Australia, insurance, car, home, live, holidays

Even as his government promotes a more digitally connected India,itshuts down the internet more than any other country in the world,increasingly to silence peaceful protests and criticism of the government. This has not only denied millions of people their fundamental rights,but has also affected businesses and cost the Indian economybillions of dollars in losses.

As part of its playbook to quell dissent and gain greater control over online content,Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Hindu nationalist government enacted new internet rules targeting social media companies,digital news services and curated video streaming sites that will most likely have global consequences. Theserules include overbroad restrictions on content,encourage self-censorship and require traceability of information thatcompromise end-to-end encryption on platforms such as WhatsApp or Signal.

Protestors in New Delhi accuse Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government of using military-grade spyware to monitor political opponents,journalists and activists.Credit:AP

The rules also require social media companies with more than 5 million registered users in India – which pretty much means all the major internet companies – to appoint staff in-country. With more of their personnel living in India,where they could face criminal liability and prosecution,companies will also find it difficult to resist arbitrary and disproportionate government orders to take down content or hand over data on users.

In February,even before the rules came into force,the governmentthreatened to punish Twitter’s India-based employees with fines and jail terms after Twitter shut down some,but not all,accounts ordered by the Indian authorities,that were critical of the government’s handling of the farmers’ protests.

Indian authorities are increasingly arresting human rights defenders,journalists,students,and members of religious minorities inpolitically motivated cases including under counterterrorism,sedition and national security laws. At the same time,its information technology law and internet rules put pressure on social media companies to censor content and share user information to aid these prosecutions.

Police in India’s northeast state of Tripura have filed terrorism cases against 102 social media handles for posting content related to communal violence incidents in mid-October in whichHindu mobs attacked mosques and properties owned by Muslims,and sought information on these account owners. Some of these accounts appear to have beentargeted because they were critical of state authorities’ response to the violence.

Indian authorities have also been implicated in using theIsraeli-produced spyware Pegasus to target activists,journalists and apparent opponents. The government has repeatedlystalled attempts to investigate these allegations. Its refusal to disclose information to the Supreme Court,arguingnational security implications,finally led the court toappoint an independent committeeto investigate.

The executive branch hasextremely broad powers of surveillance devoid of any meaningful safeguards,with no judicial authorisation or independent oversight. The Modi government has proposed a law on personal data protection that will furtherenhance state surveillance powersby granting exemptions to government agencies on vague grounds.

Australia too has passedproblematic laws that grant expansive digital surveillance powers to law enforcement agencies,without adequate safeguards to protect privacy.

But strengthening bilateral ties through technology should come with a frank discussion on shortcomings and a deepening commitment not to compromise on fundamental rights,including freedom of speech and assembly,and privacy,encryption,and data protections.

As part of this,Australia should ask the Indian government to drop criminal charges against activists and critics in politically motivated cases,roll back internet rules and enact a data protection law that restricts the government’s discretionary powers.

Instead of using technology as a tool for repression,the Indian government should act in a manner befitting a rule-of-law-based democracy and use technology to shore up rights,make governance more accountable and lead to a more just and equitable society.

Elaine Pearson is Australia director at Human Rights Watch. Twitter @pearsonelaine

Get a note directly from our foreigncorrespondentson what’s making headlines around the world.Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.

License this article