Tag: technology

Categories
Issue 23

A New Law Aims to Open Government Data to the Public. Can We Trust It to Deliver?

However unnerving the feeling of being surveilled is, collecting information about our interactions with the government has the potential to be immensely fruitful for journalists, researchers and the public. Whenever we fill out a government form or get our vaccinations done through public hospitals, the records we leave with them can be harnessed by those looking at it to trace back that interaction. Not only does this ensure transparency and accountability, but it can also be used to deduce important information about our economic and social reality.

Public institutions like government hospitals or the Statistical Ministry collect a massive bank of data from everyday operations and research. A new law, the Draft India Data Accessibility and Use Policy revealed on February 21 this year, has proposed to open this data to the public and controversially, put it up for sale in the private sector. Under this proposal, all data collected by every government body will be open by default unless specified otherwise and some other ‘special’ datasets will be out on the market. 

This move is in line with the international Open Government Data (OGD) movement which aims to liberate non-personal data collected by public entities and use it to formulate effective policy. According to the Working Group on Open Government Data at the Open Knowledge Foundation, OGD is essential for modern, democratic societies since it ensures readability, shareability, and transparency of government activities–citizens and civil society have the ability to peruse the state’s working together. 

While this sounds utopian for evidence-based policy-making, the historical records of governments generating, storing and releasing data in India have been muddy and many researchers have low levels of trust in the process. This is best illustrated by the Central Government’s ongoing fight with the WHO about the estimated pandemic deaths in the country. The WHO has estimated about four million excess covid deaths, which is in line with other scientific reports and shows staggering disparity when pitched against government data. The Center has disputed the report’s methodology and has itself come under fire for not providing coherent objections.

The story of India’s public data problem runs beyond the pandemic though, which has rightfully occupied our imagination for two years now. There are real issues with the way we collect data on the ground and they are not limited to emergencies like Covid. Long term policy goals like eradicating rabies by 2030 are getting stalled by the disaggregation of bodies responsible for collecting the relevant data and a lack of standardization. If two essential datasets generated by separate government offices do not use the same language or format, making them talk to each other and gain real insights becomes harder. 

Moreover, instead of obfuscating data to fend off criticisms, the government also has the option to simply not conduct the required surveys. The Household Consumer Spending Survey is one such important data collection drive which we have not heard of since 2011, until it was finally resumed this year. The National Statistical Office (NSO) is supposed to conduct the survey every five years but in 2017, the last time it was due, the NSO spoke of “data quality” issues that had prevented them from going forward with it. Many believe, however, that the survey was withheld due to an expected decline in consumer spending which would have reflected badly on the incumbent Modi government.


The overarching goal of OGD is instrumental–it is not only that government data should be open, but it also has to be actually useful. These foundational issues in how officials deal with data can make OGD platforms seem performative at best. The UN’s E-Governance survey conducted in 2020 which measured how robust a nation’s digital governance framework is relative to others placed India at the 100th rank amongst 193 countries included in the report. Without pooling resources to centralise, organise and secure the system that will eventually generate and carry the data, OGD might prove to be fruitless.

Rutuparna Deshpande is a second-year student of Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Ashoka University.

Picture Credits: Unsplash

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 19

The Pegasus Controversy: Locking the Stable Door

Born of the gorgon Medusa, Pegasus was a winged horse so powerful and valiant that the god Zeus turned him into a constellation, sharing the sky with Leo, Draco, Gemini, Orion, and the like. The flying white horse is a compelling emblem: the Israeli cybersecurity firm NSO Group clearly found it so, naming one of their deadliest systems after it. Their Pegasus was a chimeric attack software, capable of infiltrating the latest and most expensive smartphones. Critically, unlike many others, it did not require a target to make a mistake: you didn’t have to click a dodgy link or download a file to get infected. These were “zero click” attacks, which leveraged vulnerabilities in common software, like Apple’s iMessage.

Pegasus clients could get access to phone data in many ways: if a targeted “spearphishing” email with a link worked, fine. If it didn’t, then they’d use zero-click attacks or other means, including physically getting access to a device and infecting it. The latter was necessary in some cases where the target had reduced their vulnerability to attack by having separate devices which they did not otherwise use. Once installed, it could intercept phone calls, chats, and emails, access photos and videos, grab location data, and even activate the microphone or camera remotely. Finally, it could erase itself, practically without a trace, once access was no longer required.

While the tool has been around for over a decade, it came to public attention in mid-2021, due to a data leak (the irony!). This leak comprised around 50,000 phone numbers that were allegedly targeted by Pegasus. What alarmed the group of journalists analysing the leak was the fact that the numbers included many journalists and activists. In other words, a military-grade cyberattack tool, intended to target terrorists and the like, was being used against innocent citizens.

There are three questions we must tackle: (1) How bad is this? (2) Clearly, some bad things have happened, so who is to blame? (3) What can we do this fix things in the long term, so that such incidents do not occur in the future?

The answer to the first question isn’t as obvious as it first appears, especially in the backdrop of planetary-scale mass surveillance by the US government and many others. The level of utter betrayal involved in things like the Belgacom scandal (where the British government infiltrated a government-controlled Belgian telecom giant) or the Gemalto hack (where the US and the UK together broke into a Dutch company’s systems to obviate the new security systems it was installing on SIM cards) might make this particular case seem banal. It is critically different, however: this is a private company producing military-grade products and should be treated like a missile producer. Worse, unlike a missile, code can be replicated with ease. If Lockheed-Martin sells one Hellfire missile to the wrong client, it is still practically impossible for that client to make more. Not so with this (though, of course, this kind of attack software needs to be constantly updated in a cat-and-mouse game with companies patching their defences). Clearly, there needs to be strong, international regulation of the sale of such systems, with sufficient sanctions built in to prevent misuse.

