Today's Paper Archive Classifieds Subscriptions RSS Feeds Site Map ePaper Mobile Apps Social
SEARCH

Opinion » Comment

Updated: May 18, 2012 01:09 IST

India's proposal will help take the web out of U.S. control

Parminder Jeet Singh
Share  ·   Comment (37)   ·   print   ·  
G.R.N. Somashekar

Unnerved by the Indian stand, IT monopolies are propagating the myth that a multilateral governance structure will kill the decentralised, multi-stakeholder nature of the Internet and lead to ‘government control'

Last year, in a statement to the U.N. General Assembly, India sought the creation of a U.N. Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) in order to democratise global Internet governance, which at present is either U.S.-controlled, or subject to the policies of rich country clubs like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Global Internet governance can be seen in two parts: technical governance which prominently includes the governance of what critical Internet resources, and wider public policies concerning various economic, social, cultural and political issues. The two most critical Internet resources are the authoritative root zone server and Internet names and addresses system, which are managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), under contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce. ICANN, as a U.S. non-profit body, is subject to U.S. laws in every possible way. To give a simple illustration, some time back ICANN allowed the .xxx domain space over the objections of most governments. However, now some U.S. companies have taken ICANN to court alleging anti-competition practices in allowing the .xxx domain. The fact that a U.S. court has taken cognizance of the matter makes it at least possible that the ICANN decision on instituting .xxx will be struck down, whereby ICANN will have simply no option other than to shut down this domain space. This simple illustration makes a mockery of ICANN's claim to be an independent globally accountable governance system.

Kill switch legislation

In any case, ICANN's role is completely dependent on the will and pleasure of the U.S. government and the relationship, according to existing contract documents, can be annulled any moment by the U.S. government. With increased securitisation of the Internet, the single point control issue has become even more severe for developing countries. Importantly, the U.S. has been mulling what has been called the Internet kill switch legislation, which could have application across the world. The U.S. has not hesitated to use the domain name system services for extra-territorial enforcement of its intellectual property laws. In this background, the concerns of other countries about U.S. control on the critical infrastructure of the Internet are quite legitimate.

The other area of global governance relates to wider public policy issues like the role and responsibilities of Internet intermediaries (like search engines and social networking sites), e-commerce, cross-border data flows, intellectual property and access to knowledge, trade and tax, online media, cultural diversity, privacy, security, human rights, etc. At present, it is either U.S. law which applies globally by default as most monopoly Internet companies are U.S.-based, or the policy frameworks are developed by rich country clubs like the OECD. There is no reason why such policy principles and guidelines should not be developed by all countries sitting together in the first place, which is what is proposed the U.N. Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) will do.

Developed countries, chiefly the U.S., are using the power of their monopoly Internet companies and other kinds of strategic advantages to shape the Internet as per their narrow interests — economic, political, security and cultural. At the same time, the North has managed to keep developing countries away from the seats of governance of the Internet. For this purpose, they use many different strategies. To many developing countries, they sell the proposition that poorer countries should focus on the immense developmental potential of the Internet, rather than the “esoteric” question of its global governance. To global civil society, the North has somewhat successfully been able to sell an image of itself as the protector of freedoms and liberties on the Internet, chiefly freedom of expression, and that of developing countries as anti-democratic and retrograde, thus arguing that the latter should not be allowed anywhere near the levers of Internet governance. To the technical experts, a powerful constituency in the early days of the Internet, the global North sells the illusion of a bottom-up, user-driven and built Internet, while the fact is that it is the policies and practices of the North, as for example through its active complacency concerning “net neutrality” (a key egalitarian architectural principle of the Internet), and non-enforcement of competition law vis-à-vis the unprecedented monopolisation in the Internet business, that are rapidly eroding the bottom-up nature of the Internet.

Two misconceptions

There are two main misconceptions about the Indian CIRP proposal, which no doubt have been actively propagated by the interested parties, whose control over the global Internet is threatened by any proposals for democratisation of the Internet.

