The wave of protests that the world was swept with in 2011 is claimed
to have trickled down in India: how far and to what effect, that's
the question we ask. The controversy over Anna Hazare aside – that
is, whether or not it should be considered a part of that world-wide
wave – this time Anonymous has managed to put up an Operation India. They have
managed to reach to a huge class of internet users, especially those
social-network friendly people centred across many cities (even if
this network misses out many places systemically), and has managed to
put in place a physical protest. Hence, trying to understand them is
somewhat justified, in spite of the many temptations against such an
exploration.
AI opposes certain developments in internet-regulatory laws, which
broadly imply:
- that the govt. has access to social-network postings of users of these social networks
- that there will be increased regulation of 'objectionable material' online, and provided that complaints are made by those aggrieved by something, such material would be asked to be taken offline
- that public hosting web-sites (torrents, certain video web-sites) will no longer be permitted to operate, in toto
Much of the present furore is limited to these demands. Which is a
pity, because one expects much more from them when one reads of them. (Details found on the OpIndia page)
The parent of AI – A – claim that their purpose is to expose
“government and establishment hypocrisy”. In their version of
history, “The
Indian Government has been making strong laws that allow them to
invade your privacy and to censor your free speech since 2008.”
From the outset, two things are clear: the outlook of AI coincides
with the most ignorant of presuppositions that fills the dominant
Indian discourse, media, and thereby common sense; they are largely
unaware of violent state-repression, and their freedom must be solely
understood in the sense of internet rights (though we shall see that
even their idea of internet freedom is somewhat skewed). This outlook
produces such gems like “Fifty
years ago, your freedom fighters laid down their lives for your
freedom. Today, your Government has taken away those freedoms.”
Or, often, abrupt dosages of Anna-wisdom: “The
Government of India is shielding its ministers who are involved in
corruption scandals. The Government plans to keep you ignorant about
its tricks. They have censored out several websites that share
information. Your Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology & it’s minister Kapil Sibal is to blame.” Another,
now irretrievable, went: “We
stand for freedom. We stand for free internet. We stand against
corruption.” Secondly,
they largely target that audience which finds it comfortable to stick
to these presuppositions, and hence AI is also unwilling to engage in
questions about freedom and repression by a hypocritic establishment
on any serious level. In a way, it helps: it creates the
impression that history was fair till now (and hence our quiescence),
and now that suddenly things have gone bad, we must speak against
them. However, it helps only in adding numbers; it does not help at
all in understanding the problem as it stands in its entirety.
Anonymous OpIndia (Operation India) fails because it is innocent of
the history of state-repression, of what it thinks it addresses.
Consider
some other parts of the argument: we'll give AI that they've been
consistent about their demand for freedom of expression on the
internet. However, what about torrents and other web-hosting rights?
“Torrents
are widely used to distribute open source and free software such as
linux distributions, and many other books and publications that are
in the public domain. .. Many small - medium businesses use vimeo to
showcase their services and individuals including filmmakers and
designers use it to promote their work. .. Most of these sites
provide a mechanism for illegal and copyrighted content to be taken
down, but the GoI and Indian ISPs decided to bypass this mechanism
and block these sites entirely.”
AI is unwilling to recognize, or at least discuss, peer-to-peer
rights like the ones used in torrents. If I wish to lend or borrow
something I possess, and there's already a system existing that
facilitates that, why block those systems? This is a question AI
refuses to ask; it is a spokesperson for business rights, and seeks
to even out the creases that have come into the surface of a
cyber-operating business class. How much of the internet freedom
argument, then, is to be considered seriously? (Interestingly, many
enthusiasts and supporters, in spite of this open stand, express
their solidarity on the fb pages, saying they want their movie/game
sources back.)
I put an open question on fb (with some substantiation): shouldn't AI be addressing broader questions of state policy, and acknowledge it's historically aggressive role in society? Two replies
to it, each interesting in its own right: first read “tl;dr”.
Urban Dictionary says this means “too
long, didn't read”.
The second reply was a URL to the Anonymous India website, with two
things written underneath: first, that primary focus was internet
freedoms, other things being secondary. Second, “we
are Anonymous, we are legion, we are an idea”. It's
perplexing, but true: such slogans (if we may allow them this label)
have become signatures of hundreds of AI enthusiasts. Two things are
interesting to note: there's a very strong narcissistic spin in
everything, borrowing from everything popular, from Guy Fawkes
imageology to Anna Hazare-like verbage. The romanticist air of the
revolutionary leaving for work is hard to miss. Secondly, related to
this: the protest is a good occasion to come out in one's latest
apparel, a mask and black overalls. The facebook pages of have turned
into advertisements of mask-manufacturers (the second most asked
question is: has anybody called the media?). Claims to represent “the
99 percent!”,
and such paraphernalia seem incompatible, not just by the price
(which would seem exhorbitant anyhow to most of the 99 percent), but
by the very apparent absurdity and incongruity of the paraphernalia
in regard to a protest. But again, this is just another pointer to
the scope of OpIndia.
But
let's just look at this hooh-hah in light of some other facts:
paranoid shreiks in AI pages, highlighted in all sorts of ways
(emboldened,
reddened,
UPPERCASE, etc.) beseeching all anonymous protesters “this
is a nonviolent protest”.