When it comes to blame, there is a lot to go around. It is important to note that the sale of NSO’s cyberattack software is regulated by the Israeli defence minister, who grants individual export licences, presumably making sure that only vetted, “good” nations get access to it. The leaked data and subsequent forensic analysis, however, indicate that the majority of these vetted nations swiftly reneged on their promises (to use this power to target criminals) and started targeting journalists and activists. This is not to say that the blame lies only with these nations: it beggars belief that NSO and the Israeli defence ministry, both supremely competent institutions, were unaware that their vetted clients were doing bad things. It would appear that they decided to look the other way. In India’s case, we have neither a strong data protection bill nor real public pressure around data security and privacy (along with outdated laws and oversight in this area). Misuse is practically inevitable, especially given that it would be almost impossible to prove in court.

What can be done? Here, I strongly agree with many other experts: laws, technical defences, and good cyber hygiene are all necessary but not sufficient. At the end of the day, the main thing that will stop this from happening in the future is strong and steady public awareness, and anger at such incidents: a government must know that this is an issue that can lose it an election. We do not have anything of the sort in India today: outrage at a privacy breach is a coffee table conversation, and, frankly, not even a heated one. If Shark Tank produces more emotion than Pegasus, don’t expect privacy breaches to be taken seriously. Until that time, the Indian government, among others, will pay only lip service to protecting privacy and security. After all, the government represents its citizens – and we, clearly, don’t seem to care.

Debayan Gupta is currently an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Ashoka University. He is also a visiting professor and research affiliate at MIT and MIT-Sloan. Debayan’s primary areas of interest include secure computation, cryptography, and privacy.

Picture Credits: Kaspersky Daily

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 18

Keeping Up With Covid

After a brief period of coronavirus restrictions due to a surge in cases caused by the Omicron variant, England recently returned to Plan A, lifting mask-mandates and other coronavirus restrictions as its Covid-19 planning shifts towards living with the virus. “As Covid becomes endemic, we will need to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson told lawmakers. His decision to allow citizens to resume daily activities stems from a successful booster dose rollout and the Omicron variant’s current nature, which drove cases up to record levels in December without increasing the number of hospitalizations and casualties in the same manner.

Several other European countries such as Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain have followed suit to consider public health and the effects of lockdown-like measures on the daily lives of citizens, businesses, and the economy. Whether the European blueprint can be applied to other nations, vaccination rates seem to be a decisive factor in deciding how safe it is to begin living with the virus.

After a devastating second wave in India, thousands of hospital beds were converted to ICU beds, anticipating a rise in Covid-19 cases fuelled by the omicron variant. Almost a month after the onset of the third wave, most Covid ICU beds across the country remain empty. Trends across Europe follow suit, with Omicron cases resulting in fewer hospitalizations. This begs the question – can India begin to live with the virus, and what will our new normal look like? While India’s Covid handling is commendable, the country has been able to fully vaccinate over 71 crore people, which given its large population, yields a vaccination coverage of only 51.7%. It seems unlikely that India will adopt a no-mask and no-restrictions policy anytime soon. However, with decreasing active cases and hospitalizations, the need for a shift in strategy and policy measures is evident. India’s priority at this stage should be to revive its economy and continue to strengthen its health care systems. India has shuffled between two extremes throughout the pandemic: undue panic and extreme carelessness.

There is a growing need to find a middle path – living safely with Covid, and taking into consideration the reality of how the pandemic has changed our socioeconomic fabric. Since the first Covid case was detected in India on January 27, 2020, the country faced a two-month-long national lockdown, heavy restrictions, and curbs on citizens’ mobility. With the overnight closure of the country, Indians were forced to think quickly and collectively decided to accept the new way of living, which put the power of human adaptability to test. Today, the new normal is mutating with the virus. As we repeatedly went back into lockdowns, descended from having a semblance of normalcy right back into isolation, we were forced to find a way to keep on living and adapting.

A Bengaluru-specific study found that while night and weekend curfews delayed the spread of the virus, eventually, Omicron would spread and affect the same number of people it would have without restrictions. It might be time to stop implementing lockdowns whose primary function is to avoid overwhelming health care systems. Following the decline in cases, states such as Maharashtra, Delhi, and Karnataka have begun easing restrictions with many reopening schools and colleges and adjusting curfews. India also began second dose inoculations for 15-18-year-olds on January 31, 2022 as a step to ensure a safer return to physical classrooms.

The high transmissibility of the Delta and Omicron variants has made it clear that the goal of zero-Covid is not possible without stringent public-health measures and restrictions. Civil society must collectively set new goals to facilitate a shift from pandemic to endemic. While targets to reduce the burden on healthcare systems continue to be necessary, there is a need for new metrics to be used to ascertain the goals that account for the impact of Covid-19 on the daily lives of people, such as missed workdays, closed businesses, or school absenteeism. Hospitalizations and ICU occupancies should be monitored closely, but mass testing may no longer be required.

Until India reaches 90% double vaccination coverage and protects vulnerable sections with a booster dose, preventive measures such as masking-up, maintaining social-distancing, and making use of self-testing kits will remain a part of people’s daily routines as citizens start stepping out. These will aid the government in implementing policies that enable society to start living with the virus. 

The fear of falling sick enabled the world to develop a cashless society. Being social creatures, necessity drove us online, accelerating the infrastructure for virtual interactions. College students worldwide have spent entireties of their college experiences learning on Zoom, with many even graduating virtually. This has opened up the possibilities of developing the proper infrastructure for remote learning to those unable to access education. Similarly, offices moved entirely to work from home, showing that countries can be more productive and have more meaningful work experiences working remotely rather than in-person. A study showed that 82% of employees preferred working from home rather than returning to the workplace, and hybrid work environments are here to stay. Mental health was brought to the forefront of conversations as recognized by the 2022 budget, which will boost the mental healthcare sector in India.

