their tenure, does not mean it’s a move fuelled solely by the political intent of being re-elected.

All in all, this decision will benefit a lot of daily women commuters like me, and that’s why I support the move.

Ritul Madhukar studies philosophy at Miranda House, University of Delhi.

Featured image credit: Flickr

Let’s Not Shoot the WhatsApp Messenger

For decades, the Indian state’s response to a decline in public order has been neutering the medium instead of combatting the message.

A viral WhatsApp message warning citizens about child abductors has resulted in mob violence against ‘strangers’, leading to 27 reported deaths over the past year. An unfortunate and recurring nadir in India’s political memory has been vigilante violence – often coloured by communal and religious undertones. The Indian state’s response to each such decline in public order has been neutering the medium instead of combatting the message.

In 1927, the publication of Rangila Rasul – a pamphlet satirising Prophet Muhammad’s marital proclivities – ended in the murder of the pamphlet’s publisher at the hands of a Muslim youth named Ilm-ud-Din. The response of the British Raj, in addition to sentencing ud-Din to death, was the enactment of the now notorious Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, a blasphemy law that criminalises outraging a group’s religious feelings.

The colonial administration’s motives behind the law seemed rather straightforward. Criminalising certain kinds of speech abdicated the government of the responsibility to ensure public safety. That it came at the cost of free expression seemed like an acceptable collateral for ‘subjects’ of the Raj. This time around, that abdication is being sought through an instant messenger.

This legacy of shirking responsibility for the failure of public order is apparent in the government’s response to a spate of killings caused by the viral WhatsApp forward. So much so, that a district magistrate in Kishtwar, Jammu (aptly named Angrez Singh Rana) has demanded that administrators of all WhatsApp group chats pre-register with his office. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) has issued a strongly worded warning to the instant messaging service that it cannot “evade accountability and responsibility” for the rumourmongering on its platform.

Amidst this knee-jerk clamour for increased platform responsibility and talk of what technology can do, few are pausing to ponder what it should do.

Each renewed demand for technology control inches us closer to a slippery slope of excessive regulation. The culture of heavy-handed internet shutdowns is a testament to this inconvenient truth. In 2015, a Draft National Encryption Policy by the MEITY to neuter mass-market encryption products was swiftly rolled back amidst public outcry. In 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking to ban end-to-end encryption on messaging platforms. The threat remains that any one of these mob lynchings could be seen as an adequate justification to re-introduce a similar indolent regulation.

This is one of the reasons that even proposed alternatives such as the creation of two distinct classes of public and private messages on WhatsApp are concerning. Public messages, that can be used to identify the original sender of forwarded messages, are unlikely to be effective. Instead, it could impose a chilling effect on free expression. Imagine a government employee forwarding a message that is critical of the government in power, or a whistleblower communicating with a closed group of other whistleblowers. The knowledge that a message or attachment could be traced back to them will deter them from sending it in the first place.

The problem that ‘public message attribution’ seeks to fix may already be possible through internal controls built into the WhatsApp platform. WhatsApp uses a combination of a cryptographic hash function and user reports to tackle spam and content such as child abuse. While the end-to-end encryption prevents WhatsApp from viewing the actual content of an attachment sent on a platform, the cryptographic hashing – which assigns a unique alphanumeric identity to each file – is used to block the message from being disseminated any further. Whether this can be used to identify the original sender of a message is unclear, but the Indian government should consider working with the company to control dissemination of content that has a clear and demonstrable link to public violence.

Attribution, even if successful and used conservatively, is at best a punitive measure. It will do little to curb the spread of misinformation – which is after all the present crisis. It would be advisable to not lose sight of this fact.

Other challenges such as raising awareness among users is perhaps a more daunting task. In this, the most effective measure is not law and regulation but the ability of the government, private companies, civil society and the media to work together. This needs a two-pronged approach of counter narratives and more involved community policing.

In WhatsApp’s response to MEITY, the company has listed six distinct measures that it has either rolled out or is testing to prevent abuse and curb the spread of disinformation. The idea of working with accredited media sources to warn users of viral fake news is a step in the right direction. This should ideally take the form of WhatsApp linking messages that have been reported by a certain number of users as fake news with a prompt to check verified news sources.

