Tarun Vijay

BJP Leader Heading Museums Authority Wants Ganesha Idols Removed From Qutub Complex

The National Museums Authority sent a letter to the ASI last month, saying that the idols should be moved to the National Museum.

New Delhi: The National Museums Authority (NMA) has asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to remove two Ganesha idols that are in the Qutub Minar complex, and find a place for them instead in the National Museum. The “placement of the idols [in the Qutub Minar complex] is disrespectful”, the NMA chairman has said, according to the Indian Express.

A letter on this was sent to ASI last month, the newspaper reported, with the NMA saying that the idols should be given a “respectable” place in the museum, which also houses other such antiquities.

The NMA and ASI both operate under the Union Ministry of Culture.

The current head of the NMA is Bharatiya Janata Party leader Tarun Vijay. He confirmed to the Indian Express that a letter had been sent to the ASI. “I visited the site several times and realised that the placement of the idols is disrespectful. They come near the feet of the mosque visitors,” he said.

“After Independence, we removed the statues of British kings and queens from India Gate, and changed the names of roads to erase marks of colonialism. Now we should work to reverse the cultural genocide that Hindus faced at the hands of Mughal rulers,” Vijay said.

“These idols were taken, apart from those of Jain Tirthankaras and Yamuna, Dashavatar, Navagrahas, after demolishing 27 Jain and Hindu temples built by King Anangpal Tomar… The way these idols have been placed is a mark of contempt for India, and needs correction,” Vijay said.

There are two idols of Ganesha in the Quwwat Ul Islam mosque, housed within the Qutub Minar complex. One of them, the ‘Ulta Ganesh’, is part of the mosque’s south-facing mosque. The other one, within an iron cage, is close to the ground in the same mosque, according to the Indian Express.

An Open Letter From Yeti Ji to Modi Ji

Modi Ji, the reason I am writing to you is because I feel you of all people will understand me. We are both mythical creatures. Many stories have been spun around you, just like they have been spun around me.

Hello Modi Ji,

This is Yeti Ji. Or as so many people unkindly call me, ‘the abominable snowman.’ That is such an indescribably rude way to refer to one of the great mysteries of the world! Imagine if someone were to refer to you as ‘the abominable showman’! How would it make you feel? That’s why I was so touched when I read a tweet by one of your party leaders, one Chowkidar Tarun Vijay, who said:

Congratulations, we are always proud of you. Salutes to the #IndianArmy Mountain Expedition Team. But please, you are Indian, don’t call Yeti as beast. Show respect for them. If you say he is a ‘snowman’.

As I read this, a smile crept across my hairy face and a tear formed under my eye and then quickly froze into ice. It’s very cold up here at Makalu Barun National Park. But the love and respect shown to me by Chowkidar Tarun Vijay warmed the cockles of my heart and filled my soul with joy. This is probably the first time a mythical creature like me has been shown such respect and courtesy. I thumped my chest and let out a long bellow of delight and then danced around in the snow, thrilled to finally feel some love at last. I also left some more footprints for your soldiers to find. If I ever meet Chowkidar Tarun Vijay, I promise I will give him a great big hug and dance around with him in the snow as well!

Modi Ji, the reason I am writing to you is because I feel you of all people will understand me. Because like me, you too are a bit of a myth. We are both mythical creatures. Many stories have been spun around you, just like they have been spun around me. Tales about me inspire awe, wonderment, fear, and sadly, even terror. Tales about you, I’ve heard, also do the same.

Mothers up in the Himalayan villages invoke me often when they have to scare their children into submission. “Eat your food or the Yeti will come and eat you!” Or “Close your eyes and go to sleep or the yeti will come and get you!” Or “Don’t wander into the woods! The yeti is just waiting to carry away little scamps like you!”

I believe your spokespeople, ministers, fans, supporters and bhakts also invoke you when they have to scare their countrymen and countrywomen into doing things they may not want to do. Is that true? Of course, the myths that have been spun around you far surpass any myths that have ever been spun around me. They are next level!

Take the myth of indispensability, for example. “If not Modi, then who?” Then there’s the myth of invulnerability. “Aayega toh Modi hee.” Then there‘s the myth of good governance, the myth that you are the country’s protector and chowkidar, and finally, the myth that your country has made huge strides of progress over the last few years. That last one has got even a simian, ape-like creature like me scratching my head!

