India’s data sovereignty narrative challenged by grassroots activism

India’s ongoing digital transformation is producing sharp tensions between nationalistic control and citizen-led resistance, according to a new academic study that sheds light on the country’s evolving politics of data. Authored by Sagnik Dutta of Tilburg University and Suruchi Mazumdar of O.P. Jindal Global University, the research outlines how grassroots movements and digital rights activists are mounting a strong challenge to state-led and corporate models of data governance.

The study, titled “Our Data, Ourselves: Participation, Justice, and Alternative Futures of Data Sovereignty in India” and published in Big Data & Society, investigates how civil society actors in India are redefining the meaning and implications of data sovereignty. Drawing on roundtable discussions, podcast ethnography, and field engagements with Indian rights groups, the authors argue that current state frameworks of data sovereignty act as a cover for digital authoritarianism, while activists are working to reclaim data as a tool for democratic empowerment.

Who controls Indian data and why it matters

The Indian state’s embrace of data sovereignty, framed as national ownership of data and localized storage, has become central to its digital strategy, particularly under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Moves such as the 2018 Reserve Bank of India directive on local financial data storage, the 2020 ban on Chinese apps including TikTok, and increasing takedown orders to global platforms like Twitter/X are positioned as efforts to protect national interests. However, the study finds these efforts are frequently more about controlling domestic dissent than resisting global tech hegemony.

According to the authors, the Indian government’s promotion of national data sovereignty functions less as a counter to foreign Big Tech and more as a means of tightening its grip on internal populations. In this narrative, data becomes a national resource, to be regulated and mined by the state in alliance with powerful corporations such as Reliance Jio and international partners like Meta and Google.

The study contrasts these state-led strategies with the voices of civil society activists who contest this narrative. These actors argue that such frameworks erase the role of individuals and communities in controlling their own data. Activists interviewed for the study point to the illusion of user control embedded in the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, warning that citizens are treated more like data “subjects” than empowered “principals.” These concerns grow more urgent as the state increasingly collaborates with domestic startups and tech platforms to introduce biometric tracking, facial recognition, and AI-powered surveillance systems.

What does bottom-up data sovereignty look like?

The research highlights how Indian digital rights activists are constructing a bottom-up vision of data sovereignty rooted in transparency, consent, and collective agency. Rejecting the notion that sovereignty lies solely with the state, these actors frame data sovereignty as the right of individuals and communities to understand, manage, and challenge how their data is used.

Through interviews and ethnographic immersion, the study documents several grassroots efforts that exemplify this model. These include initiatives by collectives like the Internet Freedom Foundation and LibTech, which use open government data to enhance transparency in welfare programs such as MGNREGA. Other examples include citizen-led COVID tracker networks, the Stranded Workers Action Network (SWAN), and resistance from sanitation worker groups against GPS-enabled tracking devices and AI facial recognition technologies.

The study argues that these efforts move beyond simplistic notions of indigenous community ownership often seen in Latin American or Aotearoa New Zealand contexts. India’s complex caste, religious, and class hierarchies make such models inadequate. Instead, the alternative data imaginaries emerging from Indian civil society prioritize relational autonomy and resistance to both global Big Tech and domestic state surveillance.

The authors identify four core themes driving this grassroots model: data knowledge (understanding how data is collected and used), agency (control over data-related decisions), participation (involvement in governance), and accountability (holding both state and corporate actors responsible). These principles stand in stark contrast to India’s top-down approach, which activists say erases dissent and appropriates citizen data in the name of national development.

How is India’s data sovereignty debate unfolding in practice?

The article also reveals how data sovereignty has become a site of intense political contestation, especially during moments of crisis or dissent. The state’s crackdown on online platforms during the anti-farm law protests of 2020–2021 and the widespread internet shutdowns during political unrest are cited as evidence of the anxiety that drives India’s data governance policies.

In practice, activists say the state’s assertions of sovereignty are not based on strength but fear, fear of losing control over digital spaces that increasingly enable collective dissent. This is particularly dangerous for marginalized communities who already face state violence and exclusion. The use of facial recognition technology during communal violence in Delhi and the integration of Aadhaar into everyday surveillance systems amplify these threats, as biometric data collected for one purpose is repurposed without consent.

The research points out that alternative models of data sovereignty do not view data control as a matter of national security, but as a civil right. For example, activists involved in the Safai Karmachari Andolan protested AI-driven workplace tracking systems imposed on sanitation workers in Chandigarh and Madurai, likening them to modern-day digital bondage. Such opposition not only challenges exploitative surveillance practices but also reasserts dignity, agency, and democratic oversight over digital technologies.

The authors argue that these efforts represent a critical departure from both state and market paradigms. They call for recognition of new communities of resistance, composed of digital rights advocates, marginal caste and gender groups, and citizen journalists who are reshaping India’s digital future from the ground up.

A critical postcolonial response to data colonialism

The study’s broader theoretical contribution lies in showing how the concepts of data colonialism and sovereignty, originally developed in Euro-American contexts, take on different meanings in postcolonial states like India. Unlike the Chinese model of centralized authoritarian control or the Latin American emphasis on indigenous data governance, India’s case reveals a hybrid struggle involving domestic elites, foreign corporations, and vibrant resistance from below.

The authors caution against treating the “Global South” as a monolithic counterweight to Western data regimes. Instead, they advocate for a grounded, context-sensitive understanding of how postcolonial states reproduce colonial power dynamics while simultaneously facing bottom-up challenges. India, they suggest, offers a unique lens through which to understand these evolving dynamics.