Covid-19 and suppression of information - Drawing parallels between China and Jammu & Kashmir

As the world grapples with the Covid-19 pandemic, the international community has placed significant emphasis on the manner in which China has handled this global health crisis. There has been significant discussion over the manner in which China initially handled the coronavirus outbreak in late December and early January, after it broke out in the city of Wuhan.

In this post, I shall first highlight how China suppressed speech and information after the outbreak broke out in Wuhan, and how such suppression has culminated in a global health crisis. I shall then draw parallels with another prominent instance of censorship and information suppression that we are witnessing today – which is the internet ban in Jammu & Kashmir. I shall argue that both these instances have a common thread – which is that suppression of information can result in adverse consequences for a community as a whole, along with infringing individual rights.

The onset of Coivd-19 and the suppression of information – a brief background

There exists substantial evidence to state that the novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) originated partly or fully from a wet-animal market in Wuhan. There was however no concrete evidence to this effect in December last year, when China had alerted the WHO about a significant number of cases of unusual pneumonia in Wuhan. Around the same time, a Chinese ophthalmologist named Dr. Li Wenliang had alerted his colleagues through a message on the WeChat application, regarding the possible emergence of an illness similar to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2003, which could be caused by a novel coronavirus.

As soon as Dr. Li Wenliang raised this alarm, he was, on 3^rd January, summoned by the Wuhan Public Security Bureau and was made to sign an undertaking stating that he had made incorrect statements and had indulged in rumour mongering. He was also made to sign a statement to the effect that he would not commit this ‘unlawful’ act again. Shortly thereafter, the Chinese National Health Commission ordered that no institution should publish any information relating to this ‘unknown’ disease. The Hubei Provincial Health Commission ordered that no new samples of the unknown disease shall be tested, and also ordered for the destruction of all existing samples. Subsequently, on 7^th January, Chinese medical authorities claimed that they had identified the novel virus, and stated that it belonged to the coronavirus family.

However, they continued to hold the view that there was no evidence that this novel virus could spread through human-to-human transmission. In the interregnum, even the WHO deferred to China’s stand, and stated publicly on 14^th January that the preliminary investigation conducted by the Chinese authorities had concluded that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus that was identified in Wuhan. But, after the first three deaths occurred from the virus, China clandestinely changed its stance and placed the city of Wuhan under effective quarantine on 23^rd January, and suspended air and rail travel from the city. Hence, although the first signs of the disease had occurred in December, the Chinese Government initiated their first measures only on the 23^rd of January, by which time, a number of potential carriers of the virus had travelled out of Wuhan.

Despite a steady increase in the number of cases and the virus spreading rapidly to other countries, the WHO declared coronavirus to be a ‘pandemic’ only on 11^th March, which was almost 45 days after China took its first set of measures in Wuhan. Meanwhile, on 1^st February, Dr. Li Wenliang contracted Covid-19 while treating patients in Wuhan, and passed away due to this illness on 7^th February. Keeping aside the WHO’s delinquency in deferring to the views of China, what is more significant here is the manner in which Chinese authorities suppressed information regarding the emergence of a novel coronavirus after the alarm bells raised by Dr. Li Wenliang. As pointed out above, after silencing Dr. Wenliang, the Chinese authorities also placed an embargo on the testing of new virus samples, and the publication of any information relating to the disease.

As other nations such as Italy, USA and India continue to impose lockdowns to minimize the damage caused by Covid-19, China has already lifted the lockdown of Wuhan on 8^th April, claiming that the rise in fresh cases is well under control. However, in a sudden move last week, the Chinese Government also increased the death toll of those who died due to Covid-19 in Wuhan by 50%, which has amplified concerns regarding information manipulation.

The Covid-19 pandemic – a direct consequence of this suppression of information

Had the Chinese medical authorities investigated upon the red flag raised by Dr. Wenliang, the novel coronavirus could have been discovered in the first week of January itself. Wuhan could then have been locked down well before 23^rd January, by which time there had been significant passenger movement in and out of the city. If there was no suppression of information, the spread of the virus out of Wuhan could have been significantly curtailed.