Do people in your country actually believe that? Despite that notebandi stunt you pulled and unemployment being at an all time high? My mythmakers could have learned a thing or two from yours.

Speaking of mythmaking, that Bal Narendra comic, by the way, was a good attempt at mythologizing your childhood. But I have to say it hasn’t quite done for you what Tintin in Tibet did for me. Herge got his geography wrong – I am in Nepal and not Tibet – but his rendition of me was a lot more fun and went on to garner readership over the generations which I don’t think Bal Narendra will ever do. Sorry!

I must say, though, that I threw my head back and guffawed when I read the bit about you taking a baby alligator away from its mother and then returning it to her. Obviously your fearlessness with amphibians hasn’t quite translated into fearlessness with press conferences. Ha! Ha! (Yeti make joke. Don’t mind, please.)

Anyhow, good chatting to you, Modi Ji. The sun is about to set and I must clamber up the mountain to my nice, warm cave and settle in for the night. Unlike you, I need a good, long night’s sleep.

With affection,

Yeti Ji

Without Punishment, Modi’s Advice to BJP Motormouths Is Pointless

Outrageous statements by BJP’s leaders keep the party corps enthused, distract from key issues at hand and most importantly, keep the press busy.

From his point of view, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s admonishment to his motormouth party colleagues to be careful about what they say makes perfect sense. Each time a preposterous statement is made, it embarrasses the party and the prime minister himself. What’s more, as Modi pointed out, it gives ‘masala’ to the media and we all know that there is nothing the media loves more than its daily dose of masala.

He also warned his colleagues not to rush to give a statement every time they see a TV camera as if they are “some social scientists or scholars who can analyse every problem”. Such indiscretions harm the party, he told them via the Narendra Modi app.

He has a point. Here’s some of that spicy material that the BJP’s stalwart intellectuals have given us over the last three or four years:

Giriraj Singh: “If Rajiv Gandhi had married a Nigerian lady and she had not been fair skinned, would the Congress have accepted her leadership?

Tarun Vijay: “If we were racist, why would we have the entire South India, you know Tamil Nadu, you know Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, who do we live with them? We have black people all around us.”

Satyapal Singh: “Darwin’s theory is wrong because no one saw apes turning into man.”

Biplab Deb: “In the Mahabharata, Sanjay narrated to Dhristrashtra, who was blind, about what was happening in the battlefield due to the Internet and technology.”

There’s much more of course – in October, 2014, basking in the afterglow of his victory, Modi had told a gathering of doctors and scientists that India had mastered genetic science at the time of the Mahabharata and that the fact that Ganesha has an elephant head is sufficient proof there were plastic surgeons during that time.

Outrageous statements, no doubt, that gave the media a lot of spicy stuff to print in their publications and mock the speakers (though there wasn’t so much mocking at Modi, as I recall.) The party appears to be a bunch of antediluvian people who harbour not just outdated, but also racist and misogynist ideas. What is even scarier is that they apparently are convinced of it – surely neither Modi nor Satyapal Singh were being ironical or funny; these are notions that are part of their DNA. This was part of their education while growing up in their Sangh environment. Biplab Deb is not playing to the gallery when he declares that the Internet was around during the time of the Mahabharata – he fervently believes in it, because it was dinned into his head from an early age.

The greatness of India – Bharatvarsh – in distant times is an integral part of Sanghi lore. This glorious land, populated by fair-skinned Aryans, in which all parts of society – the various castes, the lower orders, women – knew their place; a golden age that was destroyed by the advent of foreign invaders, who were mainly Muslims and Christians who came to loot and spread their ‘unIndian’ ideas. India, during that glittering epoch, knew all there is to know about science and technology but that knowledge was destroyed. It should be the effort of the true believers to bring back that greatness. Every true Sanghi is taught this ‘history’, each one of them grows up believing it with all his heart.

Seen in this light, the Sanghi-tutored BJP leader is not committing a gaffe when he makes these statements. A Giriraj Singh or Tarun Vijay don’t think they are being racist, and Satyapal Singh may well be taken aback if told that he is patently wrong.

