The Sanchar Saathi app controversy did not erupt because Indians are against cybersecurity or digital safety. It erupted because of something far more basic: a growing unease with the way India introduces digital policies – first imposed, then explained, and questioned only after backlash. Sanchar Saathi is an app developed by the government to help users report telecom fraud, track lost phones, and verify mobile connections; initially, it was framed as a citizen-centric cybersecurity tool. But when the government directed smartphone manufacturers to pre-install the app by default, it raised concerns about whether users would be able to remove it. Privacy advocates began sounding the alarm, opposition parties labelled it as surveillance-adjacent, and ordinary users wondered why such an app on safety would need to be mandatory in the first place. Days later, the government rolled back the directive, making the app voluntary.
This rapid U-turn is telling, not because this app itself was uniquely problematic, but because it fits into a broader and familiar pattern in India’s digital governance: prioritising policy over privacy.
When Intent Is Overshadowed by Execution
Sanchar Saathi addresses a real and pressing problem through state-led digital intervention. There is no doubt that India is encountering cases of telecom fraud, including SIM card misuse and mobile phone snatching. Therefore, providing people with a tracking system for such cases is not only justified but also a necessity. Nevertheless, making the application mandatory ultimately undermined its original intent, as presented.
The mandatory character, particularly in relation to a government application linked to telecommunication infrastructure, has raised numerous new concerns. There was no clear communication regarding the types of data that would be collected, the duration of data storage, or the person responsible for data usage monitoring. Such uncertainty in communication implied that even if there were justified reasons, it was still perceived as less protective than intrusive.
A Familiar Pattern in India’s Digital History
Sanchar Saathi is not an exception. India’s recent digital policy history is marked by instances where scale, speed, and technological ambition often precede safeguards around privacy, consent, and accountability, which are established only after popular resistance or judicial intervention. This reflects a broader governance philosophy in which digital infrastructure is viewed as a fundamentally neutral entity, for which trust will follow implementation rather than necessarily precede it. This pattern is not new and can be seen in earlier initiatives such as Aadhaar, where scale and implementation preceded legal clarity, complicating meaningful consent.
The Pegasus spyware controversy further deepened this trust deficit. Allegations that sophisticated surveillance tools had been deployed against journalists, opposition leaders, and activists were met not with transparent inquiry but with evasive responses and procedural deflections. Besides the lack of positive affirmations, the government’s reluctance to engage openly keeps reinforcing a belief that the capacities for surveillance operate in a grey area that is not subject to public accountability. In the era of the internet, a lack of communication from the government sends a signal, which in this case is a suspicious and un-reassuring one.
In this light, it was hard to expect that citizens would ever trust passively a telecom app that was mandatory and undeletable.
Why Trust Is the Missing Layer
Sanchar Saathi episode reveals not only a concern about privacy but also a lack of trust. Increasingly, citizens are becoming tech-savvy, and they recognise that data is the new oil. They are aware that telecom metadata – call records, device IDs, and usage patterns -are very private. Any measures that would affect users’ data would not only require strong guarantees and independent reviews but also make the users feel their voices matter.
Strangely enough, in the wake of the government’s rollback, it seems that the government has identified this sentiment. However, reactive changes in the course of action cannot replace proactive consultations. Reversals do not create trust; instead, trust is nurtured through inclusion, clarity, and restraint.
Rethinking Digital Governance
India’s aspirations to become a digital superpower are evident. However, with the development of digital governance also comes the demand for democratic accountability. There should be no mandate for security instruments to receive acceptance; if an application has legitimate value to citizens, they will choose to use it, provided they understand how it functions and what information it collects.
Sanchar Saathi could become a successful, voluntary, readily transparent, and clearly governed platform. However, the previous experience with the compulsory nature of Sanchar Saathi shows that the way a policy is enacted in Digital Democracy means just as much as why it is passed.
The message is straightforward and immediate: India possesses both the requisite technology and the desire to implement policy. The gap that India faces and must focus on closing is establishing a Governance Culture that regards Privacy as a key principle rather than an afterthought. Without that change occurring, every Digital initiative will continue to encounter resistance from the public, regardless of intention.
Leave a Reply