#FactCheck: False Claim About Indian Flag Hoisted in Balochistan amid the success of Operation Sindoor

Introduction

The ongoing debate on whether AI scaling has hit a wall has been rehashed by the underwhelming response to OpenAI’s ChatGPT v5. AI scaling laws, which describe that machine learning models perform better with increased training data, model parameters and computational resources, have guided the rapid progress of Large Language Models (LLMs) so far. But many AI researchers suggest that further improvements in LLMs will have to be effected through large computational costs by orders of magnitude, which does not justify the returns.  The question, then, is whether scaling remains a viable path or whether the field must explore new approaches. This is not just a tech issue but a profound innovation challenge for countries like India, charting their own AI course. 

‍

The Scaling Wall: Gaps and Innovation Opportunities

Escalating costs, data scarcity, and diminishing gains mean that simply building larger AI models may no longer guarantee breakthroughs. In such a scenario, LLM developers will have to refine new approaches to training these models, for example, by diversifying data types and redefining training techniques.  

This global challenge has a bearing on India’s AI ambitions. For India, where compute and data resources are relatively scarce, this scaling slowdown poses both a challenge and an opportunity. While the India AI Mission embodies smart priorities such as democratising compute resources and developing local datasets, looming scaling challenges could prove a roadblock.  Realising these ambitions requires strong input from research and academia, and improved coordination between policymakers and startups. The scaling wall highlights systemic innovation gaps where sustained support is needed, not only in hardware but also in talent development, safety research, and efficient model design.

‍

Way Forward

To truly harness AI’s transformative power, India must prioritise policy actions and ecosystem shifts that support smarter, safer, and context-rich research through the following measures: 

• Driving Efficiency and Compute Innovation: Instead of relying on brute-force scaling, India should invest in research and startups working on efficient architectures, energy-conscious training methods, and compute optimisation.
• Investing in Multimodal and Diverse Data: While indigenous datasets are being developed under the India AI Mission through AI Kosha, they must be ethically sourced from speech, images, video, sensor data, and regional content, apart from text, to enable context-rich AI models truly tailored to Indian needs. 
• Addressing Core Problems for Trustworthy AI:  LLMs offered by all major companies, like OpenAI, Grok, and Deepseek, have the problem of unreliability, hallucinations, and biases, since they are primarily built on scaling large datasets and parameters, which have inherent limitations. India should invest in capabilities to solve these issues and design more trustworthy LLMs.
• Supporting Talent Development and Training: Despite its substantial AI talent pool, India faces an impending demand-supply gap. It will need to launch national programs and incentives to upskill engineers, researchers, and students in advanced AI skills such as model efficiency, safety, interpretability, and new training paradigms

Conclusion

The AI scaling wall debate is a reminder that the future of LLMs will depend not on ever-larger models but on smarter, safer, and more sustainable innovation. A new generation of AI is approaching us, and India can help shape its future. The country’s AI Mission and startup ecosystem are well-positioned to lead this shift by focusing on localised needs, efficient technologies, and inclusive growth, if implemented effectively. How India approaches this new set of challenges and translates its ambitions into action, however, remains to be seen.

‍

References

• https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/ai-scaling-laws/
• https://www.marketingaiinstitute.com/blog/scaling-laws-ai-wall 
• https://fortune.com/2025/02/19/generative-ai-scaling-agi-deep-learning/ 
• https://indiaai.gov.in/ 
• https://www.deloitte.com/in/en/about/press-room/bridging-the-ai-talent-gap-to-boost-indias-tech-and-economic-impact-deloitte-nasscom-report.html 

‍

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 Data Security Council of India’s India Cyber Threat Report 2025 calculates that a staggering 702 potential attacks happened per minute on average in the country in 2024.  Recent alleged data breaches on organisations such as Star Health, WazirX, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), BSNL, etc. highlight the vulnerabilities of government organisations, critical industries, businesses, and individuals in managing their digital assets. India is the second most targeted country for cyber attacks globally, which warrants the development and adoption of cybersecurity governance frameworks essential for the structured management of cyber environments. The following global models offer valuable insights and lessons that can help strengthen cybersecurity governance.