But these statements are foolish and frivolous at worst-they can be debunked easily and they elicit ridicule. The world moves on after having had a good laugh at Biplab Deb; of course it is a conern that he, as the chief minister of Tripura, will try and insert his weird ideas into the school books, but there are ways to resist that. Besides, he could, at some stage, be voted out.

It is the more sinister ideas coming from the parivaar that should worry us, because they reveal bigotry and. And there is no dearth of those either. Some examples:

MLA Sangeet Som: “Mohammed Aklhaq’s family should be arrested” (This, after Akhlaq was lynched by a mob for allegedly keeping beef at home.)

Yogi Adityanath: “If they kill one Hindu we will kill 100” (and many more such examples)

MLA Vikram Saini: “Our country is called Hindustan, which means a country for Hindus. Earlier, the system was, the longer the beard the bigger the cheque.”

Narendra Modi figures in this category too. During his days as the chief minister of Gujarat, he had labelled Muslim refugee camps as baby making factories. During the Uttar Pradesh election campaign last year, he talked about how a shamshan (crematorium) should be built every time a kabristan (burial ground) is set up.

None of the above named party worthies have been pulled up by the party bosses for their hate-mongering. If anything, they have moved on to higher things. Adityanath is now the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and Modi is the prime minister. No doubt others too will get promoted at some stage, or get a pat on the back for their forthrightness.

Telling off partymen (and women) to cease and desist, therefore is a sham exercise, unless it is accompanied by a threat of punishment. Only when the leadership itself shows restraint, and only when there is a penalty rather than a prize for such behaviour, will these party members stop shooting their mouths off. If anything, theirs is more often than not a command performance, done on the orders of higher ups, to either muddy the waters, create a diversion or play the dog whistle loudly for their cadre. The rank and file look for cues from their leaders; they then know what to do next. And the leaders are not going to stop simply because Narendra Modi tells them to.

And often, a well-timed comment, quite obviously absurd and idiotic, draws attention away from some other serious matter. Journalists faithfully abandon the more important subject and, with their tongues wagging, chase the brightly coloured ball.

It picks up these statements, tosses them around for a while, expresses faux outrage and then moves on. There is little attempt to understand the processes or motivations involved and rarely any call for accountability. Can we forget the fawning over Yogi Adityanath when he took over as CM or how journalists rushed to take selfies with Modi when they met him?

Statements that most sensible people may find egregious serve a purpose- they keep the party corps enthused, distract from the key issues at hand, gets the ideological point of view across and most important, keep the press busy. They also serve who only stand and put their foot in their mouth. Their boss should honour, not criticise them.

By Tarun Vijay’s Impeccable Logic, India Does Not Have a Caste Problem Either

The BJP leader’s claim is a variation on “I am not racist because I have black friends.’

Tarun Vijay, African students protesting racism in India, Sushma Swaraj. Credit: PTI

Africans living in India might think otherwise but India does not have a race problem and the ruling party has conclusively proved it.

First Sushma Swaraj, the Minister for External Affairs told parliament that the attacks on Nigerians in Greater Noida were “unfortunate” but not “racist” or “xenophobic”. Her reasoning was simple. “Any race-motivated attack is pre-planned,” she said. “This was not a pre-planned attack.”

Until now no one had realised this simple truth – that racism, like some biryanis, needs marination, planning and prep work. Just beating up any African-looking man in a mall with sticks, chairs and metal bins is too spontaneous to be a proper racist attack.

Now Tarun Vijay, the BJP leader from Delhi, has offered clinching proof that whatever we are, we desis are not racist. He told Al Jazeera television, “If we were indeed racist, why would all the entire south – you know Kerala, Tamil, Andhra, Karnataka – why do we live with them? We have blacks…black people around us.”

Vijay sees black people just like that child in Sixth Sense sees dead people.

This is an interesting variation of the ‘I can’t be racist because some of my best friends are black’ argument. The Dravidian people must be relieved to know that they, by their mere presence, provide this vital service, to help whitewash India’s reputation. They are the certificate that Indians can brandish to prove to the world that we are a fair and lovely people notwithstanding those bleaching cream sale figures. That’s just a cultural preference. We are obviously quite colour-blind. Vijay could have mentioned we gave the Smita Patil Memorial Award to Katrina Kaif in 2016.

