India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, and his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) recently restored internet access to the contested region of Jammu-Kashmir. From the onset of the 1947 partition of British India, Pakistan and India have wrestled for control over the larger Kashmir region. The territory contains valuable access to glacial waters, supporting nearly 90 percent of Pakistani agriculture. Indian control of the region grants the nation significant leverage over its neighboring rival. 

Jammu-Kashmir’s de facto autonomy was revoked in 2019 in a move by the Modi government to centralize power. The decision was claimed to, “improve good governance and deliver socio-economic justice to the disadvantaged sections of the people in the State”. The Modi government argued that, by allowing non-Kashmiris to purchase land, economic investment in the region would increase. A general suspension of communications services then followed citing possible unrest. Following pressure from the Indian Supreme Court concerning possible violations to the freedom of speech, the government reinstated limited 2G connections and whitelisted 301 websites in January of 2020. This access includes popular news publications such as The New York Times, as well as streaming platforms such as Netflix. However, all social media and YouTube remain blocked. 

This decision to restrict internet access is an overstep by the Modi government that violates the right to the freedom of speech stated in Article 19 Section 1A of the Indian Constitution. This is upheld by a declaration from India’s Supreme Court stating “Freedom of Internet access is a fundamental right”. The Indian government openly defies constitutional values in its decision to continue its internet blockade.

The situation in Jammu-Kashmir sets a dangerous precedent for the world’s largest democracy. Government control over the dissemination of information will only lead a nation towards a dictatorial police state. There needs to be greater accountability for government transparency. It can be argued that national stability supersedes concerns surrounding individual rights but when constitutional values are violated, the integrity of the nation should be in question. 

Modi’s decision to restrict internet access is a fundamental breach of the freedom of speech. If legal precedents are abandoned in periods of crises, then the constitution is a farce. When individual protections can be so easily cast by the wayside, the protections do not in fact exist. Kashmir is an example of the declining state of India’s democracy. Modi’s manipulation of information is a measure of the nation’s downward spiral towards authoritarianism.