April 27, 2022
As the United States and India construct a comprehensive relationship covering a wide range issues going beyond traditional security or economics, two emerging sectors stand out in increasing importance: cybersecurity and digital media. Both are uniquely complicated by a combination of technical, political and economic undertones.
To unravel the debates over cybersecurity and digital media, the Rising Powers Initiative at the Sigur Center for Asian Studies, George Washington University in Washington D.C. and CHRIST (Deemed to be University) in Bangalore, recently convened a group of experts from the U.S. and India as part of their ongoing joint project since 2021 to engage Indian millennials and Gen-Z on critical issues in U.S.-India relations. (Click here to view the agenda and recording of this event. To view earlier events, see project on ‘Shared Values and Worldviews in US-India Relations: Prospects for Cooperation‘.)
How aligned are the two democratic partners on cybersecurity and digital media and where do prospects for cooperation lie? What do the experts have to say about the convergences and divergences and what are the perceptions of rising young Indian international relations scholars and professionals?
CYBERSECURITY
More Agreement than Disagreement
The American perspective was offered by Christopher Painter, President of Global Forum on Cyber Expertise Foundation, while the Indian views were given by Ambassador Latha Reddy, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace and former Indian Deputy National Security Advisor. These experts suggest that thinking on cybersecurity issues tend to fall along a spectrum of convergences and divergences rather than stark binaries. Ransomware and critical information infrastructure were most clearly categorized by Painter and Reddy as areas of convergence for India and the U.S. Both these issues are new and the space for policy making is growing. India and the U.S. are victims of ransomware attacks and a future of cooperation against this new threat was echoed in the high level White House summit on ransomware where India participated and endorsed a joint statement. The Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) was also recognized as another forum of mutual cooperation and benefit despite some friction.
The panelists differ somewhat on divergences. Reddy argues that the linchpin of divergences is data localization. India recognizes that storing, processing and transfer of data affects consumer privacy, economic growth and national security, making this divergence weigh heavily on the relationship. The existing cooperation mechanisms like Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) does not work well and law enforcement has not been getting ready access to data. Painter views the issue as an important one, but not in the long term. He admits that the Budapest cybercrime convention did not have India at the table and U.S. data privacy laws have been a huge obstacle to data localization. However, the divergence according to him is likely to be short lived in light of the U.N. cybercrime negotiations, and the Cloud Act, both of which are currently underway. Instead, he argues that supply chain and 5G issues plague the relationship most. Despite matching concerns on 5G and Chinese companies, India had been reticent to endorse a U.S.-led ban on Huawei given the importance of 5G as an economic driver critical for catching up with developed countries. However, India pointedly left out Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE from its 5G six-month trials. Painter also pointed to the lack of consensus on recognition of China and Russia as cyber threat actors, resulting in the lack of attribution and collective action against cybercrimes committed.
Key Discussion Points
Questions and commentary from the younger demographic audience revolved around the extent to which India and the U.S. converged on international norms on cyber sovereignty, concerns about ransomware and cryptocurrency, combatting information warfare, impact of geopolitics on global supply chains and possible role of the QUAD.
Global Norms vs. Absolute Sovereignty
In the interactive discussions with Reddy and Painter moderated by Deepa Ollapally, Director of the Rising Powers Initiative, there emerged considerable agreement that India and the U.S. are very much aligned on international norms and norm-based approaches to cyber sovereignty, with the Sino-Russian model of cyber sovereignty posited by some as the alternative. One caveat here is that India would like to treat China and Russia as separate entities given that Russia has been a trusted defense partner whereas China is an adversary. An obvious disadvantage of the model of absolute sovereignty with its control of information, and the use of information as a threat is that there no space for human rights or other economic concerns which are important considerations for liberal democracies such as India and the U.S. Moreover, India’s well-informed younger populace and thriving civil society are also unlikely to stomach such a model. The U.N. Charter, international law, and norms-based approach offer more options while offering the same protections such as not attacking critical infrastructure and resources in another country during peacetime.
Supply Chains, Geopolitics and Future Strategies
There was a clear consensus that India and the U.S. must not depend solely on China for supply chain demands. The diversification of supply chains is essential since it is directly linked to the geopolitics of the region. To decrease the dependence on China, India and the U.S. should collaborate particularly on R&D to create new supply chains. The example of Scandinavia on these issues was offered as instructive for finding solutions. India could also use the QUAD to ease its supply chain and cyber cooperation issues.
The ability to deter cyber threats using new-age technology and economic tools is another key convergence. Technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and quantum computing could help countries prevent cyber-attacks. The U.S. and India being regular victims of ransomware attacks, could use sanctions to deter cross-border cyberattacks, particularly from states like North Korea. Both countries also need to bring in robust regulatory frameworks such as Know Your Customer protocols and anti-money laundering measures to control cryptocurrencies, which are key enablers of ransomware attacks. No country is going to ban cryptocurrency or wholeheartedly endorse it. Joint attribution strategies between India and the U.S. could be a possible point of convergence in the future. The Quad is presented as a particularly suitable forum for taking this forward, especially as India already has cyber cooperation with all of the Quad members.