The first is that the Indian proposal seeks to take over or fold up the existing decentralised model of technical and critical Internet resources governance. India's proposal seeks to do nothing of this sort. It is largely comfortable with the present system, but certainly not with America's oversight over this system, which alone it seeks to get shifted to a body with equal representation of all countries. It is rather strange that when the U.S. exercises oversight over the technical governance system, it is said to be of no significance. However, when exactly the same oversight, nothing more nothing less, is sought to be transferred to a body where not only the U.S. but all countries are represented, an alarm is raised about a deep “government” conspiracy to take control of the Internet.

The second misconception is that India's CIRP proposal is not multi-stakeholder. The fact is that it is perhaps more multi-stakeholder than any global governance body which deals with substantive policy issues (and not just technical matters). In this regard, the Indian CIRP's design is rather innovative and progressive, whereby four advisory committees will meet back to back with the inter-governmental core committee and give regular inputs to it. Additionally, the CIRP is supposed to have organic connections with the multi-stakeholder open U.N. Internet Governance Forum. In fact, the U.N. CIRP takes from the multi-stakeholder model of the OECD's Internet policy mechanism and further improves it, including in terms of its multi-stakeholderism. It is once again inexplicable why the same structure within the OECD, which undemocratically makes Internet policies for the whole world, is not criticised on the multi-stakeholderism front, but the more multi-stakeholder model of CIRP faces such intense criticism.

The Internet is becoming an instrument of further entrenching the geo-economic and geo-political powers of the North, chiefly the U.S. Developing countries urgently need a global forum that could work towards democratising the Internet's governance, and developing principles and policies for shaping the Internet as a democratic and egalitarian force. In fact, while not willing to publicly disassociate with their geo-strategic partner, the U.S. and European countries are also very uncomfortable with the status quo, and are looking for dialogue-opening moves and proposals from developing countries. Most countries have been looking to India's leadership position in opening the dialogue on “enhanced cooperation.” In fact, the CIRP proposal gives a viable alternative to developing countries over the more authoritarian proposals floated by countries like China and Russia, and the politics of technical control that plays out at the International Telecommunications Union.

It appears that the U.S. has been trying to bring all kinds of pressures over the Indian government, including through the IT industry in India, and also appealing to activists involved with freedom of expression over the Internet. The latter is an issue that all progressive actors must actively engage with at the national level. At the same time, it is important not to ignore the grave risk at the global level posed by the further concentration of economic, social, political and cultural powers with Northern political entities (mostly the U.S.) and a few global monopoly Internet companies. Most important is to watch out for the manner in which these economic and political powers are coming together in a new digital-political complex, which is well on its way to becoming a principal global challenge in the near future.

(Parminder Jeet Singh is the executive director of IT for Change, a Bangalore-based NGO working on issues of IT and social change. He has been a special adviser to the Chair of U.N. Internet Governance Forum and has been coordinator of the premier global civil society network in the internet governance arena, the Internet Governance Caucus. He has worked extensively on development issues with respect to global Internet governance. E-mail: parminder@itforchange.net)

More In: Comment | Opinion

Indian interests have, for example, within the last year, proposed their own version
of an internet kill-switch capability in the form of APNIC proposal 100. While this
proposal was ultimately withdrawn by the authors, it enjoyed strong support when
proposed from the Indian representatives present at the Busan meeting, none of
whom were willing to acknowledge or address the realities of the dangers inherit
in their proposal.

While ICANN has significant power on the internet, there are checks and balances
on that power. Their ability to control number resource policy, for example, is very
limited and strictly through the consent of the RIRs and their open policy
processes. In order for ICANN to adopt a number resource policy, identical policies
must be adopted in each of the RIRs through their policy processes and then
forwarded to the ASO AC and finally on to the ICANN board for final approval.

from:  Owen DeLong
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 15:58 IST

While U.S. Law has its unfortunate aspects and I agree with the concerns about its
intellectual property, and other overreaching actions, I believe that ICANN is the
worst possible place to hold control of the names and numbers processes EXCEPT
for all the others.
One need look no further than the ITU and the traditional telephone monopolies
and settlement arrangements to see why placing this under the control of the UN
would be a terrible idea. Indeed, the complaints about the .XXX domain are, in fact,
an example of why it is important to keep control of the internet in the hands of
the true stakeholders and not allow unnecessary and irresponsible government
censorship.
India maintains an iron-fisted control over who can obtain a license to provide
internet access within their borders and does not hesitate to exercise censorship.
Regulation in India has created the most abysmal degraded array of NATs on the
planet.