Overview of Global Cybersecurity Governance Models 

Cybersecurity governance frameworks provide a structured strategy to mitigate and address cyber threats. Different regions have developed their own governance models for cybersecurity, but they all emphasize risk management, compliance, and cross-sector collaboration for the protection of digital assets. Four such major models are: 

1. NIST CSF 2.0 (U.S.A): The National Institute of Standards and Technology Cyber Security Framework provides a flexible, voluntary, risk-based approach rather than a one-size-fits-all solution to manage cybersecurity risks. It endorses six core functions, which are:  Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. This is a widely adopted framework used by both public and private sector organizations even outside the U.S.A. 
2. ISO/IEC 27001: This is a globally recognized standard developed jointly by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). It provides a risk-based approach to help organizations of all sizes and types to identify, assess, and mitigate potential cybersecurity threats to Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) and preserve the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information.  Organizations can seek ISO 27001 certification to demonstrate compliance with laws and regulations.
3. EU NIS2 Directive: The Network and Information Security Directive 2 (NIS2) is an updated EU cybersecurity law that imposes strict obligations on critical services providers in four overarching areas: risk management, corporate accountability, reporting obligations, and business continuity. It is the most comprehensive cybersecurity directive in the EU to date, and non-compliance may attract non-monetary remedies, administrative fines up to at least €10 million or 2% of the global annual revenue (whichever is higher), or even criminal sanctions for top managers. 
4. GDPR: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)of the EU is a comprehensive data privacy law that also has major cybersecurity implications. It mandates that organizations must integrate cybersecurity into their data protection policies and report breaches within 72 hours, and it prescribes a fine of up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover for non-compliance. 

India’s Cybersecurity Governance Landscape 

In light of the growing nature of cyber threats, it is notable that the Indian government has taken comprehensive measures along with efforts by relevant agencies such as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Reserve Bank of India (RBI), National Payments Corporation (NPCI) and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), CERT-In. However, there is still a lack of an overarching cybersecurity governance framework or comprehensive law in this area. Multiple regulatory bodies in India oversee cybersecurity for various sectors. Key mechanisms are: 

1. CERT-In Guidelines: The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), is the nodal agency responsible for cybersecurity incident response, threat intelligence sharing, and capacity building. Organizations are mandated to maintain logs for 180 days and report cyber incidents to CERT-In within six hours of noticing them according to directions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
2. IT Act & DPDP Act: These Acts, along with their associated rules, lay down the legal framework for the protection of ICT systems in India.  While some sections mandate that “reasonable” cybersecurity standards be followed, specifics are left to the discretion of the organisations. Enforcement frameworks are vague, which leaves sectoral regulators to fill the gaps. 
3. Sectoral regulations: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), the Department of Telecommunications, the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) and other regulatory bodies require that cybersecurity standards be maintained by their regulated entities. 

Lessons for India & Way Forward 

As the world faces unprecedented security and privacy threats to its digital ecosystem, the need for more comprehensive cybersecurity policies, awareness, and capacity building has perhaps never been greater. While cybersecurity practices may vary with the size, nature, and complexity of an organization (hence “reasonableness” informing measures taken), there is a need for a centralized governance framework in India similar to NIST2 to unify sectoral requirements for simplified compliance and improve enforcement. India ranks 10th on the World Cybercrime Index and was found to be "specialising" in scams and mid-tech crimes- those which affect mid-range businesses and individuals the most. To protect them, India needs to strengthen its enforcement mechanisms across more than just the critical sectors. This can be explored by penalizing bigger organizations handling user data susceptible to breaches more stringently, creating an enabling environment for strong cybersecurity practices through incentives for MSMEs, and investing in cybersecurity workforce training and capacity building. Finally,  there is a scope for increased public-private collaboration for real-time cyber intelligence sharing.  Thus, a unified, risk-based national cybersecurity governance framework encompassing the current multi-pronged cybersecurity landscape would give direction to siloed efforts. It would help standardize best practices, streamline compliance, and strengthen overall cybersecurity resilience across all sectors in India.
‍

References

• https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/635e632477408d12d1811a64/676e56ee4cc30a320aecf231_Cloudsek%20Annual%20Threat%20Landscape%20Report%202024%20(1).pdf 
• https://strobes.co/blog/top-data-breaches-in-2024-month-wise/#:~:text=In%20a%20large%2Dscale%20data,emails%2C%20and%20even%20identity%20theft. 
• https://www.google.com/search?q=nist+2.0&oq=nist+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggBEEUYOzIHCAAQABiPAjIGCAEQRRg7MgYIAhBFGDsyCggDEAAYsQMYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBwgFEAAYgAQyBwgGEAAYgAQyBggHEEUYPNIBCDE2MTJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 
• https://www.iso.org/standard/27001
• https://nis2directive.eu/nis2-requirements/ 
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/india-ranks-number-10-in-cybercrime-study-finds/articleshow/109223208.cms?from=mdr 

‍