India’s Planned Mass Surveillance: Democracy or Digital Oppression?

The Facts of the Proposal

Recent reports from Reuters, sourced via multiple technology and civil rights observers including Amnesty International, have brought to light a deeply unsettling development in India. The Indian government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is reviewing a proposal that would mandate constant satellite-based location tracking on all smartphones sold and used in the country. This initiative is framed as a means to assist domestic telecom operators in providing more precise, real-time location data of individuals whom the government deems worthy of investigation.

According to the available information, the proposal is being floated as a technical solution to bolster law enforcement and national security apparatuses. It suggests that smartphone manufacturers such as Apple, Google, and Samsung should be compelled to enable persistent location tracking at the hardware or operating system level. Notably, these tech giants have so far opposed the measure, citing significant concerns around user privacy, potential security loopholes, and the broader implications for digital rights globally. The Indian IT and Home ministries are currently evaluating the feasibility and legality of the proposal but have not publicly commented on the growing backlash.

This is not the first time that India’s policies have raised red flags around surveillance and state overreach. Earlier, the government’s directive to pre-install a state-operated application on all smartphones sold in India was met with fierce resistance from civil society, opposition leaders, and tech advocates. Critics labeled that move, along with the current tracking idea, as steps toward cementing a full-blown “Surveillance State.” Human rights defenders and activists have gone so far as to liken the proposed system to fitting every user with a “digital ankle monitor,” stripping away any semblance of private movement or association.

Context of Surveillance in India and Beyond

India is no stranger to using technology to regulate, monitor, and sometimes suppress its populace. The country has rolled out one of the world’s largest biometric identity systems, Aadhaar, which critics argue has enabled state profiling on an unprecedented scale. More recently, internet shutdowns, website blocking, and social media monitoring have become routine in many states, often justified under the banner of public order or national security.

Globally, mass surveillance is not a new phenomenon. Western nations—particularly the United States and members of the Five Eyes alliance—have long engaged in extensive digital espionage, both domestically and internationally. Programs like PRISM, revealed by Edward Snowden, demonstrated how intelligence agencies could access and monitor communications on a massive scale, often with the tacit or explicit cooperation of tech corporations. What sets India’s current proposal apart, however, is its overt, systematic, and potentially mandatory nature, embedded not in intelligence agency protocols but in consumer devices used by hundreds of millions.

In this sense, India is borrowing directly from the surveillance playbook of authoritarian states while still claiming the mantle of the world’s largest democracy. More worrying is the speed and scale at which such measures are being normalized, often without transparent legislative debate or meaningful public consultation.

Opinion: A Betrayal of the People’s Trust

Let’s be unequivocal: the proposal for continuous location tracking is not a tool for security; it is an instrument of control. It reflects a governmental mindset that views citizens not as rights-bearing individuals but as subjects to be monitored, managed, and, when necessary, muted.

This move must be understood in the broader context of India’s democratic backsliding. Under the current administration, institutions that should serve as checks on executive power—the judiciary, the press, civil society—have been systematically weakened. Laws around sedition, unlawful activities, and now surveillance are being weaponized to target activists, journalists, academics, and opposition figures. The proposed location tracking mechanism would only amplify this repression, enabling the state to map networks of dissent, track the movement of critics, and preempt organized protest.

It is particularly enraging that this is being done in the name of “development” or “national interest.” Time and again, the Global South has been lectured by Western powers about human rights, privacy, and liberty—yet those same powers have built and exported the very architectures of surveillance now being adopted in India. The hypocrisy is staggering. But that does not excuse India’s government from its duty to uphold constitutional rights and international human rights standards.

What’s equally telling is the resistance from major tech firms. Apple, Google, and Samsung are not saints; they have their own troubling records on data exploitation and cooperation with governments. But their opposition here signals just how extreme the Indian proposal is. When multinational corporations—driven by profit and market access—are raising ethical concerns, we must pause and recognize the severity of the situation.

Amnesty International rightly notes that location data can reveal intensely sensitive information: who you meet, where you worship, which protests you attend, which doctors you visit. For human rights defenders, journalists, and marginalized communities, this kind of surveillance isn’t just invasive—it’s lethal. It enables harassment, arbitrary detention, and even physical violence.

India is at a crossroads. It can choose to embrace its constitutional values and its people’s aspirations for dignity and freedom, or it can descend further into digital authoritarianism. The international community—especially nations and organizations that claim to care about democracy—must not stay silent. But ultimately, the power to resist lies with the Indian people. They must make it unequivocally clear that their phones are not instruments of their own oppression.

To the policymakers pushing this proposal: you are not strengthening India. You are imprisoning it—one pixel at a time.