By Sara Nazir

In today’s hyper-connected world, the governance of the internet holds immense power over everything from the economy to personal freedoms. The recent nomination of India for the Vice Chair position in the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has raised alarms across the global digital community. The GAC is responsible for advising ICANN on public policy issues related to the internet’s naming and addressing systems, and its influence cannot be understated. With 183 member governments and numerous observer organizations, the GAC is meant to ensure that the views of national governments shape decisions on internet governance, particularly on issues like cybersecurity, privacy, and online platform regulation. But with India’s candidacy for this influential position, we must question whether its leadership will serve the global good or push national interests that could erode the integrity of internet governance.

India’s growing presence on the global stage is evident in its economic and political clout, yet its potential ascension to the GAC Vice Chair role raises concerns due to its track record of leveraging international platforms for its own benefit. The question isn’t whether India has the right to influence global policy, but whether it will prioritize a vision of global cooperation or one shaped by national ambitions at the expense of broader interests. This potential conflict could have far-reaching consequences for the neutrality of ICANN and the direction of internet governance itself.

One of the most pressing concerns surrounding India’s nomination is its alleged involvement in cyber espionage. Canada’s recent designation of India as a cyber threat has raised alarms about the country’s potential to manipulate global cybersecurity policies for its advantage. India could use the GAC Vice Chair role to embed frameworks that, while appearing to promote international cooperation, could serve to further its own cyber capabilities. This could undermine the trust that ICANN has spent decades building with the global community. Rather than fostering transparent, collaborative policies, India’s leadership might subtly steer the conversation in a direction that benefits its national security interests, potentially using the role to camouflage covert cyber operations.
This fear is not hypothetical. India has already demonstrated its skill at manipulating digital platforms to shape narratives. The “Indian Chronicles” investigation, which uncovered widespread disinformation campaigns orchestrated through online channels, is a case in point. India’s expertise in controlling online narratives suggests that, as Vice Chair of the GAC, it could push for policies that further embolden governments to influence the information landscape. By doing so, India could use the GAC to erode the trust that ICANN must maintain as a neutral body. Rather than maintaining its independence, ICANN could become a vehicle for state-backed manipulation of online discourse, hurting the global consensus on internet governance.

India’s involvement in illicit dark web markets adds another layer of complexity. According to reports, India has significant participation in dark web activities, with over 2,400 sellers and hundreds of thousands of transactions annually. This creates a troubling scenario where a GAC Vice Chair with ties to a country linked to such networks could weaken international efforts to combat illicit online markets. India has long faced criticism for its inadequate responses to these criminal activities. If it were to secure the Vice Chair position, India could influence global policies in a way that shields illegal online markets from effective dismantling. This would harm international initiatives aimed at reducing cybercrime, particularly in areas where governments struggle to cooperate on cross-border law enforcement.

India’s financial sector is also under scrutiny for its handling of money laundering, with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) regularly criticizing the country’s low conviction rates for financial crimes. While India has taken some steps to address these issues, systemic problems persist. If India were to assume a position of power in the GAC, it could use that platform to advocate against stricter financial oversight, particularly in cross-border transactions. This could shield its financial institutions from international scrutiny and hamper global efforts to combat money laundering, which has become a significant concern in the interconnected world of digital finance.

Then there is the matter of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. India has been at the forefront of using AI to manipulate political outcomes, with deepfake technology used in domestic political campaigns to spread disinformation. This expertise in digital manipulation could lead to troubling outcomes if India were in a position to influence global policy on these issues. As Vice Chair of the GAC, India could work to stall or weaken international efforts to regulate emerging technologies like deepfakes. This could protect its national interests, but at the cost of global progress in managing the potential harm these technologies can cause, from electoral manipulation to the spread of harmful propaganda.

The potential for social media manipulation also looms large. India’s use of social media for election interference, particularly in spreading disinformation, has been well-documented. As GAC Vice Chair, India might advocate for a reduction in the regulation of platforms, making it easier for governments and bad actors to manipulate online discourse. The consequences could be disastrous, as it could further erode trust in the internet as a neutral platform for communication and information exchange. Rather than fostering transparency and accountability, India’s leadership in the GAC could allow for greater digital control, skewing information in favor of state-backed narratives.

Equally concerning is India’s documented use of surveillance tools to monitor dissidents abroad. The allegations against the Indian government for targeting individuals via cyber surveillance raise significant ethical questions. If India were to rise to the Vice Chair position, it could push for policies that prioritize state surveillance under the guise of combating cybercrime. This would open the door for governments to justify invasive surveillance measures, undermining individual privacy rights in the process.

Lastly, India’s history of lobbying—exemplified by campaigns like “Indian Chronicles”—raises further concerns about the potential for policy manipulation. India’s sophisticated use of lobbying to shape international narratives could translate into policies within the GAC that favor national interests over global cooperation. This would not only weaken ICANN’s role as an impartial body but could also undermine the cooperative spirit that global internet governance relies on.

The nomination of India for the Vice Chair position in the GAC brings with it both opportunities and risks. On one hand, India’s growing influence in global digital governance is undeniable, and its involvement in shaping the future of the internet could bring new perspectives. On the other hand, the country’s track record of cyber espionage, disinformation campaigns, and surveillance suggests that its leadership could undermine the principles of neutrality, accountability, and cooperation that ICANN strives to maintain. For the sake of a fair and transparent internet, the global community must carefully scrutinize India’s nomination and ensure that ICANN remains a space for collaboration rather than a tool for geopolitical manipulation.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of The South Asia Times