from:  Owen DeLong
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 15:50 IST

Well articulated article.
India has made the right move and should be well supported by other countries. The two misconceptions have to be dispersed with proper communication in the International media. The following lines hold great meaning which every reader here should not oversight. "It is largely comfortable with the present system, but certainly not with America's oversight over this system, which alone it seeks to get shifted to a body with equal representation of all countries. It is rather strange that when the U.S. exercises oversight over the technical governance system, it is said to be of no significance. "
People have to understand Internet should be sooner than later come under the able control of U.N. not America forever.

from:  Ram Manoj
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 14:45 IST

The internet in the hands of multiple stakeholders? Stakeholders like
China ,India , Pakistan are better off not having a say in the
controlling of the internet. Simply because these countries(at least
the politicians in these countries) are not mature enough.
If this does happen I can see Mayawati trying to take down every blog
or article that is against her(maybe even this comment).
The internet should remain in control of the US because it is perhaps
the only country with a view that is liberal enough. This is one case
where autocracy is better than democracy. The US should not give in
to the pressures of the other countries.

from:  Utham.R
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 08:43 IST

The USA has a constitution which protects freedom of speech and communication. It is therefore ideal as a center of IP control.The Indian proposal is purely political. At present there is no benefit in moving IP control to the UN and many potential problems such as corruption.

from:  John
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 07:38 IST

This speech/article is hilarious ! Indian govt does not have any idea
about or control over Indian Rupee printed by itself in its own
country. It has no idea about how many villages have no amenities. No
idea how to improve Indian Railways. Almost all technical components
in Indian telco industry are imported from Europe or China or as last
resort from American affiliated companies. Almost all key components
in s/w industry including OS and microchips originate from US and h/w
from east Asian countries. Even for services business we depend on
North America. In such a heavily decentralized net setup where we have
no control on h/w, s/w or application of combo of these, what kind of
centralized independent control are we talking about here is simply
unfathomable ! Even if we were to make Indian internet independent
which GOI can do anytime (if it knows how to do it), all economic hell
will break loose from the top. So this is a non-starter like the non-
aligned movement !

from:  Raj
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 07:09 IST

If USA is in control of internet, they could have easily shutdown wikileaks. Whole article is propaganda.

from:  thejas
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 01:21 IST

Most Revered Author...please explain to me how is it, if the US has so
much control over the net as you allege, there are so many anti-US
sites on the net?
You refer to the OECD as a "rich country club". Is a collection of
developed countries by definition bad? Estonia, Slovakia and Hungary
are all OECD members. Can you render a single example of misdemeanor
on their part in modern history? They are self made winners. You
appear to have a meaningless vendetta against the OECD. You claim that
the North isn't a champion of free speech. Isn't it true that the
First Amendment is enforced vigorously in the US? Isn't it true that
the UK admits into itself people who are persecuted in their
homelands? Isn't it true that the EU court blocked Abu Qatada's
extradition to ensure that he got a fair trial in Jordan? You claim
that Indian govt offers a fairer alternative than China and Russia. I
say that it's the govt's strategy...offer an apparent way out to get
their product sold.

from:  Aritra Gupta
Posted on: May 18, 2012 at 00:40 IST

Now that my previous comment is posted I will try once more for actual comment. First question is what is internet. As learned readers may know it was started by ARPAnet for information exchange primarily meant for programming/computer science. Now it has evolved as repository of all sorts of information. Consider a site which has information on hacking such as how to do hacking. Now it is not the fault of that person if someone learns hacking and hacks a system. It is like training someone shooting and he becomes assassin. Not the fault of trainer. Similarly Mr. Sibbal should know that people who use internet are not dumb as he may think. People using internet very well know what is right and what is wrong. The problem lies elsewhere and I need not point where because if I point The Hindu won't publish the comment. But you get the hint don't you?

from:  Shiv Shankar Dayal
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 23:42 IST

A truly democratic step indeed!just like in the case of Research in
motion (the makers of blackberry handsets),the internet has to be
simply more democratic.
Facebook India is published to have argued that they do not have
control over the webcontent as the main servor is in USA.This type of
rules is being undemocratic is n't it?
I beleive democracy is at its best in India and is truly
vibrant.Agreed we have our problems,but for that matter who doesn't
have?
If everything is so very perfect in USA/European system,they should
not have problems with narcotic for an easy example.

from:  Kesave SJ
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 23:28 IST

Internet Governance is being discussed in a multi-stakeholder framework, a framework where Business, Governments, Civil Society, International Organizations and the Academic Community is seated equally. This is the 6th year of the Internet Governance Forum as the multi-stakeholder forum.