The need for interaction led to a virtual entertainment sector with virtual concerts, stand-up shows, and live streaming. This proves that the pandemic has caused a shift in the way businesses will function moving forward. Video calls became a way to bring people together for everything, from birthdays and weddings to funerals, allowing people never to miss a crucial moment. Covid has normalized the online behaviours of millennials and Gen-Z for all generations, assisting the transition to the metaverse that is coming our way. As our normal keeps adapting, as tricky as it has been, it is also exciting to see the many ways in which our experiences with Covid will lead to progress in innovation, infrastructure, and quality of life.

Reya Daya is a third-year student, studying psychology and media studies at Ashoka University. Her other interests include writing, photography and music.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 17

In the Long Run We Will All Still be Paying Our Debt

The biggest takeaway from Jo Sunghee’s film Space Sweepers is this: there will be capitalism in a post-apocalyptic space society. And since there is capitalism, there will subsequently be poverty, debt and large amounts of harmful waste. The film is set in the year 2092; Earth has become uninhabitable as no plant life can survive on the surface anymore, and the air is poisonous. A corporation called UTS had built a new home for humanity on Mars using genetically modified plants. But there’s a catch, only those who have the money can become UTS citizens, which means most of humanity is left to their devices on Earth and a remaining few float around space selling scraps of space debris to earn their bread. 

To begin with, the dialogue and plot of the movie isn’t pitch perfect ﹘ the villain, James Sullivan (played by Richard Armitage), is a bit caricatured and bears an uncanny resemblance to Elon Musk, and the narrative is rather clichéd. Our protagonists, Taeho (played by Song Joong-ki) and Captain Jang (played by Kim Taeri) do a good enough job making space look simultaneously cool and miserable. And five-year-old Dorothy (whose real name is Kot-nim) is the perfect emotional core for the film. At times, the characters feel under-developed, even with a running time of 136 minutes. But it’s not as bad as when the third act melts into a pot of cheese by painting James Sullivan as the sole problem, and the sole solution becomes killing him off. It’s a disappointing but not unsurprising climax; the neo-liberal, cookie-cutter quick fix to world problems. At least we get our sweet (imaginary) revenge on Elon Musk.

Ultimately, however, the film has its plus points as well. For one, the world-building is convincing enough and  the CGI is pretty cool. The story is gripping and funny. Watching Kim Taeri clad in leather jackets and spitting profanities for nearly two hours isn’t that bad a sight either. Most importantly, Space Sweepers sparks a rush of satisfaction in any viewer who’s had enough of SpaceX philosophy and how rockets are going to save the world.

Image Credits: http://www.koreanfilm.or.kr

The political message of the movie regarding the environment, unlike quite a few sci-fi films, is not only loud and clear but also comprehensive. Firstly, the idea that corporations will bury solutions to the climate crisis to prioritize their profits could very well be a reality, but what’s more interesting is that the movie almost concludes that technology won’t save humanity from our problems, that we need to radically change our economic structures, that making the world more equitable is part of saving the planet – until it doesn’t. Which of course, is the real dystopia ﹘ that technology, which has the great potential to liberate so much of humanity, is in the end appropriated by capitalism to reap profits. 

All in all, Space Sweepers is pleasantly critical of global capitalism for a blockbuster, and not simply in a sensational, vague way, if you cut it some slack. Moreover, it’s a truly internationalist film, with characters of many ethnicities and countries, and a script that moves seamlessly across languages. It doesn’t feel forced in the least, and for once, it’s relieving to know that the human race’s diversity of language and culture ﹘ the film is truly multilingual, with different ethnicities speaking their own language, connected by translator devices that everyone has ﹘ will survive the end of the world. Perhaps it’s a sign that non-Western audiences and creators are more committed to linguistic diversity (or less bothered by it). I’d watch it if I were in the mood for something lighthearted and fast, but I wouldn’t say it’s a must-watch. 

PS. Also recommended if anyone is sick of seeing white people in sci-fi, only because it’s a place we’ve all been in. 

Featured Image Credits: http://www.cbr.com

Tanvi Rupakula is a writer for Navrang, the Film Society of Ashoka University.

This review first appeared in the Navrang Journal, check out more of their articles here.

Categories
Issue 16

In the year of the crypto-creators raking it in, what about the energy bill?

Photo by Old Money on Unsplash

More than a decade had passed since American writer Blake Butler tried to sell his novel. Ironically titled Decade.

In February 2021, he sold it as an NFT for 5 ETH (short for cryptocurrency Ethereum). At the time, 5 ETH was worth approximately $7,570 (INR 5.5 lakh). It was more money than what his previous books, published the traditional way, had made together. Value is up since. This one in GIF mode is downloadable to read as a PDF. 

In an interview with Literary Hub, Butler says of NFT, “It feels like a moment for reinvention, where the field is as wide open as you could want,” But before getting to what it means for the environment let’s see, what in internet heaven is an NFT? Here is a hypothetical story to explain this.

“Give me those cards,” says the teacher while snatching the action superhero cards from the students in the classroom. She then locks up the cards (not the kids) “It’s not fair,” one student cribs to the other. “I wish nobody stole our own cards from us,” says another, ready to howl.

In 2021, digital versions of these cards or books can be kept as Non-Fungible-Tokens or NFTs. These are unique digital files you cannot touch or put in your bag but just see on a screen. So, no teacher can take away a superhero action card, if it is in the form of an NFT. But how does someone own one?

