The idea of public sphere is nothing new. Decades back Habermas idealised public sphere as an arena independent of partisan forces and interferences, meant for rational debate and discussions, leading to many a public opinion on issues concerning masses. It is characterised by open and easy entry and exit. This idea of public sphere was meant for free and open debate, with equal weight to all participants’ viewpoints and issues.
With the ever-increasing pervasiveness of the internet in human life, backed by cheap internet services and mobile phone devices, it is important to raise the question of whether internet today is “public sphere or not?” While scholars like Manuel Castells agree that internet has become a public sphere, scholars like Jodi Dean disagree, on the basis of digital inequality in society.
While indeed, there exists inequality worldwide, we can not deny the fact that internet and internet-based communication platforms play an inherently important role in our personal to professional lives. Our email IDs, chat accounts, to our social media accounts are our digital identities through which we participate in various activities over the internet as well as in real life. Moot point aspects of social exclusions like gender, caste, education, poverty etc., too get reflected over the various platform of the internet, just like they do in real life.
Thus, when we talk about India moving towards digital democracy, a better understanding of intersectionalities of information and communications technology (ICT), with societal concerns related to gender, caste, minorities, tribals and other oppressed sections is a prerequisite. Even UN E-Government Survey, Government of India’s Citizen Participation framework for e-Governance and National Digital Communication Policy of 2018, runs around the focal theme of “citizen participation”, i.e not from specific gender, religion, class, caste or community but “every citizen of India”.
Caste system is an institution which is specific to India, which has seeped into various religions in the Indian sub-continent and acts as a major dimension of social exclusion in Indian society. The racial, social and occupational division of classes exists worldwide in various forms, but under caste system in India, sociological characteristics are imposed from birth and are socially inflexible, thus making it the most important area to be addressed for better social inclusion.
Moving on from issues related to social inclusion of caste population in India to digital inclusion, it includes not only access, but equal participation and empowerment of everyone to equally participate. Thus, when we talk about digital inclusion, it not only stands for the use of ICT in the best possible way, but most importantly by everyone in a way that their social inequalities do not act as a hindrance. In India too, the digital inequalities continue to combine with religion, language, race, class, gender, age group, income level, place of birth and other offline axes of inequality, but sadly the social and democratic aspect of scholarly work is missing.
Moreover, though there has been numerous work upon different aspects of digital inclusion, there is hardly any decent academic research which explores the question of “caste” as an important factor for digital inclusion, especially in the context of the Indian subcontinent.
Academicians and Slacktivists working on the intersectionality of ICT and societal constraints are suffering in two ways. Firstly there is a recent trend of mushrooming NGOs that simply put Internet/ICT before social aspects like gender, caste, class, religion, women etc, and collect funds in their names without any grassroots evaluation work experience.
Secondly, there is the whole bunch of new generation Slacktivitists (where are the good old activists anymore?) who are suddenly so enthusiastic about free access to information and platform, that they keep interpreting political and social ideologies in light of internet, on internet-based platforms, even though they do not know the basic difference between digital exclusion and digital divide.
Deep down, I feel, there is insecurity too in academicians and activists alike, about the fact that nuts and bolts of social exclusion that they were teaching and preaching for so long are changing and getting highly affected by bits and bytes of the internet, which they never thought of. Hence, they confuse speaking up on an internet platform, with the notion that everyone is reading it, not realising that even those who can avail the internet, are much better off than those who can’t.
Thus in this cat fight of taking first mover’s advantage by Slacktivists and group of academicians, what remains untouched is the policy level intervention to resolve digital exclusion, while considering the internet to be a public sphere.