The author champions the idea of a multi-lateral framework of Governments deciding on how the user will use the Internet and how the Governments would control it, largely in exclusion of Business and other stakeholders. This idea is wrapped up as a proposal to "democratize" the "US controlled" Internet Governance presently "subject to" the "policies of rich country clubs", an incediary argument with a ploy to transfer the technical and policy funcitons of the Internet to the International Telecommunications Union which would then control the Internet in the UN environment and thereby have total and complete control of all communications. Parminder works for IT for Change which appears to lead an "ITU for Change" campaign.

from:  Sivasubramanian M
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 20:13 IST

In the name of democratization the idea is to allow the national
governments to control internet.Why cant the authors and NGOs think of
options that bring in democracy in governing the net but at the same
time ensure that governments do not have the power to control internet
in their countries.Why should it be that I accept all the moves of
Kapil Sibals and others in the name of democratizing governance of
net. First amendment in USA protects freedom of expression and we
don't have a similar one in our constitution. On the other hand thanks
to google, twitter, facebook activists are able to use the net to
further freedom of expression despite attempts by some states to block
contents, restrict freedom of expression in 'national interest'.
Should I oppose twitter, google and facebook because they are based in
USA. UN cannot be trusted in such issues because its one member one
vote will ensure that all states willing to control net will join
hands to curb freedom of expression in the net.

from:  k.r.srinivas
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 20:05 IST

What the internet users read or communicate is controlled by the internet providers
and the big intermediary companies (mostly US based) that make all kinds of filtering
softwares. In the WWW world, two rules matter most: 1. The gate-keepers who claim
to distinguish 'bad' content from 'good' content control the free speech. 2. The more
money one has, the louder and bolder his/her speech will be. Therefore, there is
bound to be competition among countries to control the WWW. While governments
and monopolies fight it out for the share of the web income and the influence over
web users ideas, thereby their/our ideology, we, the web users will go on believing
in the myth of free speech that is actually controlled by an invisible 'police' force.

from:  Sathya
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 19:45 IST

I'd much rather the US with its First Amendment (and its rigorous
enforcement) had control of the net rather than India whose govt
authorized police action on sleeping civilians at Ramlila Maidan and
whose govt thinks a cartoon in a school text is a blot on Indian
democracy, whose govt treats Iron Sharmila without the least bit of
respect and whose Parliament is unanimous only when their own get
slapped or when they need pay rises.

from:  Aritra Gupta
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 19:36 IST

Internet = Freedom, hope it remains so.

from:  regguy
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 17:50 IST

Though I know I am wasting my time by trying to get through the moderator I will try once more. GOI must not have any control on internet. What freedom of speech The Hindu is talking about. There moderators themselves suffer from lack of respect for honest opinion. In a sense they will pass only those opinions which suit their hidden agenda. Yahoo is much better so I post it there without moderation. The Hindu should know the meaning of moderation first then they can have an opinion of freedom of speech.

from:  Shiv Shankar Dayal
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 16:35 IST

It is heartening to see that it is not too easy now to 'fool all of the people all of the time' in India. Citizens of established democracies (in the West and elsewhere) are most unlikely to throw away their rights to freedom and liberty, and leave them in the hands of the UN, where non-democratic, tyrannical and autocratic governments carry on horse-trading and continue to oppress their citizens while the UN watches on helplessly. If India wants to be taken seriously as an emerging democratic power, it may want to flex its muscle promoting equality, freedom and liberty, rather than aligning itself with forces to silence citizens' pleas for help or to improve the lot of the common people, so that unpopular govts can continue in power unchallenged. Caveat Civitas!

from:  D Mahapatra
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 16:33 IST

My fear is the same as Manya.