DIGITAL MEDIA
Searching for Common Ground in a Difficult Terrain
Jay Gullish, lead for U.S.-India Business Council’s Digital Economy and Media & Entertainment Committees, emphasized that the room for greater U.S.- India cooperation is vast and critical to capitalize on because otherwise both economies stand to lose so much. He notes that we are at a critical moment where there are dramatic changes in technology regulations. If these regulations do not represent both Indian and American interests, there could be disruptive consequences to both economies. Any decoupling of the U.S. and Indian tech industries could have serious adverse outcomes because of the extent of interaction and integration.
Cooperation has been difficult so far because India and the U.S. have some structural differences, so there is some misalignment in discussing these issues. India has at least three digital ministries that have no counterpart in the United States. The U.S. does not have an IT Ministry, a Telecom ministry or a Broadcasting Ministry. Gullish suggests that the cultural aspect of the digital age is often missed and that in addition to digital experts, psychologists and trend setters need to be a part of the bilateral conversation.
Joyojeet Pal, Associate Professor, School of Information, University of Michigan and former Senior Principal Researcher at Microsoft Research India, addressed the regulation standards of social media and emphasized the need for differentiation of regulation/censorship standards in different local settings. So far the U.S. free speech discourse, disinformation identification, and categorization of bad actors on social media has shaped global discourses and responses. He points out that the consequences of censorship can be very different in different places, especially when members of the government are challenged, citing a Twitter office being raided in India as an example. While curbing disinformation and hate speech on the internet is important, social media platforms should develop different strategies and mechanism for different contexts. This is especially true given that India ranks highest in the number of users on social media platforms. The main points of friction seem to be between national law and the governance of corporate policy, political management of crises, and managing the global and local gap in free speech approaches.
Key Discussion Points
Queries and comments revolved around the rise of fake news including the new “infodemic” in relation to the pandemic, what the U.S. and India can do to limit their impact on policymaking and political communication, and how to deal with information and digital warfare that has gone from traditional media to the online world in a way that has caught governments and tech companies off guard. Other points were raised on the role of Big Tech companies and appropriate regulations to curb their power and influence and how to balance Indian and U.S. interests in this regard, especially given the disproportionate power of American information sources.
Governance of Digital Media/Economy
On the issue of how to address what many Indians view as monopolistic practices of western Big Tech, several explanations were given by the experts. First, new technologies expand rapidly and while they have concentrated power to start with, competition sets in and creates a much larger pool of technology companies. A diversity of platforms should be expected from various regions of the world, and this itself will regulate content and power of western tech companies. Instead of looking at the top 5 platforms that now cover 90-95% of interactions, we should expect to see hundreds in the future that could control 40% or more content under new dynamics yet to be seen.
Secondly, it was asserted that the real issue was not local versus global but how interesting any give platform or application happens to be. Whether it is Instagram, Snapchat or the highly innovative Tiktok, the challenge is to create something exciting that will catch on. There is no reason that local Indian platforms like Koo and Share Chat cannot find a place among Big Tech. With this, many of today’s challenges will find more traditional channels of regulation whether it is conventional competition regulation or traditional libel regulation. At the same time, it will likely be a very different way of management and a much more diverse set of information exchange.
Influence of Social Media
Noting that digital warfare is now rampant across the globe, the idea that American media has overweening influence may need to be modified. It was pointed out that which media posts people rely on depends on the information seekers’ cultural proclivity. American media houses are not monolithic and therefore, one can decide for example to watch BBC or CNN. Broadly speaking on digital warfare, it was pointed out that this type of campaign was happening not just across states, but within states that produces the kind of polarization that we are now witnessing. Indeed, it is suggested that foreign governments at some point have to present their information as reasonable in order for it to be an effective propaganda tool for outsiders, whereas internal channels have a much freer hand.
The rise of an infodemic during the pandemic has made it more urgent than ever for countries to validate information and prevent misinformation on social media. One problem noted is the tradeoff for any government between what may be politically expedient and what is the correct path for public health protection. Both India and the U.S. were given fairly good marks on this although the latter faltered in the beginning of the pandemic. As to whether differing norms of digital censorship between India and the U.S. is an obstacle to their cooperation evidenced by the case of Twitter in 2021, it was suggested that Big Tech companies will likely sidestep the question of free speech and fall in line given the enormous profits to be made in India.
Looking ahead, some changes in perceptions seem to be occurring. Initially, there was an assumption in the internet age that all information provided was accurate and since the fallacy of this is becoming increasingly clear, we may be entering a second phase of more critical interpretation and a healthy skepticism.
Prepared by Judith Blessy B (M.A. Candidate) Christ University, Medha Prasanna (M.A. Candidate) George Washington University and Jeshil Samuel J (M.A. Candidate) Christ University.
STUDENT DISCUSSANTS
M.A. Candidates, Christ University
Hanspreet Kaur
Jagritee Senapati
Jairam R Prabhu
Jeshil Samuel J.
Johann M Cherian
Judith Blessy B
Kalpana Pandey
Sakshi
Salkar Gaurang
Shivam Tiwary
Tejusvi Shukla
Unnamalai Lakshmann
Vineeth Daniel Vinoy
Vishnu Prasad E
This Policy Brief is a part of the ‘Shared Values and Worldviews in U.S.-India Relations’ project of the United States Government, George Washington University and Christ University. The opinions expressed here are solely of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Government, George Washington University or Christ University.