Indians seem to think that racism has some kind of immaculate conception, that because Indians were not as involved with the slave trade they are incapable of being racist. Our attitude towards Africans or darker skin in general might be shaped by a colonial hangover but we are unwilling to use the R-word to describe it. Instead we find all kinds of reasons to explain away each and every mob attack that has taken place on Africans in different parts of India, though mostly in Delhi:

Too many Africans are involved in drug smuggling.

An African ran over a woman sleeping on the sidewalk.

Africans play music too loudly.

Africans party too much.

African women wear revealing clothes.

African women are involved in prostitution.

The African guy wanted the same auto rickshaw.

The Africans were drunk.

The Indians were drunk.

And now in a new low, Africans are cannibals.

We do not think any of this is racial stereotyping, that to tar everyone with the same brush is racist, that to pull anyone who looks African out of a car and beat them up because one African ran over someone in a traffic accident is racial profiling. Instead each of these function as a perfectly valid reason for “unfortunate” behaviour by a few bad apples. Or as Rakesh Sinha of the RSS-affiliated Indian Policy Foundation puts it “What we are witnessing is the conflict of cultures which is a law and order problem, not racism.” But to the person at the receiving end, it stinks and hurts just as badly.

Faced with a Twitter backlash, Vijay has clarified that he merely meant to say that Indians come in all kinds of colours and “never ever we had any discrimination against them”. The north-easterners who live in some of India’s metro cities might beg to differ with this sanguine prognosis but they should bite their tongue, especially when our national honour is at stake.

But Vijay was merely being honest about the Aryan-Dravidian divide. Many Indians genuinely think that living in the same country as dark-skinned people proves that they don’t have a racist bone in them. Indians also live with many Dalits around them. Some have even been elected to high office. By Vijay’s impeccable logic we don’t have a caste problem either.

To recap, thus far we have learned we cannot be racist because:

1) Racist attacks must be pre-meditated. – Swaraj

2) We tolerate all those black people in Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka – Vijay

3) We were ourselves the victims of British racism – Vijay

4) We were the first to oppose racism and Gandhi went to Africa – Vijay

5) Indians had no problems allowing George Yule and William Wedderburn head the Indian National Congress – Sinha, Indian Policy Foundation

6) We worship Lord Krishna which literally means black – Vijay

7) Many of us learned Martin Luther King Junior’s ‘I Have a Dream’ as part of elocution class.

Okay, the last was something I made up but it could be something that Vijay missed in his haste.

The International Gandhi Peace Prize has been given by the government of India to not one, but four people of African origin – Julius Nyerere, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Coretta Scott King. And the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize has gone to Sam Nujoma, Olusegun Obasanjo, Kofi Annan and Wangari Maathai.

Really, what were those African envoys thinking? We might not want to rent African students rooms easily but we did give their leaders big prizes, didn’t we? Doesn’t that count for anything?

Sandip Roy is a freelance journalist based in Kolkata.

Before Geospatial Bill: A Long History of Killing the Map in Order to Protect the Territory

In India, the politics of making and using maps has taken a sudden and complex turn with the publication of the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill.

Facebook and CCTV, interestingly, have gotten away with no consequences after showing maps of India without certain border regions. Credit: Compass Study, Flickr CC BY 2.0

The global history of cartography is intimately linked with political needs and economic interests, from the public depiction of sovereign territories to navigating treacherous seas to (wrongly) ‘discover’ the land of spices. In India, the politics of making and using maps has taken a sudden and complex turn with the publication of the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016. Contrary to the expectations arising out of several government schemes that are promoting the development of the new digital economy in India – from start-ups to the ongoing expansion of connectivity network – the bill seems to be undoing various economic and humanitarian efforts, and other opportunities involving maps, by imposing strict guidelines and harsh penalties on the use of maps by private actors, commercial or otherwise.

The introductory note to the bill clearly states its primary objective is to ensure the protection of ‘security, sovereignty and integrity of India.’ The concern around ‘security’ is not new when it comes to regulating cartographic activities. It is prominently addressed across the current set of policies and guidelines that govern mapping in India: 1) the National Map Policy, 2005 (“NMP”) and associated guidelines issued by the Survey of India, 2) the Remote Sensing Data Policy, 2011 that regulates satellite-based mapping, and 3) the Civil Aviation Requirement, 2012, which regulates mapping and photography using flights and drones. Protection of ‘sovereignty and integrity,’ however, does not find a mention in any of these map-related policies.