Similarly laudable are efforts by the Maharastra police, which has set up a WhatsApp Helpline where users can check the veracity of messages, and the Telengana police, which is working with village elders to counteract unsubstantiated social media rumours. Similar efforts need to be adopted by the Central government – to work in tandem with tech companies, the media and organisations at the grassroots. Extending support to organisations like AltNews and BOOM in this respect is critical.

A combative approach that almost always begins with the issuance of a ‘stern letter’ to a technology company has not worked in the past. Technology controls in the name of national security have almost always ended in incursions on freedom of expression and privacy – be it Telegram’s exit from Russia, Google’s departure from China or the mass surveillance in the US. It is essential that Indian policymakers and civil society not open the doors to similar abuse of power.

A lawyer by training, Bedavyasa Mohanty is an associate fellow with Observer Research Foundation’s Cyber Initiative. On twitter he is @darth_beda.

Amidst Calls for a Ban, India Leads the Debate on Lethal Autonomous Weapons

At a decisive meeting on the future of LAWS, countries such as Pakistan and Cuba have called for a pre-emptive ban, while others like US, Germany and Russia disagree.

At a decisive meeting on the future of LAWS, countries such as Pakistan and Cuba have called for a pre-emptive ban, while others like US, Germany and Russia disagree.

As lethal weapons are becoming increasingly automated, new ethical questions are being raised. Credit: Reuters

As lethal weapons are becoming increasingly automated, this is giving rise to a host of new  questions on the ethics of their use. Credit: Reuters

Geneva: “There is no such thing as an ‘ethical robot’. There won’t be one tomorrow or next week or 50 years from now. Robots are not moral beings, and therefore, the ethical responsibility must always lie with humans,” said Margaret Boden, research professor of cognitive science at the University of Sussex.

Boden, who has been working at the intersection of computing and philosophy since the early 1960s, was speaking to the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) gathered at the United Nations office in Geneva to discuss the future of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS).

This week, academics, non-governmental organisations and representatives of over 80 governments gathered at Palais des Nations for a decisive meeting on the future of LAWS. Organised under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), the meeting was chaired by Amandeep Gill, permanent representative of India to the Conference on Disarmament.

While no formal definition of LAWS exists, they are generally understood as weapons that once activated, can select and engage targets without further human intervention. Nations are still divided on whether this includes existing semi-autonomous weapons or if it refers only to sophisticated AI weapons that will be developed in the future.

Amidst concerns about the increasing militarisation of cyberspace and the potential of technology to disrupt democratic decision-making, the conversation around LAWS is emblematic of a larger technology-driven insecurity plaguing nations.

For countries that are hard at work nurturing the integration of technology into their domestic economies, the weaponisation of artificial intelligence represents yet another chasm that will require significant resources and immense R&D to overcome. Countries that are relatively ahead in the game are concerned with retaining their strategic advantage while not inadvertently kick-starting another global arms race. A loose coalition of technologists, academics and non-governmental organisations, gathered under the ominous sounding ‘Campaign to Stop Killer Robots‘ has instead cited the inadequacy of protections under international humanitarian law and the trigger-happy tendencies of technologically advanced nations to call for a pre-emptive ban on autonomous weapons.

The campaign is joined by a slowly growing number of nations (22 at the time of going to print) including Pakistan, Cuba and the Holy See in this call for a preventive prohibition. There are some that consider a ban premature, given an inadequate understanding of the technology. Many more, however, are convinced that the time to take some concrete measures has arrived. Brazil while making its initial interventions at the meeting noted that enough critical mass now exists to conceive either a legal or political instrument to regulate autonomous weapons.

The GGE is the first formal proceeding on LAWS that comes after three rounds of informal meetings of experts on the issue. In these meetings (as at the GGE), a significant hindrance has been the lack of a working definition of what LAWS are.

Other countries, primarily ones that have developed and deployed weapons with semi-autonomous capabilities, have refused to endorse a ban. The US, that recently launched the ‘Sea Hunter‘, an autonomous submarine capable of operating at sea for months on its own, clarified that it will continue to promote innovation while keeping safety at the forefront. Similarly, Germany which has been fielding the automated NBS Mantis gun for forward base protection, called a ban premature. Russia echoed this position, warning against alarmist approaches that were “cerebral and detached from reality”.

