Content
- What has been missed is India’s digital sovereignty
- A Democracy grown at home
What has been missed is India’s digital sovereignty
Background: What is the India-U.K. FTA?
- Official Title: India-U.K. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
- Objective: Deepen bilateral trade, investment, and services ties.
- Celebrated As: “Gold standard” trade deal by Union Minister Piyush Goyal.
- Negotiation Context: Ongoing since 2022; comes amid India’s broader push to ink FTAs with major economies (UAE, Australia, EU, etc.)
- Key Sectors Covered: Agriculture, manufacturing, services, pharmaceuticals, and digital trade.
Relevance : GS 2 (International Relations) , GS 3(Indian Economy )
Practice Question :“India’s economic diplomacy must not come at the cost of its digital sovereignty.” In the context of the India-U.K. FTA, critically examine this statement. Also suggest a roadmap to safeguard India’s strategic autonomy in digital trade negotiations.(250 Words)
What Is Digital Sovereignty?
- Definition: The ability of a nation-state to govern and regulate its own digital infrastructure, data flows, and digital economy without external dependence or coercion.
- Pillars:
- Data sovereignty (control over citizens’ data)
- Algorithmic and source-code transparency
- Cybersecurity and regulatory autonomy
- Local innovation and digital industrialisation
What Has Been Missed: Concessions Affecting Digital Sovereignty
Source Code Disclosure Prohibition
| Aspect | Implication |
| What India gave up | The right to demand ex ante (pre-emptive) access to source code for foreign software/digital products |
| Precedent | India had resisted such prohibitions at WTO; U.S. itself rolled them back in 2023 due to domestic concerns |
| CPTPP exception | CPTPP excluded critical infrastructure and non-mass-market software |
| UK-India FTA clause | Prohibition applies to all software, with no exceptions for telecom, health, or AI-critical infrastructure |
| Long-term risk | Dismantles regulators’ ability to “look under the hood” for compliance, safety, national security |
Implication: India risks importing black-box software, including in sectors like AI, health, telecom, and national security, with no regulatory oversight.
Open Government Data Access for UK Entities
| Aspect | Implication |
| Concession granted | Equal, non-discriminatory access for U.K. firms to “Open Government Data” |
| Problem | The term originated in pre-AI era to promote transparency; today, government data = raw fuel for AI models |
| Nature of clause | Currently a best endeavour, non-binding commitment — but a precedent is set |
| Global shift | U.S. and EU are moving towards data protectionism for national AI competitiveness |
| Strategic misstep | Weakens India’s ability to harness public sector data for indigenous AI innovation |
Implication: Undermines India’s AI competitiveness, opens doors to data colonisation.
Commitment to Future Data Flow Liberalisation
| Aspect | Implication |
| Clause | India commits to “enter consultations to extend equivalent disciplines” if it offers concessions on free flow of data or data localisation to others |
| Strategic danger | Effectively ties India’s hands in future FTAs, reducing its diplomatic manoeuvrability |
| Contradiction | Contradicts India’s stand at G20, WTO on strategic localisation of data for national development |
| Reversal of past position | India had strongly pushed for data localisation in the Personal Data Protection Bill and in global forums |
Implication: A slippery slope toward ceding ground on cross-border data regulation, compromising strategic autonomy.
Why This Matters: Digital Trade ≠ Commodity Trade
- Unlike tariffs (which can be reversed), digital trade rules are structural, long-term, and affect:
- National security
- Law enforcement access
- Digital taxation
- Domestic innovation ecosystems
- Once conceded, digital rule regimes are nearly irreversible — locking India into a Western-led architecture dominated by Big Tech.
Comparative Global Context
| Country | Position on Digital Sovereignty |
| U.S. | Withdrew source code & data localisation liberalisation clauses in 2023 due to backlash |
| EU | Enforces Digital Markets Act, Data Governance Act, strong digital sovereignty framework |
| China | Fully controls cross-border data flows, mandates source code access for key sectors |
| India (Pre-FTA) | Advocated for data localisation, regulatory access, and algorithmic transparency |
What’s Missing in Indian Approach
- No cohesive national digital sovereignty policy
- No cross-sectoral digital industrialisation roadmap
- Lack of high-level political awareness or institutional safeguards in trade negotiations
- Absence of digital sector representation at negotiation tables
- Overemphasis on traditional ‘sensitive sectors’ (agriculture, textiles)
Historical Parallel: Digital Colonialism
- Like colonial-era concessions that robbed India of its industrial future, digital trade concessions risk:
- Losing control over national data wealth
- Turning into a digital colony that merely consumes Western digital services
- Ceding the AI frontier to global players
Strategic Implications
| Area | Impact |
| AI ecosystem | Loss of access to Indian training data → undermines competitiveness of Indian startups and AI labs |
| Cybersecurity | Lack of source code access = regulatory blind spots in critical systems |
| Digital governance | Weakens India’s ability to enforce sectoral compliance (e.g. fintech, healthtech) |
| Innovation | No level playing field for Indian firms; foreign firms gain edge using Indian data |
| Geopolitics | Erodes India’s leverage in future digital rule-making at WTO, G20, BRICS |
The Way Forward: India Must Act Now
Immediate Steps
- Draft a National Digital Sovereignty & Industrialisation Strategy
- Ensure all future FTAs include Digital Impact Assessments and non-negotiable clauses for strategic sectors
- Involve multi-stakeholder experts (tech, law, industry, security) in trade teams
- Mandate security and algorithm audits for all critical imports
Medium to Long Term
- Build digital public infrastructure (like ONDC, Aadhaar stack) with local control
- Invest in home-grown AI, cloud, and chip ecosystems
- Establish national data stewardship frameworks
- Launch Digital Bretton Woods 2.0 vision for alternative global digital architecture
Conclusion
The India-U.K. FTA may be a win on paper for traditional sectors, but the real cost may be hidden in digital trade clauses. By surrendering regulatory rights on source code, opening public data to foreign entities, and committing to softening positions on data localisation, India risks undermining its digital sovereignty at a formative moment. If uncorrected, this could jeopardise India’s ambition to be a digital and AI superpower, locking it into a system of digital dependence and diminished agency.