There have of course been several incidents where the government has taken steps (including the temporary blocking of service) against companies that have represented Indian national boundaries that are not in accordance with official maps. Such companies include Google, The Economist, and Al Jazeera. Two companies that have gotten away with no consequences after publicly showing maps of India without certain border regions, interestingly, are Facebook and CCTV.

In the absence of such provisions in the existing map-related policies, thus far, the government has pursued legal action against such ‘anti-national’ depiction of Indian territory under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (restricting the collection and sharing of information about ‘prohibited places’), the Customs Act, 1962 (prohibiting the export and import of certain maps), and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,1990.

Though this present bill has come into public attention rather suddenly, the Indian State has been planning for a comprehensive legal framework for both enabling and restricting mapping, since the coming of the NMP itself. The first avatar of this effort was the Indian Survey Act that was heard about in 2007, but was never made public. More recently, the first report towards the National Geospatial Information Policy (now called the National Geospatial Policy) came out in 2012. Instead of waiting for this comprehensive policy to be discussed and notified, the bill seems to have come in a hurry to propose a narrowly designed legal instrument. As is often the problem with such precise devices that also want to be exhaustive, the bill promises much more collateral damage than actual solutions – it ends up killing the map in the name of protecting the territory.

A quick look at case law on map-related disputes informs us about the motivations of the state in enacting this bill. A major controversy around ‘sovereignty’ in the field of mapping has been about the depiction of international boundaries of India by Google. After several incidents of conflicts between Google’s map makers and the Indian State regarding the depiction of India’s national boundary, the Survey of India filed a police complaint in 2014. As a result, Google presently shows different map tiles to users from India (according to the boundary specified by the Indian State) and different tiles to users from elsewhere. This geo-targeted solution to the depiction of international borders under dispute has been practiced by Google in the case of other countries too, most notably for Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ukraine and (independent) Crimea.

The internal security concerns have also fuelled conflicts with mapping companies. In 2013, the ‘mapathon’ organised by Google faced a lawsuit for not asking for prior permission from the Survey of India for this exercise in user-contributed mapping. This was preceded by a petition filed by J. Mohanraj in the Madras High Court seeking a complete ban on the Google Earth and Bhuvan (run by ISRO) map applications on the ground that they were both providing information that could be used for planning acts of terror. The petitioner’s argument referred to the provisions of the NMP, and also alleged that such mapping practices violated the individual rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court, however, held (2008) that the petitioner was unable to produce any specific “Guidelines/Rules/Law laid down by the Central/State Governments, prohibiting the private organisations or any other individuals to Interactive Mapping Program, covering vast majority of the Planet”.

The trouble with Google re-opened earlier this year as the Pathankot air base was attacked. Incidentally, Vishal Saini, the winner of the 2013 mapathon by Google, contributed to mapping the features of the very same city. Promptly after the attack in January, Lokesh Kumar Sharma filed a case in the Delhi High Court alleging that the availability of sensitive information (from an internal security point-of-view) on Google Maps created security vulnerabilities. In a rather curious manner, the court disposed of the case on February 24, claiming that it has learned from the Additional Solicitor General that ‘steps are in progress to regulate the publication of aerial/satellite geospatial data.’ In hindsight, we see that this was in reference to the draft bill.

This bill, evidently, is a product of the Indian State’s inefficient attempts at regulating the making and circulation of maps and geospatial data in digital times. The bill ends up disregarding the actual features of digital geospatial data and how it forms a fundamental basis (and asset) for today’s digital economy, and, instead, decides to settle for a form of regulation that is much better suited (if at all) to a pre-digital and pre-liberalisation condition. The regulatory measures proposed by the bill do not only cause worry but also bewilderment. Take for example Section 3 that states that ‘no person shall acquire geospatial imagery or data including value addition of any part of India’ without being expressly given permission for the same or being vetted by the nodal agency set up by the Bill. If implemented strictly, this may mean that you will have to ask for permission and/or security vetting before dropping a pin on the map and sharing your coordinates with your friend or a taxi service. Both involve creating/acquiring geospatial information, and potentially adding value to the map/taxi service as well.

