India is today making great economic strides. That the Indian economy is a force that cannot be ignored is a generally accepted consensus. Indian software forms a bulk of the global market and Indian BPO services power giant MNC's and public services the world over. While this trend and its effect on the economies of the west seem to be subjects of much interest, an equal measure of interest is lacking on the effects of this rapid economic growth on India itself. Various figures such as GDP,Sensex, rate of growth, projected rate of growth,  etc etc are regularly published. However, issues relating to the effect of India's economic rise on it's biodiversity, its environment and its people, are generally given much less importance.

Sometimes there are the warning noises. Pollution is mentioned feebly as is environmental degradation. Sometimes the rift between the haves and have nots is mentioned but these issues are not given as much importance.  The need for creating a conducive environment for business is the call of the hour for our policy makers. The general (and incorrect) consensus seems to be that any issue not directly related to achieving a 10% growth rate is secondary and can be taken care of once we become an economic powerhouse.

Often India's overburdened power grid is mentioned under the preamble that not feeding the grid would slow economic growth.

Dams are built. A few hundred thousand people are evicted for the sake of the "greater good".

Realizing that there are only so many rivers that can be "damned", India is turning nuclear. We are told that nuclear power does not entail the flooding of valleys and its indigenous people. Authorities will also have us believe that it a clean and safe source of energy and that the best safety measures and waste disposal techniques are adopted.

Fuel must be found for these reactors. Nature has been kind here as well.

Hang on. How is all this relevant to Information Security and privacy  and right to information?

This is where the plot gets interesting.

Among other locations Uranium is found in Meghalaya.

Consider an indigenous people dissenting against the state. Consider a banned organization. Consider that while their activities are "Anti-Indian" as they demand a separate state, they also speak out against Uranium mining on their lands.

Consider that they post their opinions on a yahoo group.

Consider now that the group gets banned.

Admittedly there are grey areas. However the deeper questions that remain to be asked are these .....

As we become a more powerful nation searching for more and more sources of energy, will this be at the cost of of our basic principles ( which of course have been much abused already), at the cost of our biodiversity, at the cost our indigenous people, at the cost of those who have inhabited these lands since time immemorial ?

Are we going to resort to censorship to suppress voices of dissent, to suppress voices that speak in favour of moderation, voices that speak of the irreversible damage we do to the land that nurtures us, voices that talk of the dangers of Nuclear energy?

Are we going to remain mute spectators as short sighted action results in increasing damage to the environment and makes large numbers of people suffer, for the sake of the comforts of city dwelling populations and for the sake of businesses?

Can we not find a balance - A sustainable middle path between the current state of rapid uncontrolled growth and the slow pace of reforms of the past ?

Can this balance happen if people are not allowed to express their opinion ?

When people who are most vulnerable are denied a chance to dissent and seen as a threat to progress,  rather than as participating members of the system; can there really be any insight into the dangers of our policies?

While censorship in general can be considered, what makes Internet censorship scarier is the fact that the masses may never know what has been banned from their view.

Pay close attention to this fact.

When a book or a film is banned, people know what it's about. There is usually some knowledge about its contents and an opinion base ( however ludicrous at times) regarding the content is created. This leads to discussions for its censorship and decisions are taken ( however ludicrous at times). There is some chance of creating an opinion base around the censored material and rectifying an incorrect or unjust ban.

On the other hand, when something is banned on the Internet; consider a case when the CERT decides to block all websites that have the words "Freedom for Meghalaya" or "Kynhun" on them and instructs all ISP's to implement a filter for these words - we have a draconian situation of "a priori" censorship.

When such a decision is made by a government agency, with no opinions being gathered and with no consensus being taken - we move from the realm of democratic processes to arbitrary state action. This is infinitely worse than the regular censorship we routinely face.

I write not for the sake of the Internet censorship per se, but to ask you to contemplate on some deeper issues.

We are today facing a situation when the mad rush to globalize and to race with the western world is putting a serious strain on our resources. We have chosen to ignore and at times to completely disregard the implications of this race.

We are also choosing to suppress voices of dissent in this rush to be the biggest, the strongest, the largest - forgetting that the land can only support so much and that systems exist for people and not vice versa.

The elation of those concerned at the discovery that the sands of Kerala's shores are a rich and vast source of Thorium can be gauged as they dream up new ways to facilitate millions of dollars worth of business. I wonder if they have paused for a second to consider the ecological and human cost, more so in the light of the fact that accidents DO happen.

One hopes that the enterprising people of Kerala who have in the past stepped in to prevent the destruction of the silent valley,  will step in to ensure some moderation as their shores are ripped for the sake of the "greater good".

Will we then see a spate of bans as the people of Kerala speak against the scourge of their land?

Will we even know about it?

Sriramkrishnan Srinivasan