A Democracy grown at home
Historical Background
Uthiramerur Inscription (c. 920 CE)
- Located in Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, Uthiramerur inscriptions from the reign of Parantaka Chola I (907–955 CE) provide detailed constitutional guidelines for local self-governance.
- Epigraphic Source: Inscription No. 52 of 1891, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Sanskrit-Tamil mix.
- Codified rules for:
- Ward divisions
- Eligibility of candidates
- Election procedures (kudavolai or ‘ballot pot’ system)
- Removal mechanisms and disqualification criteria
- Accountability of committee members
Kudavolai System – An Early Ballot Method
- Voters inscribed names on palm leaf slips and placed them inside ballot pots (kudavolai).
- Slips were drawn in public to ensure transparency and non-manipulation.
Relevance: GS 1(Culture , Heritage) ,GS 2(Governance)
Practice Question : “Democracy in India was not a colonial gift, but a civilisational inheritance.” Examine this assertion in light of the Uthiramerur inscriptions and discuss their relevance to modern democratic governance in India.(250 Words)
Key Features Of Chola Era Democracy
| Feature | Details |
| Eligibility | Age 35–70, landownership, residence in same village, good character, Vedic learning, passed moral ‘tests’ |
| Disqualification | Alcoholism, criminal record, debt default, moral transgressions, including family of the guilty |
| Committee System | Sabha (assembly) with smaller groups like garden committee, tank management, festival arrangements |
| Removal Protocol | Members removed for dereliction of duty or misconduct; enforced via strict code of conduct |
| Documentation | Rules carved in stone — legal permanence; akin to a written constitution |
Pre-Chola Democratic Evidence
- Vaishali (6th century BCE): Licchavi republics had elected representatives, deliberative councils.
- Buddhist Sanghas: Practiced consensus decision-making (Vinaya Pitaka details procedures).
- Kautilya’s Arthashastra (3rd century BCE): Notes Samghas and Gana-sanghas with autonomous rule.
Conclusion: Participatory governance was not alien — it was woven into ancient India’s socio-political fabric.
Global Comparison
| Parameter | Magna Carta (1215, England) | Uthiramerur (c. 920 CE, India) |
| Purpose | Limiting King’s arbitrary powers | Decentralised self-governance |
| Nature | Charter of rights | Constitutional rulebook |
| Format | Negotiated by nobles | Popularly mandated system |
| Inclusiveness | Restricted to barons | Based on ethical, civic, and economic criteria |
Inference: Uthiramerur’s system was more participatory and codified for local contexts long before European constitutionalism.
Relevance to modern India
Why PM Modi’s Speech Matters
- Symbolic Reclamation: Counters narrative that democracy is a colonial transplant.
- Cultural Legitimacy: Affirms the indigenous origins of democratic values like equity, accountability, and ethics.
- Federal Ethos: Highlights South India’s historic contributions to democratic governance — beyond Delhi-centric narratives.
Lessons for Today
- Ethics in Public Life: Moral disqualification was integral — echoes today’s concerns over criminalization of politics.
- Transparency in Elections: Public draw of lots resembles today’s push for voter-verifiable paper audit trails (VVPAT).
- Grassroots Governance: Strong parallel with the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments enabling Panchayati Raj and urban local bodies.
Challenges in contemporary democracy
| Challenge | Chola Model Reflection |
| Money Power | Wealth alone wasn’t enough; moral stature was key |
| Criminalization | Disqualification for even indirect criminal associations |
| Centralization | Chola governance was radically local |
| Digital Manipulation | Ancient systems used public oversight and oral verification |
Electoral institutions: Bridging the ancient & modern
| Aspect | Chola-era Sabha | Election Commission of India |
| Autonomy | Sabha selected by people; functioned independently | Constitutional body with operational independence |
| Eligibility Code | Inscribed rules and punishments | Model Code of Conduct, criminal disqualification clauses |
| Documentation | Stone inscriptions | Electoral rolls, EVM-VVPAT audit trails |
Way forward: Drawing from our roots
- Ethical Vetting of Candidates — revisit disqualification norms based on morality.
- Deeper Panchayati Empowerment — revive functionally active sabhas.
- Public Participation Models — experiment with lot-based systems for local committees.
- Civic Education — include Uthiramerur model in textbooks for democratic literacy.
- South India’s Role in Democratic Heritage — counter the northern bias in historical democratic discourse.
Conclusion
PM Modi’s reference at Gangaikondacholapuram is a strategic invocation of a forgotten legacy — one that reclaims India’s indigenous, millennia-old democratic tradition as not just a cultural curiosity, but a living foundation for today’s constitutionalism.
It reminds us that democracy is not an imported ornament, but a homegrown institution, rooted in our history — codified in granite and palm leaves, just as it is today in legislation and electronic voting machines.