Sorry, no signal

For many Islamabad dwellers, the protesting congregation that had descended on the capital wasn just a psychological snag. It also brought them daily inconvenience. During the four days of agitation in the heart of the capital, residents in many parts of Islamabad went for long hours without cellular connectivity. On the best of days, connectivity was intermittent; on the worst, non-existent.
To be fair to law enforcement agencies, such enforced connectivity outages have been less frequent in recent years than they had been during some very violent years that the country experienced between 2009 and 2013. The recourse to network shutdowns as a last resort may be warranted when things unexpectedly turn south on religious and political gatherings and there is more threat of violence.
In a country that is wracked with religious militancy and ethnic tensions, law enforcement should have all the necessary tools at their disposal to control and stabilize difficult situations. But in that process, as in the case of cellular curfews, a lot of people get frustrated as they find it difficult, sometimes impossible, to communicate, commute, study, or transact, depending on what they mostly depend on connectivity for.
Those who reluctantly support the blackouts argue that the resulting inconveniences are occasional in nature. They feel that tolerating such hassle-prone days incurs small costs, compared to the benefit of avoiding potential escalation of a volatile situation that could hurt lives, livelihoods, and property.
But those on the opposing side argue that it is self-defeating to mitigate one wrong by committing another wrong. They feel that curbing connectivity in the age of connectivity is akin to denying basic human rights.
There is also this impression that the extreme measure of killing connectivity is often undertaken to mask the competence gap within law enforcement machinery. Folks feel that dropping signals dead is a knee-jerk response, rather than a considered action.
This situation resembles the classic debate that oscillates between concerns for freedom and security. There are merits on both sides of the argument. So, a middle ground must be found if shutdowns are indeed inevitable. As argued in this column on earlier occasions, effort must be made by the government to neutralize the negative impacts on citizens lives.
Some common-sense measures are in order. In the future, it would be prudent to confine the radius of the curfew to just the affected areas - operators and government must work on this technical issue.
Besides, residents in the area must be informed prior to a shutdown. And most importantly, something must be done about access to emergency services - after all, digital lockdowns are primarily meant to save lives.