from:  Avinash Baranwal
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 16:29 IST

Yeah! Wrest control of the Internet and enforce a total ban on cartoons because dimwit politicians can't handle humor. Good going GoI.

from:  Yeshvir
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 16:20 IST

Govt of India cannot be trusted with Internet. Our ministers have a very short-term, selfish, and narrow minded vision, and certainly do not understand technology. Not that US ministers do, but US is technically far more advanced than India. US has more companies that can defend Internet is a rational manner. One cannot imagine MPs being affected by people's emails, like they did in US when SOPA was about to be introduced. In India MPs may not know what email is, and they certainly do not care for people! India will simply curb the internet, or put it on some babu's desk.

from:  Gautam
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 16:16 IST

Even with the sorry state of Fundamental rights in the US, under the Obama administration, they are far ahead of any other country in preserving individual freedom. India is definitely no alternative as it doesn't even come close.

from:  Rahul
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 14:57 IST

The Hindu is NOT making a stance. It's merely publishing a column,
hence an opinion, which is in line with free speech. The flip side to
Paramjeet's article is that he is not clarifying what are the intended
powers of the CIRP. I don't think anyone in his/her right mind would really believe in the neutrality of the UN, it's just another bureaucratic organization heavily weighted by it's over paid employees, and bloated by huge operating costs, but rarely being the champion of forward thinking policies, particularly in the area of communications (at least not in recent history). CIRP in its present form will most likely end up being another arena for more gladiators to wrestle - some of the new gladiators being clear champions for oppressing freedom of speech and open discussions. For eg. South Africa, a supporter of CIRP, has been trying to shove an information bill to prosecute whistle blowers, much similar to what's happening in India. China, another CIRP supporter? It's obvious..

from:  Sriram
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 13:46 IST

Parminder singh should focus on basic issues of freedom that are lacking in India before attempting to suggest global remedies for the Internet. We still ban books that are deemed offensive by the government. We prevent movies from being screened for flimsy reasons. We may have democratic laws but they remain in books gathering dust even as court cases take decades to be adjudicated. With so much mess on our hands, we think we are experts in offering solutions to 'shape' the Internet as a ' democratic force'. Amen. North Korea could not have said it better.

from:  Viswanath
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 13:29 IST

The issue of creating a UN body may backfire because of involving too many countries to arrive at a decision. Well to be honest right now we dont face any issue regarding the content of various website. One must ignore something that they do not like. But the govt is taking a target at the anti-govt comments and photos that are circulated in social networks. On the long run I may not be able to find such satirical photos anymore if Internet is democratized.

from:  Sathish
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 13:29 IST

I really wish that what the author is saying is correct and the
internet becomes more democratic. However, I am confused because there
was another article in this newspaper by Shalini Singh arguing the
opposite. It would be very helpful if "The Hindu" could give an
infographic about how the internet works with its intricacies.
It would be nice if the number of stakeholders on the internet
increases and the control is more diverse; however, for now, I am very
wary of what the Indian govt is seeking. This UPA govt has repeatedly
betrayed its authoritarian outlook by threatening to control and
regulate the internet. For now, I think I trust the US govt more - as
far as maintaining freedom on the net is concerned - than the UPA govt
with its coterie of Mamata Banerjee and Sibal and who not.
If this govt is really concerned about net freedom,it should start by
annulling the recent IT rules, and stopping the prosecution of net
companies to create some confidence in its abilities at home.

from:  S Kumar
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 13:22 IST

Our govt. can't even handle a cartoon with maturity, and we are dreaming about the freedom of expression on the internet!!! High Hopes....Let it stay with the Americans, at least they have a sense of humor....Let the govt. first convince us that they are capable of taking the right decisions without being scared of fanatics fighting on the name of religion and caste. Then we will believe you really have the courage to control the WORLD WIDE WEB.

from:  prashanth
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 12:56 IST

India's proposal is very good and it should be implemented soon. Subjecting the Internet & ICANN to US Govt laws is ridiculous. It should only be answerable to the UN which is the only body representing all the countries in the world.

from:  Max
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 11:57 IST

The question is whether its a freedom or not? The question is not who owns it? If someone owns the muscle over internet then we may be fed favored or biased data. Then it will be no knowledge forum. It will exist as some propaganda source. If we look what author has to say its clear that these are old ideas of suppression but the weapon is new. Unless we understand and respect individual's freedom such things will continue for centuries with different faces.