One student feels that the other student has a card they want. They exchange cards. Many others follow suit. Now, to avoid confusion, everyone writes down who owns which cards in each of their notebooks. They keep updating their notebooks real-time. This notebook is a ledger. 

When a student tries to cheat by showing more cards in their notebook than they actually have, it simply does not match with the other notebooks. So no cheating. But what if a student without any cards wants to get their first one?“Those who update the notebooks will get yellow coins,” a smart chap puts an idea forward, “people can use these coins to buy the superhero action cards.” 

Those writing on notebooks may find it boring to maintain, but cryptocurrency is the reward for those who maintain a ledger. You get it? This is not just child’s play, but an internet model for buying and selling things, in a virtual marketplace worth millions. A collection of such notebooks, action hero cards and children, online is like a blockchain network in operation. 

Every computer is constantly creating copies and maintaining such ledgers in a decentralised way. While regarded as low on error, this system is heavy on energy use. Harvard Business Review says, “Bitcoin (the most common cryptocurrency) currently consumes around 110 Terawatt Hours per year — 0.55% of global electricity production, or roughly equivalent to the annual energy draw of small countries like Malaysia or Sweden.” Yet, people are increasingly using it. 

Writers like Indian self-help author Arun Batish, published EKA, as a paperback in 2019. It is available as an NFT too. In 2020, N.E Carlisle published a young adult book, Mermaid Eclipse. In the same year, she announced it as the first NFT Novel in collaboration with cyber artist, Lori Hammond.  They have launched this magic tale as an NFT with the book’s manuscript and a signed copy of the original artwork. An Indian and a global example, but you get the drift? NFT is helping writers.

Continuing with the student analogy, what happens next? One student puts forth a demand, “Everyone has to write this condition in their notebooks, I will pay for this action card only if it allows me to win the card competition tomorrow.” The seller can choose to sell the card if the other party agrees to this condition. The buyer too knows the terms. A condition like this is called a smart contract.

RVRS, one instance of a cryptocurrency, is using such a smart contract. When someone is buying or selling using this token, they are asking its users to agree on a condition. Which in their case is, “we will be using a tenth of your transaction amount to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.” RVRS says they support tree planting projects around the globe.“Does anybody need a shovel?”, asks a volunteer, in their PR tree-planting drive video. 

As the first year of a new decade wind down, NFT sales and creativity for its collaborators will define the upcoming decade. But so will the uncryptic truth that Terms and Conditions are the only major superhero action card the industry has authored, in exchange for its carbon footprint. So far.

Cefil is a student of Mathematics and Environmental Studies at Ashoka University. 

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis). 

Categories
Issue 14

From Zurich to Wayanad, Can The Data Modelling Highway Restore Farmer Science and Soil?

20 farmers, 18 male and 2 female, in crisp mundu and sari respectively, arrive in small groups by 9.30 a.m. at Thanal’s agroecology centre in Thirunelly Panchayat, Wayanad, a district in northern Kerala. Arun R S, working in organic and natural farming at Thanal, passes around recycled pencil and paper and says to the group, “We want to be able to learn from each other, let’s start by writing down the problems we face in our fields and we will find solutions for it.” 

Historically an Adivasi district, Wayanad, from Vayal Nadu, implies a paddy field in Malayalam. So farmers here are rice-growers, who also sow cash crops like ginger, cardamom, coffee, tea, vanilla and pepper. Agriculture, mixed with forest and a little bit of tourism, is the economic heartbeat here. But with the rising cost of chemical inputs and constant fluctuation in the international price of produce, farmers’ income and well-being has been greatly affected for decades. Between 2003-2007 alone, Wayanad had some of the highest numbers of farmer suicides in Kerala. In 2004, when 130 farmers committed suicide, Thanal, an organisation focused on environmental awareness, started work alongside farmers to restore income and land. This project in turn became the agroecology centre in Wayanad in 2009. By 2010, a Rice Diversity Block was started with 4 native paddy varieties.

As of October 2021, they have conserved approximately 300+ traditional varieties, out of which 180 are from Kerala. Arun takes the 20 strong groups for a hands-on session to make cow dung-based biopesticide. Workshops like these help rethink biomass quality and focus on the whole agri-lifecycle from seed to soil. Sudha chechi (Malayalam for sister, often used when referring to older women), working with Thanal as a farm caretaker, facilitates communication between farmers and the local tribal residents. Farmers reach out to her with questions like, “what medicine can be used to protect cardamom leaves from worm attacks?” Sudha, with her knowledge of medicinal plants and their uses, tries to provide solutions. 

Thanal confronts micro-queries and shows actual proof of change. What if they also collated data and made it available in a completely different part of the world, useful for conservation research as well? Thanal’s website is rich with information, but what if data modelling can empower each of their farmers to upload data directly?

Restor, a collaborative effort between Google and the Crowther Lab at ETH Zurich, is an organisation collecting data from such micro-movements and locations, to create models. Their website pitch is, “accelerating the global restoration movement by connecting everyone, everywhere to local restoration. Restor connects people to scientific data, supply chains, funding, and each other to increase the impact, scale, and sustainability of restoration efforts.” 

How is this done? The land is mapped using GIS, short for Geographic Information Systems. This allows a user to convert their patch of flat land or agri-field into a beautiful, multi-layered map right from their computer, using GIS software such as QGIS or ArcGIS. 24 year Giacomo Delgado who has been working in Switzerland’s Zurich HQ of Restor as a community and outreach associate for several months now, says, “We are creating state of the art models, as well as pulling best in class models created by other organizations (e.g. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)’s land cover map).”

But is this software accessible to a common farmer or conservationist? “QGIS is being widely used across the country by NGOs and common people. ArcGIS is very expensive and is often only made available at universities,” says Dr. Divya Vasudev, co-founder of Conservation Initiatives, a Guwahati based Indian not-for-profit trust, working towards conservation since 2017. 