The above discussion illustrates that the Covid-19 pandemic could have been averted in the initial stages itself, if China had not censored Dr. Li Wenliang and suppressed information regarding the emergence of a novel coronavirus. As George Orwell had presciently highlighted in his classic novel titled – 1984, one feature of a totalitarian regime is that it will manipulate all news and information in its favor, and shall disregard the truth to suit its agenda. From a constitutional perspective, the biggest lesson from the censoring of Dr. Li Wenliang and the subsequent suppression of information by the Chinese medical authorities is that suppression of speech and access to information may, along with infringing on an individual’s fundamental rights, also simultaneously lead to adverse consequences for an entire community. The consequence of the suppression in the present situation is the global health crisis caused by Covid-19.

While we have always tended to look at suppression of free speech and access to information from the perspective of individual rights, we must also keep in mind that this may have large-scale unintended repercussions, such as the pandemic that we face today. These incidents also bring to light certain important lessons for the Indian Government, in light of the continued suppression of information and communication in Jammu & Kashmir, through the internet suspension orders.

Drawing parallels with the internet suspension in Jammu & Kashmir

This suppression of information also has parallels with the internet ban in Jammu & Kashmir, which commenced on 4^th August 2019, and has held fort till today. While the absolute ban on internet access was challenged in the Supreme Court in the Anuradha Bhasin case, the Court only directed the Central Government and the Jammu & Kashmir Administration to ‘review’ their internet suspension orders on a weekly basis. The Court laid down a stringent proportionality standard to review the validity of internet suspension orders, but refused to apply the same and give any relief to the petitioners. It ultimately deferred to the Central Government’s claims of a threat to national security.

The Court looked at this issue from the perspective of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, by holding that freedom of speech and freedom to carry on trade, business and occupation with the internet as a medium deserves constitutional protection. One aspect that the Court did not elaborate upon was that the internet as a medium is crucial for having access to information, and this right to access information through the internet as the medium can also be considered as integral to Article 19(1)(a).

As of today, the ban has only been partially restored, with around 300 whitelisted websites being made available solely on 2G mobile internet network. Despite this relaxation, there is still effectively a ban on the internet in Kashmir, as 2G mobile internet speeds are not sufficient for conducting most internet-oriented activities. It is for precisely these reasons that a fresh petition has been filed before the Supreme Court, demanding the restoration of 4G mobile internet services in the State. Irrespective of the outcome of this petition, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, it is imperative to keep note of the larger constitutional implications of this internet suspension, which shall be highlighted below.

While India battles with a rapid spread of Covid-19 through a nationwide lockdown, the residents of Kashmir lack proper access to the internet, which is essential for having accurate information about how to tackle the virus, and how to cope up with a lockdown situation. Hence, along with preventing the residents from effectively communicating and disseminating information, the internet ban also prevents them from having access to essential information during this pandemic. This suppression of information access may lead to deleterious consequences especially for patients, doctors and healthcare workers, who may be unable to access research and best practices that are being developed and updated by medical institutions across India, such as the ICMR. Such suppression of information leads to two adverse consequences, which have significant constitutional implications.

First, this lack of information access hinders the residents of Jammu & Kashmir from effectively participating in national affairs. Such freedom of expression through active democratic participation in national affairs can be considered as another integral aspect of Article 19(1)(a), which stands violated. Second, this may adversely affect access to quality healthcare facilities during the pandemic. Access to quality healthcare facilities during a pandemic can be considered as an intrinsic aspect of the right to health, which is part of Article 21. The internet ban may hence result in depriving access to other socio-economic rights, such as the right to health.

This serves as an epitome of the manner in which suppression of civil and political rights conferred by Article 19(1)(a) may also result in unintended consequences, such as hindering access to other socio-economic rights, such as the right to access quality healthcare facilities during a pandemic. Along with looking at this internet ban from the perspective of the proportionality doctrine (as the Court did in Anuradha Bhasin), we should also keep note of the larger constitutional implications that have been referred to above.

The adverse consequences of the Kashmir internet suspension brings us back to our earlier discussion of China’s suppression of information. While China’s suppression of information culminated in a global health crisis, the suppression of information in Jammu & Kashmir has significant constitutional implications for all residents of the Union Territory, especially during the prevalence of this pandemic. Both these instances have a common thread, which highlights the manner in which censoring of speech and information may have pernicious consequences for an entire community, along with infringing individual rights. In this time of an unprecedented global health crisis, individuals, policymakers and institutions such as the Supreme Court may do well to reflect on the manner in which China has put the entire world at risk by not paying heed to Dr. Li Wenliang.