We were still in the counter-comments stage of the campaign when, around April 29th, I got an email from Dilip Cherian, a PR consultant and a co-founder at Perfect Relations. Dilip is very well networked in Delhi, and I have spotted him often at conferences. We had been introduced, but I don’t know if he really knew of me then (or remembers me now).
The email was an invite for “Thinking Thali” lunch, a ‘space’ for “off-the-record & free-spirited conversations”, with a group of people that is “deliberately small (rarely more than 10)”.
This “edition of Thinking Thali, will be held on 6th May, Wednesday at 1pm sharp at the ‘Private Dining Hall’, India International Centre-MAIN (It’s inside the Main Dining Hall, First Floor).
No speeches or prepared texts are expected, so relax! Only fluid lunch time conversation with a theme is our idea! We end sharp at 2:15 pm so we can all get back to our real weekday lives.”
I read the mail again (in 2025), and Dilip had cited the Chatham House Rule without calling it that, saying “We may refer to and use any content but we never report is as the views of any one individual by name.” So was it off the record or under Chatham House? How much can I truly tell you about this?
Given that Dilip was a well known lobbyist, I wasn’t sure of his agenda here, and given the situation we were in, I needed to get a sense of the environment and the people. I wrote to Apar and Raman and asked them if either of them had been to one earlier. Apar responded saying that he had been for one previously, so he’ll pass it on. “anything that I should be conscious of?” I asked him. “Just been there once,” Apar responded, saying “it’s nice”.
I wrote to Dilip confirming my participation, and as I often still do, waived Chatham House rule for myself saying “I’m happy to waive those, since my views have been public and consistent throughout, and point out what is off record when I say something I want off record.” I still do this: in meetings with people I don’t know, or with a large number of people, I treat everything I say as on-record because someone is always taking notes.
I walked into the sparse but brightly lit room – the private dining hall – to find a round table set up. I don’t remember clearly whether name cards were placed on the table, but I found myself sitting facing Dilip, with Ankhi Das (Facebook) to his left, and a few telecom operator representatives, including from Indus Towers. By the time the room filled out, I realised that there were mostly telecom related people in the room, and though I think I had some civil society folks next to me, they weren’t very vocal. Sudhanshu Mittal, a BJP politician, was among the last to walk in.
I’m going to honour Chatham House Rule here and not disclose what people said, but I remember walking out of that room feeling like I had been set up, and at some points, felt like mine was a lone opinion (it wasn’t). I was also wondering if any of the folks invited there – particularly Facebook, Indus Towers and Idea Cellular – were clients of Dilip’s, and I had walked into some kind a trap. I was livid with myself. Sudhanshu Mittal had, quite unexpectedly, left me with some hope, though.
Dilip’s recollection of this discussion (I read this for the first time today) on the Thinking Thali blog, and highlights the complexity that was created around public policy debates:
I’m reproducing Dilip’s post in its entirety for reference for critique here. It’s absolutely brilliant and highlights the strategic approach were dealing with, and by no means am I saying that his position was pre-planned. He wrote:
“It emerged that barring one all the participants agreed that it is imperative to protect the neutral and equal nature of the internet. It is a platform that has supported many entrepreneurial ventures to grow and by limiting its potential the fear is that we may kill the spirit of the net.
But is neutrality of net a homogenous concept or can it be defined in different ways in the context of geographies, demography, affordability and availability and ways of allocating spectrum. When telcos have to pay a huge premium for spectrum (yes we can argue that no one asked them to pay but the Government IS auctioning spectrum at those rates and you have to pay them if you want spectrum for expanding services), is it justified for them to let OTT and other services use the same resource for free?
Is there a flaw in our system of allocation of spectrum? If the Government has a vision of Digital India (which will become a reality only with PPP) should spectrum be treated as a scarce resource to be auctioned for profits or should the welfare of society play a role in deciding spectrum prices?
While debate on net neutrality started a long time back in US and EU, it is still in its nascent stage in India. Any regulation requires consultation with a larger section of the society that will be impacted by it. So views of a few elite for whom affordability and access is not an issue can’t be taken as a view of public in general. Many members feel that in a country like India where a large section of the society still does not get even basic internet service, the main concern of any government should be access and affordability.
If the TSPs can have a commercial arrangement and business model with its partners which can provide basic internet service to large section of society for free or at a low cost model, it should not be confused for violation of net neutrality. Can net neutrality in context of India be different than what it is in context of USA or EU? While a few feel that net neutrality is an absolute concept and any changes however minor will lead to discrimination and turn internet into TV where the service provider decides on how when and what content you can see.
Others may argue that TSPs put in all the money in putting up the infrastructure which is then used by OTT players to reap huge financial benefits without paying for either spectrum or infrastructure. TSP raise the issue of security and claim that they have to adhere to a lot of regulations while OTT does not require to do the same.
In this context what role does access play in the debate on net neutrality? The panel debated whether platforms like internet.org, which aim to provide access to the large unconnected population of India, should be viewed with in the myopic and iron clad definition on net neutrality.
But the essential question is do we need regulation? Some felt that yes regulations are needed but the majority concurred that regulations just won’t keep pace with technology! Perhaps a topic to discuss in a new edition of thinking thali!”
If you break this down into its structure, here’s what it looks like:
- Highlights that their intent is the benefit of society
- Equivocation of the intent behind opposing points
- Point out a problem that they intend to debunk
- Position an opposing point of view as extreme, foreign and/or absolutist
- Color something as elitist or myopic in order to get people to disregard that point of view
- Push for a middle ground suggesting that that would benefit everyone
There is some beauty in the strategic way this argument is constructed.
I had also gone into this meeting unprepared, and with long days spent running the campaign, I can cut myself some slack and say that I was probably burnt out. I was clearly not equipped well enough to respond to some of the sophistication of those arguments then, but in hindsight, this was excellent preparation for the internet.org debates that were about to hit us later in the year.
I remember thinking later that day, after I discussed it with Apar (who was shocked by how it went): I’m okay to lose in this room, dust myself off, and fight again elsewhere. We’ll play this on our turf, by our rules. On the Internet.
Our Turf, Our Rules became a theme for me. I didn’t need to be in rooms where I had no control.