Let’s take an even more bizarre hypothetical situation – the Security Vetting Agency being asked to go through the entire geospatial data chest of Google everyday (or as soon as it is updated) and it taking up to ‘ three months from the date of receipt’ of the data to complete this checking so that Google Maps can tell you how crowded a particular street was three months ago.

Further, a key term that the bill does not talk about is ‘big data.’ The static or much-slowly-changing geospatial data such as national boundaries and which-military-institute-is-located-where are really the tiny minority of the global geospatial information. The much larger and crucial part is of course the fast-moving big geospatial data – from geo-referenced tweets, to GPS systems of cars, to mobile phones moving through the cities and regions. Addressing such networked data systems, where all data can quite easily be born-georeferenced, and the security and privacy concerns that are engendered by them, should be the ultimate purpose of, and challenge for, a future-looking Geospatial Information Regulation Act.

The present bill imposes an undesirable bureaucratic structure of licenses and permits upon the GIS industry in the country in particular, and on all sections of the economy using networked devices in general. This will only end up restricting the size of the GIS industry to a few dominant players. For all creators and users of maps for non-commercial, developmental, and humanitarian interests, this bill appears to be an imminent threat, even if it is never actually applied.

Sumandro Chattapadhyay works with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). Adya Garg is a law student currently working with the CIS.

India is not a Google Republic: BJP MP Tarun Vijay on the Geospatial Bill

In an interview with The Wire, the Rajya Sabha MP talks on issues of data sovereignty and digital patriotism, and says that the government is receptive to feedback.

Net Patriotism: BJP MP Tarun Vijay, Credit: Facebook, Tarun Vijay

The draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, a piece of proposed legislation that seeks to govern and establish ownership over the country’s geospatial information, has sparked much discussion and concern over the last week. Discussions were primarily over issues of national security, the compliance of online mapping services and technology companies, and concern over whether the bill has been drafted in such a broad manner it would do more harm than good.

The roots of this new geospatial bill can be traced, in part at least, to a stand-off between Google and Indian law enforcement authorities in 2013, when the search engine’s “mapathon contest” drew criticism after crowdsourcing the mapping of Pathankot. One of the people leading the charge in favour of stricter rules around online mapping was BJP MP Tarun Vijay. In an interview with The Wire, the Rajya Sabha MP talks on issues of data sovereignty and emphasises that the government is receptive to feedback. He also plans on suggesting that the government should hold a public stakeholder meeting in order to better accept inputs and produce a well-rounded bill. Edited excerpts from the interview:

Could you place this Geospatial Information Regulation Bill in context for me? You’ve had run-ins with Google Maps in 2013 over concerns of national security..

The Internet colonialists are stealing our data wealth. It is our wealth. In the pre-Independence time, colonialists looted the Kohinoor… and all our jewels. These people, they take away all the data from India. And they don’t allow the Indian agencies to monitor or to have any control on what essentially belongs to us.

Now – I have no problem that Google and other mapping agencies, which are giving a great service to the Indian net users. We are not in clash with what they are providing.

And there are many internet users who say “Hey they [Google and other Internet companies] are doing such a good job. You are raising issues like a bullock-cart days person.” But they forget that this nation belongs to us. It [India] is not a Google republic. So they have to abide by the laws of the land. If somebody thinks the laws are bad… then have a negotiation and try to change the laws. The arrogance and belligerence of these Internet colonialists takes strength from the strength and arrogance of their source country.

We have seen how America’s NSA…I mean it’s completely gone public. What they are doing to us and what they are doing to other countries. So should we allow these instruments of America’s National Security Agency to function in India without any checks? If they say they are providing a great service like Google Earth, they are not doing charity. They are making money from Indian market, which is the biggest market for them.

So my plea is have Indian data for India alone. Let Indian agencies have a complete control on our data.

Protecting a country’s data is a principle of data sovereignty. But is possible to take it too far where it becomes a form of digital nationalism that hurts more than helping?

[I want to] make Bhuvan (ISRO’s Google Earth type software) more powerful. More net friendly and user friendly… better than Google Earth. Now, unless you do this, nobody is going to use Bhuvan. You may have a lot of advertisements [for it] but it won’t help. If somebody says “hey this is net patriotism”, there is nothing wrong in that.