An example of a Remote Sensed image of a piece of land. The top image shows a normal picture, the middle image is infrared and the bottom image shows an image with elevation information.

“Visual Remote Sensing” by NOAA’s National Ocean Service is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Advancing Internet access and GIS software becoming more advanced, open access, easy to use and in some cases, free or reasonable, has made it possible for Restor to collect data from 72,500 sites across the globe, as of October 15, 2021. 

Restor went public this October 13, by making its data and tools available to all, for free. Nyguthi Chege, an executive director at Kenya’s Green belt movement, says, “with this tool, we can easily determine which species are native to a region and assess the carbon that different ecosystems can store. Information that is so important to get restoration projects over initial hurdles and realize our vision.”

What can this mean for the Wayanad farmers and the agroecology centre working with them? Arun can now draw a boundary in the satellite map for farms transitioning to organic farming. He can then update the database with their restoration status, ownership and intervention type. Conservationists and farmers across the globe can observe how the farm changes over a period of three years and learn from it.

Is it a whole new world wide web, especially for those individuals and communities isolated by access, distance or movement until now? The politics of data ownership, modelling access and ease of use is unfolding in real-time as case histories. 

The field is yet, open.


Cefil is a student of Mathematics and Environmental Studies at Ashoka University. 

The featured image is by dhruvaraj, licensed under CC BY 2.0. 

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 10

University Spaces: Where the ‘Personal’ Becomes the ‘Political’

Politics in India often termed as ‘unreasonable’ and ‘non-educational,’ restricts our perception of a successful education to that of studying science. These professional fields of study encourage students’ engagement with science and development, more than social and political advancements. Moreover, they are not primarily concerned with ensuring social justice or equality. Indian psychologist and social theorist Ashis Nandy refers to science and development as the two new reasons of state besides national security, that have emerged since WWII. Indian elites have treated science “as a sphere of knowledge which should be free from the constraints of day-to-day politics.” As Pratap Bhanu Mehta puts it, confined to mere economic growth and transactional language of goods and service, the term ‘development’ leaves out the ideas of freedom, and democracy. Universities catering to these ideas of freedom and democracy act as influential spaces for student resistance movements, and motivates them to participate in national politics by upholding their liberal stances. 

Science Says, “Politics, You Stay Away”

Politics involves the establishment of an egalitarian society and requires a developing relationship with technology to ensure each other’s survival as well as their contribution towards resolving societal ills. However, the Indian middle-class have come to view technology as a “source of legitimacy for science” and as a way of tackling all complicated social and political problems. This perception of technology operating in a political vacuum is termed as technicism, according to Schuurman. It maintains the political domination of the apolitical, technocratic, modern elite upon decision-making processes. This notion of science and technology results in their promotion by Indian elites as apolitical, according to Nandy. At the same time, it marginalizes available social and political solutions, by extremizing their excesses, as well as associating credible politicians, academics, journalists, activists, and students as anti-nationals. Science and technology, therefore, serves as a sole “escape from the dirtiness of politics” for most Indian elites. 

Although science and technology are perceived in isolation from politics, the question arises –  isn’t politics everywhere – in our personal spaces as well as educational institutions? Educational spaces, especially university campuses in India have allowed for the most expressive manifestation of politics in the past as well as the present. This engagement with leadership within universities encourages students to actively participate in national politics and pursue it as a career. There have been various student leader-turned politicians in India – Arun Jaitley, Prakash Javadekar, Shashi Tharoor and Nupur Sharma, to name a few. Alongside Kanhaiya Kumar who contested the 2019 Lok Sabha elections from Bihar’s Begusarai, Aishe Ghosh, the incumbent President of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union stands as a Left-Congress alliance’s candidate in the West Bengal Assembly Elections. She says, “it is a big responsibility, but my politics will remain the same. The issues we fight for in JNU are an extension of what is happening across the country … I will carry these issues that I fought for in JNU to the people of West Bengal.” These narratives of students participating in national politics make one wonder, what is it about university campuses that produce eminent politicians in a country where most families are obsessed with wanting their child to pursue professional careers in science?

Technical Institutions in India: Technology and Social Empowerment?

The debates preceding India’s Independence, between political and scientific players entailed an establishment of a desirable relationship between politics and technology, however, their legacy appears to have been forgotten with time. The establishment of four IITs by the American team in India considered social patterns, political and cultural traditions as mere obstacles in their way, accompanied by the lack of imagination of the era to highlight the intersections of the two fields. Even though Humanities and Social Sciences were integrated into their curriculum, their scope remained limited thus, preventing intellectual culture, and the possibility of links between technology and social empowerment. 

The perceived free-of-politics atmosphere of the sciences is not to claim that technical institutions have never participated in national protests. Protests by students of IITs caste-based and religious discrimination is not unheard of. However, the constant monitoring of these spaces by state authorities seems to act as an impediment to their action towards other national issues. The existence of this vacuum is exemplified through a recent example, where a circular released by the IIT-Bombay administration warned its hostel residents against participating in “anti-national … activities.” The director called the Institute that “of eminence, with the primary purpose of producing high-quality engineering graduates and research that could be of help to the society at large.” 

It is crucial to note that these notifications arrived when students were protesting against the controversial CAA-NRC and the violence that occurred on university campuses like JNU, AMU and Jamia Millia Islamia. Concerned about its ‘scientific temper’ coming under scrutiny, the director further asked “its staff and employees to refrain from making statements that could ‘embarrass the relations’ of the institute with the central government.” Moreover, the desperate attempt of the government to control these institutions is evidenced by the news of the HRD Ministry issuing orders to technical institutions to keep a tab on their students’ social media accounts. The point here is not to focus on the legitimacy of this notice, instead, the possibility of its occurrence in the near future, with the most recent lateral surveillance and cyber volunteer programs. This incident marks the reduction of the intellectual agenda of the IITs to that of “suppliers” to the demands of the market economy to suit the goals of development, defined in technicist terms of industry, market and state. 

