#FactCheck - Edited Video of ‘India-India’ Chants at Republican National Convention

Introduction

Cyberspace is the new and the fifth dimension of warfare as recognised by the UN. In recent times we have seen a significant rise in cyber attacks on nations’ strategic interests and critical infrastructure. The scope of cyberwarfare is increasing rapidly in contemporary times. Nations across the globe are struggling with this issue. The Ministry of Defence of the Government of India has been fundamental to take preventive measures towards all attacks on the Republic of India. The ministry is the junction for all three forces: Airforce, Navy and Army and creates coordination between the forces and deploys the force at strategic locations in terms of enemy threats.

The new OS

Governments across the world have developed various cyber security measures and mechanisms to keep data and information safe and secure. Similarly, the Indian Government has been very critical in deploying cybersecurity strategies, policies, measures, and bills to safeguard the Indian cyber-ecosystem.  The Ministry of Defence has recently made a transition in terms of the Operating System used in the daily functions of the ministry. Earlier, the ministry was using an OS from Microsoft, which has now been replaced with the indigenous OS named “Maya” based on open-source Ubuntu. This is the first time the ministry will be deploying indigenous operating software. This step comes at a time of global rise in cyber attacks, and the aspect of indigenous OS will prevent malware and spyware attacks.‍

What is Maya?

Users will not notice many differences while switching to Maya because it has a similar interface and functionality to Windows. The first instruction is to install Maya on all South Block PCs with Internet access before August 15.  In these systems, a Chakravyuh “endpoint detection and protection system” is also being installed. Maya isn’t yet installed on any computers connected to the networks of the three Services; instead, it is solely used in Defence Ministry systems. It had also been reviewed by the three Services and would shortly be adopted on service networks. The Army and Air Force were currently reviewing it after the Navy had already given its approval.

OS Maya was created by government development organisations in less than six months. An official from the ministry has informed that Maya would stop malware attacks and other cyberattacks, which have sharply increased. The nation has recently experienced a number of malware and extortion attacks, some of which targeted vital infrastructure. The Defence Ministry has made repeated attempts in the past to switch from Windows to an Indian operating system.

How will the new OS help?

The OS Maya is a critically developed OS and is expected to cater to the needs of all cybersecurity and safety issues of contemporary threats and vulnerabilities.

The following aspects need to be kept in mind in regard to safety and security issues:

• Better and improved security and safety
• Reduced chances of cyberattacks
• Promotion of Inidegenous talent and innovation
• Global standard OS
• Preventing and precautionary measures
• Safety by Design for overall resilience
• Improved Inter forces coordination
• Upskilling and capacity building for Serving personnel

Conclusion

Finally, the emergence of cyberspace as the fifth dimension of warfare has compelled countries all over the world to adopt a proactive stance, and India’s Ministry of Defence has made a significant move in this area. The significance of strengthened cybersecurity measures has been highlighted by the rising frequency and level of complexity of cyberattacks against key assets and vital infrastructure. The Ministry’s choice to use the local Maya operating system is a key step in protecting the country’s cyber-ecosystem. Maya’s debut represents a fundamental shift in the cybersecurity approach as well as a technology transition. This change not only improves the security and protection of confidential data but also demonstrates India’s dedication to supporting innovation and developing homegrown talent. Government development organisations have shown their commitment to solving the changing difficulties of the digital age by producing cutting-edge operating systems like Maya in a relatively short amount of time.

Introduction

A policy, no matter how artfully conceived, is like a timeless idiom, its truth self-evident, its purpose undeniable, standing in silent witness before those it vows to protect, yet trapped in the stillness of inaction, where every moment of delay erodes the very justice it was meant to serve. This is the case of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which holds in its promise a resolution to all the issues related to data protection and a protection framework at par with GDPR and Global Best Practices. While debates on its substantive efficacy are inevitable, its execution has emerged as a site of acute contention. The roll-out and the decision-making have been making headlines since late July on various fronts. The government is being questioned by industry stakeholders, media and independent analysts on certain grounds, be it “slow policy execution”, “centralisation of power” or “arbitrary amendments”. The act is now entrenched in a never-ending dilemma of competing interests under the DPDP Act.

The change to the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, made possible by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, has become a focal point of debate. This amendment is viewed by some as an attack on weakening the hard-won transparency architecture of Indian democracy by substituting an absolute exemption for personal information for the “public interest override” in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 

The Lag Ledger: Tracking the Delays in DPDP Enforcement 

As per a news report of July 28, 2025, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information and Communications Technology has expressed its concern over the delayed implementation and has urged the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to ensure that data privacy is adequately ensured in the nation. In the report submitted to the Lok Sabha on July 24, the committee reviewed the government’s reaction to the previous recommendations and concluded that MeitY had only been able to hold nine consultations and twenty awareness workshops about the Draft DPDP Rules, 2025. In addition, four brainstorming sessions with academic specialists were conducted to examine the needs for research and development. The ministry acknowledges that this is a specialised field that urgently needs industrial involvement. Another news report dated 30th July, 2025, of a day-long consultation held where representatives from civil society groups, campaigns, social movements, senior lawyers, retired judges, journalists, and lawmakers participated on the contentious and chilling effects of the Draft Rules that were notified in January this year. The organisers said in a press statement the DPDP Act may have a negative impact on the freedom of the press and people’s right to information and the activists, journalists, attorneys, political parties, groups and organisations “who collect, analyse, and disseminate critical information as they become ‘data fiduciaries’ under the law.” 