India for its part, advised for balancing the lethality of these weapons with military necessity – adopting a wait-and-watch approach to how the conversation evolves.

A picture of the proceedings at the the Palais des Nations. Credit: Bedavyasa Mohanty

A picture of the proceedings at the the Palais des Nations. Credit: Bedavyasa Mohanty

For the large part, conversations at the GGE revolved around the ethical, moral and legal principles associated with using LAWS. Whether these can be balanced with military necessity and security concerns, remains undecided.

Many AI experts gathered at the meeting seemed to share the notion that the threat associated with uncontrollable LAWS is far more severe than the possible benefits of more accurate targeting that may reduce loss of civilian casualties. One expert called LAWS the next weapons of mass destruction, owing to the ability of a single human operator to launch a disproportionately large number of lethal weapons. A video, depicting autonomous explosives-carrying microdrones, wreaking havoc was screened at a side event organised by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.

The video, produced by Stuart Russell of the Future of Life Institute, has been criticised by others in the scientific community for sensationalism – that screening the video at a gathering whose mandate is to separate fact from apocalyptic fiction, is unhelpful.

Amidst the two ends of the spectrum, the CCW has managed to move the debate forward on issues relating to the use of autonomous weapons. The fact that a minimum amount of human control be retained and that the use of these systems be governed by IHL.

The question of human control which has been discussed at length both at the GGE and in conversations leading up to it, has concluded that at the bare minimum, human must retain operational control over these weapons – for instance, the ability to cancel an attack on realising that civilian lives may be endangered. However, the particulars remain elusive, due to the lack of uniformity and specificity of language used. While many countries agree on the need for ‘meaningful human control,’ few have offered clarifications on what ‘meaningful control entails.’ In an attempt to de-mystify these understandings, the US has offered, ‘appropriate level of human judgement over the use of force’ as a more accurate method of framing the issue.

Nonetheless, many issues remain unresolved even at the conclusion of the GGE. Technical questions around the operational risks associated with LAWS remains unanswered. Will technologically sophisticated weapons be vulnerable to cyber-attacks that can hijack control? How will deployment of LAWS change the strategic balance between nations? Are weapons review processes under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adequate to ensure that LAWS are compliant with the international humanitarian law? These and many other questions were highlighted by the Chair’s report, and remain to be resolved by the next iteration of the GGE in 2018.

An effective way of going about these issues is perhaps by discerning what the international community finds unacceptable about the use of LAWS. Moving beyond the legally mandated principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution and identifying the extent to which the conduct of warfare can be devolved to machines is central to making progress in these debates.

As the chair, Gill put it, the distance between the attacker and the target has been increasing since the beginning of time. Have we finally arrived at a point where that distance is unacceptable?

Bedavyasa Mohanty is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. He attended the proceedings of the GGE as an independent observer and opinions expressed above are his own.

TRAI’s Instincts on Net Neutrality are Right, What’s Missing is the Nuance

Though seen as a major victory for net neutrality and an open Internet, the new set of regulations remains unsupported by empirical data, especially with regard to the adverse effects of zero-rating.

Though seen as a major victory for net neutrality and an open Internet, the new set of regulations remains unsupported by empirical data, especially with regard to the adverse effects of zero-rating

Empirical Data: As we continue to protect net neutrality, we should also ask ourselves what types of Internet access will prove beneficial to India's poorest? Credit: Stephen Melkisethian

Empirical Data: As we continue to protect net neutrality, we should also ask ourselves what types of Internet access will prove beneficial to India’s poorest? Credit: Stephen Melkisethian

India’s net neutrality and zero rating debate culminated last evening with the release of a regulation prohibiting differential pricing by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 (Regulation) precludes service providers from differentially pricing data packets on the internet on the basis of content. With the regulation, India joins countries such as Chile and the Netherlands in imposing a complete prohibition on zero rated platforms. The decision by TRAI comes at the heels of a massive social media campaign by Facebook for its Free Basics service and an even bigger campaign by civil society and startups against such platforms. While being touted as a major victory for net neutrality and an open Internet, the Regulation largely remains unsupported by empirical data, especially with regard to the adverse effects of zero-rating. The cherry on the cake is that the regulator also offers very little advice as to how we should solve India’s ‘access to the Internet’ conundrum.