University Spaces As Challenging Hegemonic Structures

Universities either promoting a culture of politics or dismissing them is a consequence of the field of study and the cause that they stand for. Central universities such as Jamia Millia Islamia, JNU, DU, AMU, HCU, Osmania and many more are often under attack for their anti-governmental stances. This attack is not confined to the students alone but is an intimidation process to label them as violent. However, their rigorous curriculum on arts, humanities along with sciences, allows for critical thinking and acts as a space for imagination enables students to engage with social and political subjects perhaps more than what one witnesses in technical institutions. It is these imaginations that lead to knowledge-production, that challenge hegemonic structures and present alternate narratives beyond the binaries produced by the status quo. Universities offering engagement with political science and related branches of study as a part of their curricula cannot survive without the collective aspirations of their students. Students function as enablers of resistance movements and engage with politics beyond socially constructed ideas of the term, furthering research possibilities within academia. 

“University works as a form of mediation between theory and practice,” claims sociologist Gaurav Pathania. Additionally, the space of the university acts as an equalizer. That is, it provides equal access to tools of resistance such as technology, digital media, and brings students from diverse backgrounds together within a common physical and social space for registering protests, which also fosters empathy amongst students. Apart from classrooms acting as a formal space for expressing opinions, it is the informal spaces within university campuses where “social education happens.” Hostels, dining halls, chai/dhaba spots, and libraries allow space for both interpersonal as well as ideological conversations. The expression of collective stances through art installations in these areas encourages others to contribute towards the cause at hand. 

Pathania claims them to be spaces where “private lives of people come together as public.” That is, where the personal becomes the political. These resistance movements, therefore, necessitate academic freedom in universities. Without the freedom to read and express ideas that do not adhere to the status quo, it is nearly impossible to extend these conversations to the realm of national politics. Understanding the intersectionalities of technology, society and politics, along with interdisciplinarity within academia is crucial to resisting the dominant socio-political structures in one’s daily life. The liberating space of a university complements major global movements, adding to their students’ ability to bring significant change through their political leadership. Instances of students becoming future leaders enhances the credibility of political academia, thus, erasing the notion of commonly associated “dirt.”  

Picture Credits: PTI

Ariba is a student of English and Media Studies at Ashoka University.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 10

The Scramble For Mars: Why Are We So Obsessed With the Red Planet?

The mysterious disappearance of Mars’ ocean witnessed a major breakthrough in the past week – it might have never been lost at all. A recent NASA-backed study found that between 30 to 99 percent of the planet’s water is likely held within its crust in the form of hydrated minerals. While the extraction of water from these minerals may not be an easy feat, the study has gathered substantial traction at a time when humanity is looking to Mars like never before. Why are human beings obsessed with colonizing Mars – and what does this obsession represent?

The desire to explore Mars initially stemmed from a curiosity to enhance knowledge about the conditions that lead to life on a planet. It is also studied to understand how critical shifts in climate fundamentally alter planets. Recently, though, the paramount motivation to explore the planet is rooted in the objective of establishing an interplanetary human civilization – as a crucial safeguard against mass-extinction.  

The obsession with colonizing Mars is a product of several factors. One argument holds that only a space-faring human civilization faces the best odds of survival. This perspective is closely linked to the fear of death and the desire for “immortality” which motivates sending humans to other worlds. Moreover, a “biological motive(s)” with respect to the innate human desire for migration has been repeatedly suggested to substantiate extra-terrestrial prospects for the human race. Additionally, the romanticization of establishing an interplanetary existence for human beings also arises from optimistic perspectives of establishing a “utopia”. Setting up a space-faring civilization is expected to unify humanity and positively impact perspectives on socio-political and economic systems to finally create an “ideal” society. 

As alluring as these reasons may be, they are not grounded in reality – especially given the glaring gaps in scientific knowledge about how to establish self-sustaining human life on Mars. The argument that only colonizing Mars, and other planets will significantly improve the chance of human survival can be countered by arguing that sending humans to other worlds may not prove to be safer beyond a probability analysis. Attempting to address crises on Earth – such as the climate emergency – may increase the probability of human survival as well. The prospect of reaching Mars can disrupt efforts to find possible solutions to problems on Earth.  

Secondly, it is important to acknowledge that the idea of human progression is one that is culturally propagated. Just as human beings have historically shown tendencies to migrate, they have also displayed the desire to settle down. Justifying colonization of other planets on this basis ignores the fetishization of space travel, that equates space exploration with technological advancement and national power. 

 Thirdly, notions of a utopian human existence on faraway planets are naïve. The connotations of the usage of the word “colonization” elicits references to intergenerational torture unleashed at the cost of building “moral” and “civilized” societies. The modern interaction between “colonization” of planets and the advent of large-scale capitalism is bound to have similar consequences. Though human activities in space are governed by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which posits that international law applies in outer space, the moon and other celestial bodies, the ambiguities in its laws allows corporate entities to circumvent its clauses.

This came to life in the case of SpaceX, a private company based in the United States that designs and manufactures rockets and spacecrafts. The company has declared that the services of one of its products will not fall under the jurisdiction of any Earth-based government; in addition, Earth-based governments will also agree to recognize Mars as a free planet. This position becomes more dubious when analyzing SpaceX’s CEO, Elon Musk’s, claim that “loans” and “jobs” will be made available for those unable to pay for the exorbitant trip across space to sustain their life on Mars; essentially representing an interplanetary repackaging of indentured servitude. Hence, given the current state of space legislation, it will not be anytime soon that economic and social equality will be ensured for a space-faring civilization – completely shattering any possibility of “utopia” on Mars. 