The DPDP Act has thus been caught up in an uncomfortable paradox: praised as a significant legislative achievement for India’s digital future, but caught in a transitional phase between enactment and enforcement, where every day not only postpones protection but also feeds worries about the dwindling amount of room for accountability and transparency. 

The Muzzling Effect: Diluting Whistleblower Protections

The DPDP framework raises a number of subtle but significant issues, one of which is the possibility that it would weaken safeguards for whistleblowers. Critics argue that the Act runs the risk of trapping journalists, activists, and public interest actors who handle sensitive material while exposing wrongdoing because it expands the definition of “personal data” and places strict compliance requirements on “data fiduciaries.”One of the most important checks on state overreach may be silenced if those who speak truth to power are subject to legal retaliation in the absence of clear exclusions of robust public-interest protections.

Noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan has criticised the law for failing to protect whistleblowers, warning that “If someone exposes corruption and names officials, they could now be prosecuted for violating the DPDP Act.”

Consent Management under the DPDP Act

In June 2025, the National e-Governance Division (NeGD) under MeitY released a Business Requirement Document (BRD) for developing consent management systems under the DPDP Act, 2023. The document supports the idea of “Consent Manager”, which acts as a single point of contact between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries. This idea is fundamental to the Act, which is now being operationalised with the help of MeitY’s “Code for Consent: The DPDP Innovation Challenge.” The government has established a collaborative ecosystem to construct consent management systems (CMS) that can serve as a single, standardised interface between Data Principals and Data Fiduciaries by choosing six distinct entities, such as Jio Platforms, IDfy, and Zoop. Such a framework could enable people to have meaningful control over their personal data, lessen consent fatigue, and move India’s consent architecture closer to international standards if it is implemented precisely and transparently. 

There is no debate to the importance of this development however, there are various concerns associated with this advancement that must be considered. Although effective, a centralised consent management system may end up being a single point of failure in terms of political overreach and technical cybersecurity flaws. Concerns are raised over the concentration of power over the framing, seeking, and recording of consent when big corporate entities like Jio are chosen as key innovators. Critics contend that the organisations responsible for generating revenue from user data should not be given the responsibility for designing the gatekeeping systems. Furthermore, the CMS can create opaque channels for data access, compromising user autonomy and whistleblower protections, in the absence of strong safeguards, transparency mechanisms and independent oversight. 

Conclusion

Despite being hailed as a turning point in India’s digital governance, the DPDP Act is still stuck in a delayed and unequal transition from promise to reality. Its goals are indisputable, but so are the conundrum it poses to accountability, openness, and civil liberties. Every delay increases public mistrust, and every safeguard that remains unsolved. The true test of a policy intended to safeguard the digital rights of millions lies not in how it was drafted, but in the integrity, pace, and transparency with which it is to be implemented. In the digital age, the true cost of delay is measured not in time, but in trust. CyberPeace calls for transparent, inclusive, and timely execution that balances innovation with the protection of digital rights.

References

• https://www.storyboard18.com/how-it-works/parliamentary-committee-raises-concern-with-meity-over-dpdp-act-implementation-lag-77105.htm 
• https://thewire.in/law/excessive-centralisation-of-power-lawyers-activists-journalists-mps-express-fear-on-dpdp-act
• https://www.medianama.com/2025/08/223-jio-idfy-meity-consent-management-systems-dpdpa/ ‍
• https://www.downtoearth.org.in/governance/centre-refuses-to-amend-dpdp-act-to-protect-journalists-whistleblowers-and-rti-activists

Introduction

The G7 nations, a group of the most powerful economies, have recently turned their attention to the critical issue of cybercrimes and (AI) Artificial Intelligence. G7 summit has provided an essential platform for discussing the threats and crimes occurring from AI and lack of cybersecurity. These nations have united to share their expertise, resources, diplomatic efforts and strategies to fight against cybercrimes. In this blog, we shall investigate the recent development and initiatives undertaken by G7 nations, exploring their joint efforts to combat cybercrime and navigate the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. We shall also explore the new and emerging trends in cybersecurity, providing insights into ongoing challenges and innovative approaches adopted by the G7 nations and the wider international community.

G7 Nations and AI

Each of these nations have launched cooperative efforts and measures to combat cybercrime successfully. They intend to increase their collective capacities in detecting, preventing, and responding to cyber assaults by exchanging intelligence, best practices, and experience. G7 nations are attempting to develop a strong cybersecurity architecture capable of countering increasingly complex cyber-attacks through information-sharing platforms, collaborative training programs, and joint exercises.

The G7 Summit provided an important forum for in-depth debates on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s transformational potential, the G7 nations have participated in extensive discussions to investigate its advantages and address the related concerns, guaranteeing responsible research and use. The nation also recognises the ethical, legal, and security considerations of deploying AI cybersecurity.

