8. India Digital Spaces - Khansa - Article thematic Image

Democratic values are withering around the world. The curbs on freedom of speech, expression, and assembly, etc., are becoming tighter by the day. While these trends have been prevalent in autocratic environments, a more troubling phenomenon is the rise of autocratic ideologies in principally democratic states.

One such – and a rather glaring – example is that of India, which has long called itself the largest secular democracy in the world. However, lately things have been leaning towards the other end of the spectrum. The rise to power of BJP-led government in India, feeding on fascist Hindutva ideology opened floodgates of violence against other religious minorities, especially Muslims.  Meanwhile, any criticism against this violence and fascist tendencies is not tolerated as well and results in persecution of the critics. Global watchdogs monitoring political, human, and other rights and liberties have consistently been downgrading India’s ranking on different democracy indices, essentially labelling it as an ‘electoral autocracy’ instead of a democracy.

While authoritarianism in real life is on perpetual increase in India, lately it has also been seeping into online spaces in a phenomenon called ‘Digital Authoritarianism’, restricting internet freedom. Digital authoritarianism is defined as, ‘use of the Internet and related digital technologies by leaders with authoritarian tendencies to decrease trust in public institutions, increase social and political control, and/or undermine civil liberties.’ India accounts for 58% of all instances of internet shutdowns in the world, which were more than any other nation for the fourth year in a row. India’s government has also employed the infamous Pegasus spyware for surveillance and targeting of journalists, activists, or political opponents.

Moreover, the blocking of accounts on various social media sites – particularly Twitter – has become a new normal in the country. In 2020, it blocked more than 9,000 social media accounts or URLs. In a most ironic development, New Delhi ordered Twitter to take down tweets posted by Freedom House on the subject of declining internet freedom in the country. Similarly, tweets criticising India’s handling of COVID-19  were removed on government orders. Twitter also blocked numerous accounts linked to the farmer protests on ‘request’ from Indian authorities.

In the same manner, most recently, Twitter accounts of journalist CJ Werleman and a Pakistani-British reporter Murtaza Ali Shah were also withheld in India. Werleman routinely writes against the oppression of minorities in India, meanwhile, Shah’s account was targeted because he covered Kashmir and Khalistan related content. The method of implementing digital curbs is not just limited to online tools. Rather, the censor regime has the means to employ physical force in real life as well. Indian authorities arrested Mohammad Zubair, who co-founded Alt News, a fact-checking site focusing on content spreading misinformation on mainstream media.

Rana Ayyub, a prominent voice against oppression of minorities in India, routinely gets targeted by Indian authorities. She is also regularly subjected to online persecution by the subscribers of far-right, extremist Hindutva ideology. While Twitter readily blocks the accounts of these activists, as it recently withheld Ayyub’s account, it seldom addresses their concerns about online abuse and harassment.

The implementation of curbs is also not limited to individuals alone. Pakistan has also been victim of India’s digital fascism as official accounts of Pakistani missions in UN, Turkiye, Iran and Egypt were withheld in the country. This raises question marks on Twitter’s credibility as well which withheld the accounts representing a state actor, with zero violation of any online or Indian laws.

Similarly, one of the most prominent video sharing sites ‘YouTube’ also removed a song released by the slain Punjabi rapper Sidhu Moose Wala highlighting the ‘Sutlej-Yamuna Link canal dispute in Punjab as well as the 1984 Sikh genocide.’ Earlier, YouTube also blocked 16 news channels with 10 based in India and 6 from Pakistan.   

While blocking accounts like this is an attack on fundamental rights to information, it also ultimately worsens the plight of vulnerable communities whose persecution these voices (accounts) tried to bring to the world’s attention in the first place. In essence, India’s digital landscape helps keep a lid on information about persecution of certain groups at the hands of Indian institutions. Same is the case with standing idle while online places turn into platforms for disseminating hatred against certain accounts or groups. There has been jarring outbreak of violence against ethnic, and religious minorities in some countries including India, ignited because of hateful propaganda spread online. 

It must also be noted that relenting behaviour of online platforms remains questionable. These firms have invested billions of dollars in India, which is a huge market with more than 640 million internet users, fast approaching a billion-user mark. Therefore, it is only natural that they wouldn’t want to lose the goodwill of authorities in such a space.

As far as the world turning a blind eye to India’s online principles is concerned, the self-purported leaders of the free and liberal world such as the United States (US), United Kingdom, Canada and Australia are also guilty of employing the digital authoritarian tool kit . Moreover, India has avoided punitive measures for harming US’ interests just by virtue of its geostrategic significance for the US’ Asia-Pacific strategies. In such scenario, it would be unwise to expect reprimand for India over its digital policies.

Policies manifesting ‘digital authoritarianism’ reflect real-life fascist policies to have wider control over narratives, to not get criticised and get away with the most blatant violations of human rights. Hence, they won’t disappear as long as real-life policies are not re-aimed at upholding basic human liberties. However, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon in India as long as the BJP-led government remains in power.

Khansa Qureshi is a Researcher at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »