Internet bans are a common tool for administration and governments during crises or conflicts, mainly to avoid the spread of misinformation, provocative messages and videos that can escalate the situation. Recently, the Meghalaya government banned mobile internet services for eight days in the Garo Hills following violent protests over the GHADC election. Did it help in controlling the situation? Not at all. Rather, the situation worsened after that.
After the NPP-led govt came to power, internet services were banned in Shillong for 603 hours during the issue of the relocation of the Harijan Colony in June 2018. Even a PIL was also filed against the ban.
Earlier this week, South Asians for Human Rights released a report on Manipur. The title of the report is ‘Fabricated Reality: The role of Social Media during the Manipur violence in 2023”.
According to the report, “The government’s response—which included an unprecedented internet shutdown lasting 212 days—was blunt, counterproductive and devastating for democratic freedoms and human rights as well as the state’s economy.”
The blanket ban on internet services in Manipur was initially for five days, and it was later extended.
The Manipur state government justified this shutdown, saying it was to prevent rumours from spreading and mob mobilisation. However, as we have seen in the Garo Hills and in so many instances across the country, the shutdown achieved nothing.
The SAHR report pointed out that “those who were intent on spreading hate circumvented the ban through alternative connections, while civil society, journalists and Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) were blocked from essential communication”.
It went on to say that the “systems for factchecking and counter-speech collapsed, while the perpetrators of online hatred continued to have intermittent access to the internet”.
So, what we see is that an internet shutdown has failed to be an effective tool for the administration to control any crisis situation. In fact, in today’s time, banning internet services is akin to banning an essential service.
At a time when multiple social media platforms exist, those platforms can be used effectively during any crisis, not only by the administration but also by the public and other stakeholders, such as human rights activists and journalists.
For instance, social media can help affected people put up constant updates, and this information, in turn, can help the administration monitor the situation closely. It helps in real-time communication with the world outside the conflict zone.
Social media gives the public a voice in such times of crisis. They can share their plight, information about the help required and opinion about the situation through posts, videos and hashtags.
Essential services such as healthcare are often affected during conflicts. Social media can be a platform to seek help in times of distress. It can prove life-saving.
Social media is a low-cost tool that has a wide coverage. This allows information to disseminate faster to a wide section of people. The administration can use this tool to reach out to more people with important updates and appeals, and can restrict the spread of mob fury.
Researchers, peacebuilders and human rights activists can use social media data to track conflict actors, administrative actions and human rights violation cases. In doing so, stakeholders can act fast to provide justice to affected people and mitigate the chances of recurrence of such untoward events.
According to a study, social media content can be analysed to gain better insights into local grievances. By detecting such early warnings, conflicts can be averted, too.
Having said that, it is also true that social media’s Janus-faced nature can be harmful if transparency and authenticity are not maintained. Now, here comes the role of the administration and governments. Instead of putting a blanket ban on internet services, governments can adopt a proper social media crisis management plan.
Governments can set up a team of experts only to track disinformation, highly provocative social media posts and targeted messages. The team can track the source of such posts and ban those agents and actors who are spreading disinformation.
The administration can use social media to spread awareness among the public about disinformation and build resilience against fake news. Helplines posted on social media can be useful for people living in conflict zones to reach out to the administration and police.
Evidence from Shillong, Garo Hills and Manipur indicates that blanket internet shutdowns are largely ineffective in managing crises. A more targeted, accountable digital strategy—focused on monitoring, fact-checking and public communication—offers a more practical approach to maintaining order without undermining essential services and democratic access.
