--- layout: default title: "YouTube and Facebook Remain Blocked in Kashmir" description: "A New York Times India blog post examining the prolonged blocking of social media platforms in Jammu and Kashmir following protests against an anti-Islam film, featuring expert analysis from Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash on internet censorship and circumvention methods." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2012-10-03 source: "The New York Times" authors: ["Betwa Sharma", "Pamposh Raina"] permalink: /media/youtube-facebook-remain-blocked-kashmir/ created: 2025-12-12 --- **YouTube and Facebook Remain Blocked in Kashmir** is a blog post published on *The New York Times* India blog on 3 October 2012, written by Betwa Sharma and Pamposh Raina. The article investigates the continued blocking of major social media platforms in Jammu and Kashmir despite the subsiding of protests, featuring commentary from Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash on the technical aspects of internet restrictions, their circumvention, and the broader implications for free speech and communication in the region. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
đź“° Published in:
The New York Times (India Blog)
đź“… Date:
3 October 2012
👤 Authors:
Betwa Sharma and Pamposh Raina
đź“„ Type:
Blog Post
đź“° Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

The social networking websites Facebook and YouTube have been blocked since Friday in India's northern state of Jammu and Kashmir, even though it has been over a week since the last protests against an anti-Islam film.

One telecom company employee, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, confirmed that Facebook and YouTube were still inaccessible on Wednesday, as did several Kashmiris. The state government had ordered telecom companies late last month to shut down Internet and mobile phone services as it tried to keep Muslims from uploading and downloading the video "Innocence of Muslims," which has angered Muslims across the world because of its negative portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad.

Government officials insist that the measure quelled the riots and prevented the kind of violence that claimed over 20 lives in Pakistan.

Since the demonstrations have subsided, Kashmiri Muslims say they suspect that the Jammu and Kashmir government is using the past protests as a justification to routinely block their Internet access. The government, however, denied that it was continuing to bar Internet users from these two social media sites.

"There was never a ban but a suspension," Aga Ruhullah, Jammu and Kashmir's information technology minister, said Wednesday. The service was suspended on YouTube and Facebook. This was done for the sake of law of order, and that order was revoked on Oct. 1. There must be a snag on the part of service providers because we have revoked the order."

Some people can access YouTube and Facebook on their mobile phones while Facebook can sometimes be opened on laptops and computers via broadband, but this access comes and goes. The telecom employee said that apps for YouTube or Facebook in new models of phones could bypass his company's firewall and that in any case, an indefinite block was unlikely because the local telecom companies would lose revenue.

Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Center for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based research and advocacy group, explained that Internet service providers rarely imposed blanket bans because they do not want to "alienate their customer base."

The Jammu and Kashmir government has increasingly used a communication blackout to prevent unrest in the valley. Even regular mobile phone services were shut down on Sept. 21 between noon and 5 p.m. when it was feared that protests against the anti-Islam film would erupt. Services were restored shortly afterward but were again suspended on Friday.

Kashmiris said that the state government was using the anti-Islam film as a pretext to curb their freedom of speech by restricting access to popular websites.

"Personally, I think it's a gag on communication," said a teenage college student who requested his name not be disclosed because he feared retaliation from the government. "Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have become sources of passing messages and information for separatists."

Aala Fazili, a 30-year-old postgraduate student, said that Facebook and YouTube allowed Kashmiris to communicate with the world without their words and actions being interpreted by the media. "It is direct and uncut information," he said. "We speak for ourselves."

Mr. Ruhullah, however, denied any attempt to crack down on free speech in Kashmir. "We are liberal as before," he said. "But it is the right of every government to control a bad situation."

Other college students said they had also heard of people using proxy servers to access the sites. Mr. Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society said that such government bans could be circumvented by using proxy servers or by downloading open-source software like Typhoon and the Onion Router, or Tor, that helps maintain the anonymity of an online user, as many do in China.

Pranesh Prakash, also from the same center in Bangalore, said that in blocking YouTube and Facebook, the government had once again gone "overboard." "Lessons have not been learned from what happened in August," he said, referring to the crackdown on the Internet in aftermath of the Assam riots.

But Kashmiris expressed frustration over the blocking of YouTube and Facebook for reasons other than free speech and activism. Businessmen, for instance, said these two sites had become integral to their branding and communication strategy.

Zulfi, a 24-year-old hotel manager, who requested his last name not be used so he could avoid scrutiny from the government, couldn't access YouTube and Facebook on Wednesday. "It is bad for business as we publicize on both these sites," he said. "And more and more people reach out to us on Facebook now so I am always checking the messages."

For many Kashmiris, Facebook is also an inexpensive form of communication with their friends and relatives in India or abroad.

"Forget activism and all — it's just a basic tool to keep in touch," said Mr. Fazili, the postgraduate student, who hasn't been able to reach his mother in the United States on Facebook or Skype. "This ban has made the entire Internet slow as well," he added.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background The 2012 Kashmir internet shutdown occurred within a particularly fraught period of India's engagement with social media governance. The "Innocence of Muslims" controversy had triggered protests across multiple countries, prompting governments to grapple with how to manage potentially inflammatory content whilst balancing free expression concerns. In Kashmir, where political tensions have historically rendered communication networks both vital and vulnerable, the blocking of Facebook and YouTube took on additional layers of significance beyond the immediate law-and-order rationale. Sunil Abraham's observation about internet service providers rarely imposing blanket bans reflected an important economic reality underlying censorship efforts. Telecommunications companies faced competing pressures—government directives to restrict access on one hand, and commercial imperatives to maintain customer satisfaction on the other. This tension often resulted in the inconsistent, partial blockages that Kashmiris experienced, where access would intermittently function through mobile applications or certain connection types. Pranesh Prakash's reference to lessons not learnt from the August Assam riots highlighted a troubling pattern. Just weeks earlier, the Indian government had imposed widespread restrictions following ethnic violence in Assam, blocking numerous websites and even restricting SMS services to prevent the spread of inflammatory content. Critics argued these measures were disproportionate and ineffective, yet similar approaches were rapidly deployed in Kashmir, suggesting a reflexive turn towards communication blackouts as a crisis management tool. The article also captures how digital platforms had fundamentally altered communication patterns in Kashmir. Beyond their role in political mobilisation, social media had become embedded in everyday life—for business promotion, family communication, and social connection. When the government blocked these services, it disrupted not merely activist networks but the basic fabric of contemporary life. The complaint about overall internet slowdown illustrated how censorship efforts often created collateral damage extending beyond their intended targets. Abraham's mention of circumvention tools like Tor positioned Kashmir's internet restrictions within a global context of digital resistance. Just as Chinese users employed various technical methods to bypass the Great Firewall, Kashmiris sought similar workarounds—though the article's coverage of these techniques itself served an educational function, making such knowledge more accessible to affected populations. ## External Link - Read on The New York Times