This country belongs to communists who hate patriotic feelings. This country belongs to the Samajwadi Party, AIADMK, DMK, Congress and BJP equally. If there any sense of belonging in this country, we must address these issues. I have nothing to do with those who abuse us, saying it [the bill] is net patriotism. But certainly, net patriotism is better than net colonialism.

I’m not asking us to shut our doors, let me make that clear. I’m not telling Indians to use a Bhuvan that is not user friendly. I’m asking Government of India to make Bhuvan stronger than Google. Make Survey of India, through an agency, provide a better mapping service which is India-friendly and which is under control of Indian people.

So what do American technology companies have to do here?

It’s very simple. They have to work within the constitutional framework of the country. If you believe in our constitution, then they have to work within the constitutional framework. What the constitution says must be applied to their operation.

While they are working in the US, they have to follow US regulation. In China, you have to follow Chinese regulation. Why when in India, do they not follow India regulation? That’s my main concern.

Secondly, it has been proven beyond doubt that the content that they collect, they don’t guarantee that it will not fall into the hands of those who will use it for purposes that are not good for the country.

Every data of important people in India – whether you are Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Governor or military persons or bureaucrats. It is very easy for them to select 50,000 or 100,000 out of a billion people and monitor their profiles. They monitor everything. We have to safeguard our country from any kind of data that can fall in the hands of foes of the nation. Pathankot is one example. Bombay is another example. David Headley and so on.

It is self defeating to say that “no, we can’t do this, it will be another kind of control over freedom of net”. The lives of people are at stake. And India is the biggest victim of terror. And we are alarmed at IS and other such agencies that are spreading their wings. Why should we be providing them with anything like that?

While national security concerns should be taken into account, the rules have been written in such a broad manner that it would drastically and negatively impact the functioning of individuals, non-profits, geodata start-ups and even academic research. For instance, ISRO’s Bhuvan runs on OpenStreetMap data but OpenStreetMap would be required to apply for a licence under the new bill…

We would be having a meeting on all these things. We will make sure that law-abiding companies who serve Indian interests… should and will not feel harassed. That is our basic concern. Rules and regulations should be encouraging to the freedom of Internet users.

Yes, that [bureaucracy] should not be there. Except ensuring security concerns are met, all other things should be flexible. All other things should be flexible. The bill should be a step that will enhance the joy of Internet use. The freedom of the Internet must be protected to the maximum extent. This is the right time for these concerns to be raised.

Let them [start-ups and India’s civil society] raise a hundred questions and let the Ministry of Home Affairs take all these questions and formulate a bill that is in the best interest of Indian net users.

The government is very, very receptive. They want to ensure a liberal bill, that will keep the menace of Internet colonialism and violation of Indian laws out.

This sort of digital protectionism behaviour, with specific focus on national security, is seen specifically in authoritarian countries such as China. Is it wise to take this approach?

The US does it. The US has more harsher laws. For the US, the security of their people is their prime concerns. They don’t allow such Internet vagabonds which have no republic.

But I don’t hear anyone uttering a word against US [the country’s digital stance]? Saying anything about China is like unfolding a flag of freedom. The US has harshest-ever laws in the world to protect the security of the country and the privacy of its people. But even here, the actions of the NSA show…privacy of people is secondary to security of people.

We have lost countless Indian citizens in terror attacks. They [the terrorists] have been using all these geospatial data. Our major concern should be that technology shouldn’t be an instrument in the hands of the devil.

Where do you see the balance between national security and citizen privacy? Especially in the context of India’s draft encryption bill and getting Silicon Valley-based companies to comply with law enforcement requests.

See, what I’m afraid is that there is a lobby in India which would create the vision and hypothetically create fear for everything that is being done to address Indian security concerns. These questions emanate from that lobby. Because this lobby doesn’t have an iota of respect for these security concerns and they laugh at it as if India is a banana republic and as if we shouldn’t be bothered about it.

Everything done in this direction is opposed [to the bill] and in the name of freedom, liberalism and possible harassment. Addressing security concerns doesn’t mean that India is becoming a Internet policing state. Addressing security concerns mean India is becoming a Internet responsible state.