#FactCheck-Protest Video from Nagrota Falsely Linked to Opposition Against Indian Army

Introduction

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an advisory on March 1 2024, urging platforms to prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity by using AI, generative AI, LLMs, or other algorithms. The advisory requires that AI models deemed unreliable or under-tested in India must obtain explicit government permission before deployment. While leveraging Artificial Intelligence models, Generative AI, software, or algorithms in their computer resources, Intermediaries and platforms need to ensure that they prevent bias, discrimination, and threats to electoral integrity. As Intermediaries are required to follow due diligence obligations outlined under “Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)Rules, 2021, updated as of 06.04.2023”. This advisory is issued to urge the intermediaries to abide by the IT rules and regulations and compliance therein.  

Key Highlights of the Advisories

• Intermediaries and platforms must ensure that users of Artificial Intelligence models/LLM/Generative AI, software, or algorithms do not allow users to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share unlawful content, as per Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules. 
• The government emphasises intermediaries and platforms to prevent bias or discrimination in their use of Artificial Intelligence models, LLMs, and Generative AI, software, or algorithms, ensuring they do not threaten the integrity of the electoral process.
• The government requires explicit permission to use deemed under-testing or unreliable AI models, LLMs, or algorithms on the Indian internet. Further, it must be deployed with proper labelling of potential fallibility or unreliability.  Further, users can be informed through a consent popup mechanism.
• The advisory specifies that all users should be well informed about the consequences of dealing with unlawful information on platforms, including disabling access, removing non-compliant information, suspension or termination of access or usage rights of the user to their user account and imposing punishment under applicable law. It entails that users are clearly informed, through terms of services and user agreements, about the consequences of engaging with unlawful information on the platform. 
• The advisory also indicates measures advocating to combat deepfakes or misinformation. The advisory necessitates identifying synthetically created content across various formats, advising platforms to employ labels, unique identifiers, or metadata to ensure transparency. Furthermore, the advisory mandates the disclosure of software details and tracing the first originator of such synthetically created content.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Union Minister of State for IT, specified that

“Advisory is aimed at the Significant platforms, and permission seeking from Meity is only for large platforms and will not apply to startups. Advisory is aimed at untested AI platforms from deploying on the Indian Internet. Process of seeking permission , labelling & consent based disclosure to user about untested platforms is insurance policy to platforms who can otherwise be sued by consumers. Safety & Trust of India's Internet is a shared and common goal for Govt, users and Platforms.”

Conclusion

MeitY's advisory sets the stage for a more regulated Al landscape. The Indian government requires explicit permission for the deployment of under-testing or unreliable Artificial Intelligence models on the Indian Internet. Alongside intermediaries, the advisory also applies to digital platforms that incorporate Al elements. Advisory is aimed at significant platforms and will not apply to startups. This move safeguards users and fosters innovation by promoting responsible AI practices, paving the way for a more secure and inclusive digital environment.

References 

• https://regmedia.co.uk/2024/03/04/meity_ai_advisory_1_march.pdf
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/govts-ai-advisory-will-not-apply-to-startups-mos-it-rajeev-chandrasekhar/articleshow/108197797.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Advisory%2015March%202024.pdf

‍

Introduction
‍

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and applications in companies has been largely presented as a groundbreaking development for enterprises. The potential for increased productivity and efficiently scaled companies eliminates repetitive tasks and builds a narrative that practically writes itself for executives. What has largely been ignored, however, is its effect on its users- the employees.  Evidence from across the United States, United Kingdom, and continental Europe indicates an increase in psychological disengagement from work, along with an increase in the number of people who are actively sabotaging the very systems that companies have invested millions of dollars to implement, as a direct result of being forced to work with AI. 