A little enquiry yeilded insights into what was meant by
“non-violent”: the venue for the Mumbai protests was shifted from
Gateway of India (the pride of Mumbai) to Azad Maidan (the prison
house for all protests in Mumbai). When I asked for reasons on the fb
page, I was told due to lack of permissions. I pointed out that one
doesn't usually request permission from those one protests against.
To this came the reply: the protest is non-violent. I inferred that
this is not the non-violence we usually talk about, but is rather
more akin to abiding by a benevolent, peace-loving state with it's
golden laws. I was also told that a shift of venue doesn't mean
anything. My feeling is that this protest has already been marked by
state authorities as 'safe'. More facts; invitation procedure: simply
sending invites to everybody on your friend-list. However, what goes
on the posters, what goes in the slogans has been decided by a small
clique of AI operants. The shift of venue itself was simply
announced. Then came the calls for 'volunteers'. We keep everything
in this paragraph in account, and look at the first claim of
Anonymous: “Anonymous
is a decentralized network of individuals.” Definitely
not; if you're into event-management, you cannot afford to be
decentralized. This is, unfortunately, true of AI.
OxbloodRuffin, in an article hosted by Kafila, has made two interesting
observations:
“Any discussion of Anonymous
is problematic. One is never sure which Anonymous is being
referenced: the meme, the group as a whole, or an individual
operation.”
Hence we find these inconsistencies within what seems the same
Anonymous umbrella. A question of importance here is the relative
role of cyber-freedom in the different societies Anonymous has had
operations in.
“Anonymous India and Why This
Kolaveri di have two things in common. Both have achieved their fame
through the Internet. And both are engagingly superficial.”
Anonymous India has considered the possibility of a physical protest.
However, it has surrendered it, in spirit, from the outset, to state
leash. It has refused to delve deeper into state-repression in India
while making claims addressing state hypocrisy, taking away of
freedoms, etc. It fails to differentiate between a papparazzi event
and a protest. However, there is at least one serious positive we
must look at: it has managed to mobilize to a sizeable group of
people, and to connect to an even bigger mass. Whatever the character
of this mobilization, it is an important occasion for discussion, if
there be concerted efforts. Unfortunately, efforts are not visible in
the e-sphere in which the mobilization has taken place, but there's
no need to think 9th June to be the deadline. AI OpIndia not only
succeeds in mobilizing, but also in becoming a case to be considered
for discussion.
It
also holds a special place in the internal affairs of India. It is
not a protest, but the image of one. However, much energies, much
frustration could possibly find vent here, and there might be satisfaction
of feeling one has lodged one's protest, even by help of such an
image. The political class are already happy for
two related reasons – many believe this is a protest, yet the protesters are already toeing the line. (Look at this for some protest guidelines) It's true that AI
poses little danger as such; but still, it makes 'administrative
sense' to award cyber concessions as a decoy-victory to ensure that
that safety-valve is well-open (though this move also depends on
other factors, like the interests involved in those cyber-laws, the
relative trade-off between the safety-valve and those interests, the
perception of the political class of this issue, etc.). We still
await the events of 9th June, 2012, and thereafter, to come to
conclusions.
I like that you have picked up on this as a topic of interest. I have a few things to note from what you have to say:
ReplyDelete1. "they largely target that audience which finds it comfortable to stick to these presuppositions, and hence AI is also..."
I find this to be largely false, despite the extremely myopic and biased evidence that I can cite for this - simply that there is a different class of people supporting AI's movement as compared to Anna Hazare's so-called movement. The main factor lies in the age groups, if we could procure some kind of "Insights" into the facebook group of AI, we might be able to better validate this claim.
2."AI is unwilling to recognize, or at least discuss, peer-to-peer rights like the ones used in torrents."
To this I would say that it is perhaps something that is in the pipeline for the India wing of Anonymous. While this is admittedly a largely unsubstantiated and unqualified claim, it seems like we must not discard it as a possibility so soon - owing to the fact that their greatest strength is what they stand for, that of a completely unknown identity.
3."I put an open question on fb (with some substantiation): shouldn't AI be addressing broader questions of state policy, and acknowledge it's historically aggressive role in society?..."
Haha, this is quite unfortunate, considering that most of the status updates that populated my news feed about the AI protest was about congregating and uniting for the cause, rather than the cause itself, as though most had already achieved consensus on what the cause exactly was.
Completely appreciate your point on organizing a protest, very persuasive indeed. It is worth thinking about how there is an obvious shepherd among sheep, the problem is (or so I believe), will this shepherd get in trouble?
Thanks for the comment.
DeleteThe argument for the target-audience is based on two facts: first, it has mostly been an online-mobilization, and that itself filters out, broadly, the target group. Second, the interests represented (internet rights), and the general outlook given (the image of the protest, v for vendetta, etc.) peculiarly pertains to a certain group. These facts are apparent. I'm not sure how Anna movement figured in here.
I think there's a thread running through the last three para's of your comment. A flat-structured, transparent protest movement, which claims to be decentralized, would look for issues in the people they seek to mobilize. No room for shephards and sheep in this structure, all are equals believing in the same issues, sharing a platform which is open for everyone's participation. Hence, it's telling how this decentralized group fails to raise such a common concern (peer-to-peer rights), and actually speaks for just another centralized class of businessmen.