The colonization of Mars, consequently, also raises important moral questions – particularly about how a Martian society would operate. A new approach suggests that once human beings arrive at Mars, they should disconnect from their Earthly relatives. This “liberation” perspective implies that once permanent human settlers arrive at Mars, they should relinquish their planetary citizenship for Earth – instead adopting Martian citizenship. From that point on, the Martians should be left to their own devices. Any entities – governmental, non-governmental – must not engage with the economics, politics, or culture of this society. While scientific exploration by Earth’s citizens can continue on Mars, sharing research and information should only take place to achieve medical or educational goals. Most importantly, the citizens of Earth must not make any demands for Martian resources. 

The idea behind this position is simple – in order to develop a Martian extension of human civilization, it must be allowed to freely determine its fate, just as human beings did on Earth. Often the mission to establish human existence on Mars is projected as a “moral” position by governments and businessmen, in which case the liberation approach is the most principled execution of this goal. The reason why this idea doesn’t sit well with human society – and probably never will – is because colonizing Mars is, inherently, a selfish, human fantasy. This fantasy emerges from the desire to possess and profit – either in the form of capital or nationalist feats, or both. It is impossible to isolate the race to establish human settlements on different planets from geopolitical, social and economic processes existing on Earth; the maniacal pursuit of Mars is about scientific triumph as much as it is about a show of power.

The obsession to populate Mars, hence, represents the manifestation of the worst in humanity – never-ending curiosity coupled with little regard for ethical, sociopolitical, or economic consequences of the same. Instead of addressing the glaring issues that currently exist on Earth, there are strong desires to “advance” to the perceived next stage of human existence. While it can be debated whether occupying other planets will objectively be beneficial, the only thing that becomes painfully clear is that humanity is preparing to leap from one ill-fated land to the next – with little awareness or regard for the problems it will inevitably carry to the new worlds it explores. 

Aarohi Sharma is a Psychology student at Ashoka University. Her academic interests primarily focus on the intersection of politics and psychology in society.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 8

Digital Detox in Isolation

I used to joke with a friend: if you want to feel time slow down,  either be on a treadmill or lose your phone for a day. This is more true than ever in the midst of the Coronavirus pandemic. From weddings, birthday parties and even funerals shifting online, there aren’t several options but to make peace with being relegated to a small square on Zoom. However, it’s not just Zoom that’s the culprit but also our escalating usage of social media that has increased our screen time. A study of 4500 individuals showed that the majority of respondents acknowledged that their social media consumption (72%) and posting (43%) has peaked during the pandemic. 

In the process of reflecting more critically on my relationship with technology, I started researching more about how social media affects us. A few hours later, I come across a purportedly ‘random’  advertisement asking me, no, almost accusing me of being a ‘social media addict’, “Are you a social media addict? Take this quiz to find out!” As much as I felt called-out by the advertisement, it was hard to avoid. The next thing I knew, I took the quiz. A few hours later, I was watching a rabbit video and had already stalked a friend’s boyfriend’s mother’s sister. How I landed there, I wasn’t sure of that myself either. However, by the end of the day, I knew I was a social media addict!

Social media addiction, according to Addiction Centre is defined as, “a behavioral addiction that is characterized as being overly concerned about social media, driven by an uncontrollable urge to log on to or use social media, and devoting so much time and effort to it such that it impairs other important life areas.” In the previous issue for OpenAxis, Rujuta Singh argued that “in many ways, the addictive nature of social media is a feature, not a design flaw.” Studies indicate that notifications from retweets, likes and shares trigger the release of dopamine within the brain — producing effects similar to that of consuming cocaine. 

A lot of people are increasingly becoming aware of how social media rewires the brain and affects our interaction, yet a few are willing to make a change. I would confess I am one of those who haven’t been willing to make a lasting change for long. Every now and then, I would delete Instagram after either getting bored, disgusted or both, however, my Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) would compel me to be back before the end of the day. This time though, I decided to try something new and radical — a digital detox in complete isolation. 

Digital Detox in Isolation

In 1654, the philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal wrote, “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” I didn’t quite imagine how tough it is to sit still when I made the decision to quit social media for a week in complete isolation.

Usually, I would wake up to be reminded of my FOMO through Instagram stories of my friends being out. However, the decision of giving up my social media gave me another kind of depressing FOMO. Will I be okay with missing out on posting a cute #couplegoal picture on Valentine’s Day? Are my friends sending me memes that I am not able to see? I didn’t just intensely desire those mundane interactions but craved them. I found myself thinking about whether my friends and family might just forget my presence.

This wasn’t what I imagined when I decided on a “digital detox.” I imagined a calmer, more composed and mindful person. I expected myself to be someone who would want to exercise, be more productive and spend time reading books and doing yoga. Isn’t this how they usually portray people who do a digital detox?  Instead, I found myself getting agitated, bored and just re-reading the same emails — basically utterly unproductive.

I didn’t have the urge to pick up a novel when I knew I couldn’t post a picture or I didn’t quite enjoy my isolation meals as much as I would have. Neither did it lead to a decluttering of my mind, the way I anticipated it would. In fact, being away from social media during complete isolation made me feel bored at best, and lonely and depressed at worst.  Why was I experiencing what I was experiencing, and is digital detox even possible and a worthwhile endeavour to undertake in today’s age? 