Worldwide Rise of Ransomware

High-profile ransomware attacks have drawn global attention, emphasising the need to combat this expanding threat. These attacks have harmed organisations of all sizes and industries, leading to data breaches, operational outages, and, in some circumstances, the loss of sensitive information. The implications of such assaults go beyond financial loss, frequently resulting in reputational harm, legal penalties, and service delays that affect consumers, clients, and the public. The increase in high-profile ransomware incidents has garnered attention worldwide, Cybercriminals have adopted a multi-faceted approach to ransomware attacks, combining techniques such as phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain Using spear-phishing, exploit kits, and supply chain hacks to obtain unauthorised access to networks and spread the ransomware. This degree of expertise and flexibility presents a substantial challenge to organisations attempting to protect against such attacks.

Focusing On AI and Upcoming Threats

During the G7 summit, one of the key topics for discussion on the role of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in shaping the future, Leaders and policymakers discuss the benefits and dangers of AI adoption in cybersecurity. Recognising AI’s revolutionary capacity, they investigate its potential to improve defence capabilities, predict future threats, and secure vital infrastructure. Furthermore, the G7 countries emphasise the necessity of international collaboration in reaping the advantages of AI while reducing the hazards. They recognise that cyber dangers transcend national borders and must be combated together. Collaboration in areas such as exchanging threat intelligence, developing shared standards, and promoting best practices is emphasised to boost global cybersecurity defences. The G7 conference hopes to set a global agenda that encourages responsible AI research and deployment by emphasising the role of AI in cybersecurity. The summit’s sessions present a path for maximising AI’s promise while tackling the problems and dangers connected with its implementation.

As the G7 countries traverse the complicated convergence of AI and cybersecurity, their emphasis on collaboration, responsible practices, and innovation lays the groundwork for international collaboration in confronting growing cyber threats. The G7 countries aspire to establish robust and secure digital environments that defend essential infrastructure, protect individuals’ privacy, and encourage trust in the digital sphere by collaboratively leveraging the potential of AI.

Promoting Responsible Al development and usage

The G7 conference will focus on developing frameworks that encourage ethical AI development. This includes fostering openness, accountability, and justice in AI systems. The emphasis is on eliminating biases in data and algorithms and ensuring that AI technologies are inclusive and do not perpetuate or magnify existing societal imbalances.

Furthermore, the G7 nations recognise the necessity of privacy protection in the context of AI. Because AI systems frequently rely on massive volumes of personal data, summit speakers emphasise the importance of stringent data privacy legislation and protections. Discussions centre around finding the correct balance between using data for AI innovation, respecting individuals’ privacy rights, and protecting data security. In addition to responsible development, the G7 meeting emphasises the importance of responsible AI use. Leaders emphasise the importance of transparent and responsible AI governance frameworks, which may include regulatory measures and standards to ensure AI technology’s ethical and legal application. The goal is to defend individuals’ rights, limit the potential exploitation of AI, and retain public trust in AI-driven solutions.

The G7 nations support collaboration among governments, businesses, academia, and civil society to foster responsible AI development and use. They stress the significance of sharing best practices, exchanging information, and developing international standards to promote ethical AI concepts and responsible practices across boundaries. The G7 nations hope to build the global AI environment in a way that prioritises human values, protects individual rights, and develops trust in AI technology by fostering responsible AI development and usage. They work together to guarantee that AI is a force for a good while reducing risks and resolving social issues related to its implementation.

Challenges on the way

During the summit, the nations, while the G7 countries are committed to combating cybercrime and developing responsible AI development, they confront several hurdles in their efforts. Some of them are:

A Rapidly Changing Cyber Threat Environment: Cybercriminals’ strategies and methods are always developing, as is the nature of cyber threats. The G7 countries must keep up with new threats and ensure their cybersecurity safeguards remain effective and adaptable.

Cross-Border Coordination: Cybercrime knows no borders, and successful cybersecurity necessitates international collaboration. On the other hand, coordinating activities among nations with various legal structures, regulatory environments, and agendas can be difficult. Harmonising rules, exchanging information, and developing confidence across states are crucial for effective collaboration.

Talent Shortage and Skills Gap: The field of cybersecurity and AI knowledge necessitates highly qualified personnel. However, skilled individuals in these fields need more supply. The G7 nations must attract and nurture people, provide training programs, and support research and innovation to narrow the skills gap.

Keeping Up with Technological Advancements: Technology changes at a rapid rate, and cyber-attacks become more complex. The G7 nations must ensure that their laws, legislation, and cybersecurity plans stay relevant and adaptive to keep up with future technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and IoT, which may both empower and challenge cybersecurity efforts.

Conclusion

To combat cyber threats effectively, support responsible AI development, and establish a robust cybersecurity ecosystem, the G7 nations must constantly analyse and adjust their strategy. By aggressively tackling these concerns, the G7 nations can improve their collective cybersecurity capabilities and defend their citizens’ and global stakeholders’ digital infrastructure and interests.