from:  Kapil Shinde
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 11:56 IST

The author may have have a legitimate concern about American control over the internet. But God save us from Indian bureaucrats and politicians. Over and over this pattern is repeated: In the name of democracy, solutions are proposed which promote corruption, authoritarianism, and increased governmental control. Yet, we Indians never seem to learn. Now in the name of democratization, this author wants to reduce the decentralized nature of the web and bring in the Indian government. Perhaps, when what we read and peruse is controlled by a censor board, this author will tell us that we have finally achieved democratization.

from:  vinay kumar
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 11:09 IST

All I know is that the internet right now is unregulated and free for
me. I doubt that will be the case if Kapil Sibal gangs up with
autocracies like China and Russia to take control of it. I don't care at
all if it US which owns it. I trust them to maintain a free net more
than our own autocracy.

from:  Piyush Tariyal
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 10:49 IST

The article titled 'India's proposal will help take the web out of U.S. control' by
Parminder Jeet Singh is incisive in style and convincing in content. A strong case has been made to institute a democratic body (Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP)) under the aegis of the UN. However, though many western countries, including the US, have voiced tall in favour of a democratic order their sentiments are sadly mired in hypocrisy. The proposal therefore to establish CIRP is a commendable move where older, younger and aspiring democracies can work ‘democratically’ together for the common good of humanity.

from:  Raman Bhasker
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 10:36 IST

Parminder Jeet Singh obviously doesn't have a clue. Putting the internet in government hands is the end of its freedom. Its people who would like to see it censored who are trying to make governments in charge of it. It should become freer, not more restricted. I didn't realize we spelled our country CHINA. Why not have an open source decentralized system like bittorrent for dns - that way no one will be able to block it.

from:  Nanavati
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 10:30 IST

The author is right on target. Maybe, India needs to start an alternative internet?

from:  Ramkishin Samat
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 10:21 IST

i think it should stay with the US, as i trust them more than anyone
else to keep the internet a place a freedom, which doesn't exist in most
countries and cultures.

from:  yohan novak
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 09:38 IST

I'd rather prefer the "control" of internet to remain in the hands of
U.S, if the current state of affairs is anything to go by. The first amendment in the U.S constitution guards against any curbing of free speech, and we see the effect of that in the freedom of expression on the internet. If its control had been with countries whose laws on freedom of speech are obscure and suffer from inept enforcement, freedom of expression on internet would be a thing of past. We all know what happens in china, and in our own backyard where we fought with Google and tried to muffle opinions and conceal facts (Taslima, Rushdie and Hussain can tell you more). India is a place where even enforcers of law don't know the rights provided by the constitution, and legislators are happy enacting laws that are diametrically opposite to other fundamental laws of the constitution, as long as it serves their immediate purpose. I wouldn't trust them to guard my freedom of expression. Actually I'd be afraid.

from:  Hemachander
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 07:32 IST

I have read this article... The Hindu is just trying to protect the government's actions now. The US government does have control over parts of the way the Internet operates but that's because the Internet was created in this country. The practices of private businesses fall under every law of the country they operate in. The Hindu is acting as though the Indian government has never attacked the Internet and won! Those who're wondering should read the Indian court case against the social networking sites. See blog.nitinkhanna.com about this.

from:  Nitin Khanna
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 05:20 IST

How can we be sure that our integrity and fundamental right will be maintained without any harassment once it comes in the hands of the
Government of India? This move is highly suspicious since it has come
after the Anna hazare movement. Where was GOI on this issue for last 7
years?

from:  Manya
Posted on: May 17, 2012 at 04:39 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor
More »
The HIndu's in-depth coverage of news and opinion on Aadhar and direct benefit transfers


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in Comment

HEALING WOUNDS: Among those in the North and East, the leftovers of war still dominate daily life in various ways. Picture shows people who were displaced to the Vanni during the war, and who now live in Jaffna. Photo: Meera Srinivasan

Bridging the narratives in Sri Lanka

Instead of victory memorials, Sri Lanka needs a monument to commemorate all casualties of the war »