The Regulation is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum that helps understand TRAI’s justifications for its declaration. From the memorandum, it is apparent that the regulator has undertaken a thorough examination of the stakeholder inputs to its consultation paper on differential pricing. And yet, many of the nuances of the effects of zero rating that had been brought to its notice have not been addressed. For instance, service specific data packs that are provided without collusion or compensation from content providers — and thus would not outrightly harm the concept of an open Internet — have been deemed illegal under the Regulation.

The only instance where the Regulation seems mindful of huge lack of Internet access in the country seems to be in its allowance of “providing limited free data that enables the user to access the entire internet” or colloquially, equal rating. However, other such alternatives that are net neutral and may be attractive to profit-making enterprises are now seemingly illegal. For instance, TRAI has banned data refunds or any kind of service that enables a content provider to refund or sponsor some amount of data if a user has spent time browsing the content provider’s application. Therefore, services like Gigato that enable the sponsoring of some data — to access the full internet — by a content provider would be deemed illegal under the Regulation merely because this sponsorship is contingent on the user having accessed the content provider’s app.

Technical standard nuances

The Regulation, also lacks nuance in its broad strokes approach to zero rating. Reiterating TRAI’s consultation paper, the memorandum targets platforms where TSPs favour certain content providers or charge lower rates for accessing their own services. There are, however, existing zero rated platforms (such as Free Basics) that are open to all, do not discriminate on the basis of content and require adherence only to certain technical standards for operational efficiency. Many net neutrality proponents have argued that the very act of a private corporation setting technical standards is non neutral. The regulator seems to have favoured this argument while ignoring the fact that without technical standards to enable the unhindered transmission of low bandwidth content, the experience of the users connecting via the zero rated platform would be abysmal. No Internet user who came on to the platform would continue using it for poor internet service and it would not make commercial sense for an enterprise to offer it in the first place. The regulation also leaves no room to manoeuvre, by, say, suggesting that if such platforms are to be allowed then the standards should be set by a multistakeholder technocratic body like the Internet Engineering Task Force.

The memorandum also ponders over the question of ex ante regulation v. ex post regulation. Apparently, the only alternative available to TRAI was an ex ante case-by-case analysis of differential pricing. There are, however, many other forms of regulation that lie between complete forbearance and the complete prohibition that TRAI has adopted. A better alternative perhaps may have been an ex ante declaration of net neutrality and non-discrimination principles and an ex post antitrust analysis of zero rating practices. What is incomprehensible, however, is the regulator’s assertion that a complete prohibition was necessary because any further market analysis would be resource intensive and would favour well financed actors. This market intrusive regulation, therefore, betrays a lack of regard for evidence-based adjudication and a lack of trust in India’s regulatory institutions.

The reason why zero rating and net neutrality have become key buzzwords in global internet governance debates is because of the complexity of issues involved. This complexity has been exacerbated in India due to the continual lack of public infrastructure that can enable access to the disenfranchised. Users, TSPs and content providers represent only a part of the numerous actors involved in the internet ecosystem. As Professor V. Sridhar of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore explains it, differential pricing can occur at many different levels: between content provider and end user, between content provider and hosting service provider, between TSP and end user and between the content provider and TSP. Only some of these practices are antithetical to net neutrality. The regulation, however considers only differential pricing involving a TSP and stops short of declaring which differential pricing practices may in fact be net neutral.

The Internet is the fastest growing medium of our times. It is  perhaps the only medium that presumes a certain agency on the part of the users and helps them evolve from mere consumers of information to its curators. The fabric of an open Internet is not threatened by zero rating, it is threatened by zero rated applications that are discriminatory, exclusionary and favour either a certain class of content providers or a particular TSP. The best case scenario in this situation would have been a declaration by the regulator reaffirming these principles of non-discrimination, non-exclusion and transparency while reserving the right to ban differential pricing should there be any adverse effects on the market. The regulation, however, is unsurprising, given the massive online and offline net neutrality campaigns that steered focus away from any empirical analysis. Considering the role that both both civil society and industry played in making this debate louder but not more meaningful, this regulation may just be what we deserved but not necessarily what we needed.

Bedavyasa Mohanty is a lawyer with an interest in privacy and technology who works at the Observer Research Foundation’s Cyber Initiative. Find him on twitter @darth_beda.