Impossibility of a Digital Detox 

“I don’t think digital detoxes are realistic anymore” writes Dr. Doreen Dodgen-Magee, author of Deviced!: Balancing Life and Technology in a Digital World. She further writes “We can’t live a connected and informed life that we really need to now, without some form of tech.” At a time especially when one is isolating, alone or quarantined, is it really a wise decision to do a digital detox then? While some wellness experts and articles strongly suggest that digital detox is good for your wellbeing, I personally found that in my experience, it made me more agitated.

A study by  Lancaster University found that as previously postulated, there is no direct ‘proven’ correlation between poor mental health and social media. Even in studies that claim a connection between the two, fail to answer whether poor mental health leads to more social media usage or vice versa. In fact, the same study by Lancaster University posits that worrying about our smartphone use is likelier to cause more depression and anxiety than using the tech. 

It raises the question of whether our brains have adopted technology to the extent that social media has become indispensable and unavoidable? If so, will just accepting that lead to more mental peace? Dr Doreen certainly believes so. She compares our relationship with technology to that of an essential item like food, and in that light, a digital detox is an equivalent of extreme diet. What we could and should strive for then is a mindful, purposeful use of social media instead of a drastic step like a digital detox. This would not just help cultivate a more meaningful relationship with technology but also renegotiate the terms of technology to our terms.

Oh wait, brb, let me quickly share this idea on Facebook! See ya! 

Ridhima Manocha is a final year English and Media Studies student at Ashoka University and has authored the book, The Sun and Shadow.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).

Categories
Issue 6

Technology will change, but what about ethics?

In a physically distanced world, through the power of technology the American media mogul Oprah Winfrey pulled-off a successful “in-person” interview with Barack Obama, a former President of the USA. Although Oprah was in Santa Barbara, California and Obama in Washington, D.C., the green screen technology used for the interview made it appear as though the pair were comfortably sitting across each other, by Oprah’s fireplace in her Montecito mansion. 

After the interview aired on Oprah’s Apple TV show, The Oprah Conversation, most people were stunned by what the technology used was able to do. The interview took place seamlessly and the two appeared to be in the same room throughout. The film industry, especially the Marvel franchise, extensively makes use of green screen technology. Technology like this has existed in the fictional space for a while now. But should the use of such technology enter the media space? 

We live in a world where misinformation is consistently proliferating. False representations tend to dominate the media landscape because they are being generated at a much faster pace compared to our ability to detect them. Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) continue to blur our perceptive abilities. We have reached a stage where we find it difficult to distinguish between real and fake digital representations. Thus, among the existing sea of misinformation, do we want technology, like the one Oprah used, to be pursued for journalistic endeavours?  

Deepfakes (created through the use of AI, are audio and video representations of people saying and doing things that didn’t actually) first surfaced on the internet in 2017. For the first time, it gave creators the power to lip-sync audio or make other digital manipulations in a highly realistic way. The famous Obama deepfake is an example of how realistic they can get. Once the technology became cheaper and its application easier, deepfakes quickly started exploding on the internet. While the entertainment value of such technology is high, there is an uncomfortable amount of rising malicious content. 

The technology has acquired political value and is often used as a tool to amplify propaganda. Misrepresentations of political leaders and other public figures are frequently distributed to the masses. Possessing the power to undermine the credibility of journalism, manipulate elections and reduce trust in institutions, the use of this technology has been mainly sinister. According to a study, 96% of deepfakes on the internet are pornographic, with most being non-consensual. Apart from damaging the reputation of individuals, the deepfake AI has also raised broader ethical implications. Most technologies have positive as well as negative outcomes, but the discourse on deepfake technology has been more critical than appreciative.  

While it is essential to use technology ethically, maybe we need to take a step back, and ask: Is it morally right or wrong to use it in the first place? Even though Oprah publicly acknowledged the technology she was using, was mere disclosure enough? There is no doubt that technology holds power. Many of the ethical dilemmas we face today are an outcome of technology. Thus, when trying to deliberate upon whether or not it is okay to deploy certain technology in the space of journalism, thinking through ethical implications becomes important. 

Different ethical principles result in differing approaches to such issues. Let us assume that Oprah is still in the process of deciding whether it is ethical to use the green screen technology for her interview. For Consequentialist Oprah, the decision of using the technology would be governed by the outcomes of using it. She would have to deliberate whether the benefits of using the technology would overweigh the costs. Kantian Oprah would follow a deontological approach. Rather than looking at the consequences of her choice, her decision-making process would be based on the idea of performing moral duties grounded with rationality. Virtue ethicist Oprah’s decision would rely on deciding whether her act itself is virtuous. This decision would neither be based on duty nor based on the consequences of the outcome. 

When approaching whether or not to use technology, it is important to look at things through these different ethical lenses and perspectives because they provide insight into the types of moral conundrums that a situation may cause. While the guidance from these theories often conflicts with the other, it lays down different choices and options. The decision-making process used to arrive at a conclusion, thus, gets governed by a moral fabric. 

Digital technologies have spawned new opportunities as well as challenges with the way we communicate today. A global shift to digital media has changed the way information is being disseminated. Through the internet, every individual has the ability to discharge information to the masses. In an idealistic world, we would expect all individuals to practice basic ethical standards. Since the world we live in is far from ideal, it is especially important for media professionals to be careful about the form and application of technology they are deploying as it sets a precedent for others to follow. But even if journalistic codes are practised, some questions remain. Since technology keeps changing, which principles should be incorporated while making decisions? In case of ethical pitfalls, how can accountability be held? Should we be guided by a regulatory framework? Who should make these decisions?

Picture Credit: Elena Lacey; Getty Images

Shrishti is a Politics, Philosophy and Economics major at Ashoka University. In her free time, you’ll find her cooking, dancing or photographing.

We publish all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noderivatives license. This means any news organisation, blog, website, newspaper or newsletter can republish our pieces for free, provided they attribute the original source (OpenAxis).