So this is based. Some parts of this are based off of what happened with respect to the internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir. So when the state specialist status was invoked, which is article 370, that very day there was a complete communication platform. So it wasn't only an internet shut down, even phone lines were not operational. And when the internet was restored, it was done in a manner which came through a process of litigation conflict, as well as a large amount of advocacy which included a tweet by Rihanna, which caused a diplomatic incident. I encourage people to look at it because it seems that what caused the government of India to restore internet and my friends joke about it and not the three cases apart you did in the Supreme Court, but it was a tweet by Rihanna. So like, I hope that popstars people who hold cultural capital do comment on issues which affect the public interest much more regularly. The point which I'm coming to is that the journalists who are there in Jammu and Kashmir have all always been under a very repressive environment with security laws, they have been arrested, preventively detained and there are a large number of them which face threats very frequently, and they operate in such a difficult environment knowing that they can be arrested at any point in time. It's important to then understand that when they are putting out reports, even when the internet was partially restored, and the state was being reorganized politically, it's essentially been seen decades of conflict and unease. It is very important for accurate news reports to get out if India wants to claim a status as a democratic country, right. Other parts of the country need to be accurately informed and this will come from ground reporting from the not only from the press releases by the government of India now, when the terminals were set up for specific journalists to report from there. Actually, there was a high amount of presidents of government officials that thereby they could even see what reports were being typed, how they were talking to the newsrooms, and this is very important for people to understand. And this has given rise for me to draw an impression that Ethernet shutdowns quite often when they're justified for by people by stating, firstly, there's no evidence to back up this claim, empirically, that internet shutdowns lead to a prevention of violence as well as destruction of property. There is an absence of evidence in India, and this has also been stated by the standing committee or the standing committee of the Indian parliament. So my view is since it's not fulfilling the purpose that the state is saying for which it's imposing an internet shutdown, which actually is not limited to specific district also but to an entire state which has millions of people and they can't operate the internet for more than 500 days. It basically puts them back into a pre digital age when the rest of the society the entitlements, their services, remote education, commercial transactions, personal relationships are all dependent on the internet. So why is it doing it and I keep asking myself that question, but I found this answer to it a little much more convincingly. I took my time when on May 3, the state government of Manipur shut down the internet there and are still continuing to shut it down with respect to mobile based internet access. And mobile based internet access is the primary mode of how people in India access the internet. And again I think it is due to the state interest in controlling information in setting a narrative that we have shut down the internet and in Jammu and Kashmir because we reorganizing the state the only reports which come out which to a large extent come out are the ones which we decide how they come out. There's no citizen journalism. There's a there's a high amount of censorship which is there. So essentially, you believe the government that what are the claims that it's making, but to a large extent, true that the state is happy that this organic reorganization of that state in terms of it being broken up into three different states at a future date right now as a unit territory, its special status being removed. It's all being done peacefully, and it's going after a plan. Similarly, in Manipur when there's an ethnic conflict between two communities the state shuts down the toilet because it says it wants to prevent violence. But if you look at the orders, they basically are extending every five days and they have extended till date today. And what they have done when partial restoration has been done in parts, has made the rest of India because Manipur is the smallest state just have 2 million people, about 2.5 million people. So a lot of people don't know what's happening there. So we don't care. The rest of India does not care what's happening in Manipur. So we go by the claims of the state government. We think there's violence happening. There's so much happening in our world. And our public attention, urgency, joining, demanding accountability from the state government wide can't restore law and order does. And here I think so it serves its own interest in terms of avoiding any kind of questioning which may emerge from political voices on the ground reporting on the ground. In Manipur, actually, when incrementally it was restored, there were there were videos of sexual violence, which went viral. And that was the very point on which common people in India not people who are working on research policy in journalism, first started caring and noticed what was actually been happening in Manipur since May 3. The video was actually short on May 4, but was released I think, sometime in August or a little before June, July, June July coming out