‍

The Backdrop: Quiet Quitting
‍

Quiet quitting is a form of employee disengagement  wherein workers meet only the basic expectations of their job without. Gallup puts global employee engagement at just 21%. State of the Global Workplace 2026 report which analysed employee well-being across 160 countries reports that in India,  employee and manager engagement has declined. Around 62% of workers describe themselves as not engaged, and another 17% are actively disengaged — not just drifting, but potentially pulling in the opposite direction. What does this mean for productivity? Gallup estimates this costs the global economy roughly $8.9 trillion in lost productivity each year, around 9% of world GDP. This is the workplace AI has entered into. 

‍

How AI Is Changing the Nature of Work

‍

The promise was simpler work but employees report that the reality is often more of it. AI raises output expectations without necessarily reducing effort. Workers now lose the equivalent of 51 working days per year to technology friction, nearly two full months up 42% from 2025. Poorly integrated systems force employees to spend hours troubleshooting or correcting AI-generated outputs, adding cognitive load rather than removing it. Focus efficiency dropped to a three-year low of 60%, as collaboration time surged 34% and multitasking climbed 12%. AI is not eliminating work. It is transforming it into something more demanding and more fragmented. The psychological dimension is equally documented. TalentLMS research found that 54% of employees report persistent workplace unhappiness, with one in five experiencing it frequently or constantly. 29% report unmanageable workloads during this transition, and 15% do not clearly understand their role expectations in an AI-transformed workplace. When workers cannot see where they fit, withdrawal is a rational response.

Then there is the fear. IBM announced it would not replace roughly 7,800 back-office positions that could be handled by AI, framing it as natural attrition. Klarna said its AI assistant was doing the work of 700 full-time customer service agents. Dropbox laid off 16% of its workforce, with its CEO explicitly citing the need to “make room for AI.” AI was the leading cause of job cuts in March 2026  the first time that has happened since tracking began. 

‍

The Causal Link: AI Anxiety to Quiet Quitting
‍

A peer-reviewed study published in March 2025 establishes the causal mechanism between forced AI adoption and employee disengagement. Conducted across 457 employees in Turkish SMEs, it found that AI anxiety does not directly compel people to resign. Instead, it triggers quiet quitting a form of progressive disengagement that functions as a precursor to departure. Drawing on Withdrawal Progression Theory, the study frames quiet quitting as a preliminary stage of turnover intention, where withdrawal progresses from mild detachment toward eventual exit. The integrated causal chain runs as follows: forced AI adoption creates work intensification and job anxiety, which produce burnout and loss of autonomy, which trigger psychological withdrawal, which precedes turnover. DHR Global’s Workforce Trends Report for 2026 found that overall employee engagement dropped from 88% to 64% in a single year. Crucially, 69% of C-suite leaders say their company has communicated clearly about AI’s impact on jobs but only 12% of entry-level staff agree. When the people most exposed to displacement are also the least informed about what is happening to their roles, disengagement is not a mystery. It is a response to a vacuum of information.

‍

From Disengagement to Active Withdrawal
‍

Quiet quitting is then a natural response. But what has emerged alongside it is something more active, and it is where the disengagement crisis tips into something organisations are unprepared for. The Writer and Workplace Intelligence survey of 2,400 knowledge workers found that 29% of employees admit to willfully withdrawing from their company’s AI strategy. Among Gen Z workers, that figure jumps to 44%. Active withdrawal takes several forms: entering proprietary data into public AI chatbots, using unapproved tools, outright refusing to engage with mandated platforms, and in some cases deliberately generating low-quality outputs to make the technology look ineffective. For Gen Z, the resistance has a structural logic. Junior roles in finance, law, and tech the traditional “learning by doing” rungs of the career ladder have declined by 32% since 2022. For a 22-year-old, AI is not a tool; it is a competitor that has already taken their first job. Workers who resist AI out of fear for their jobs are making themselves more vulnerable to the outcome they dread. 77% of executives say employees who refuse to become proficient in AI will not be considered for promotions or leadership roles, and 60% are considering cutting those who refuse to adopt it entirely.

Meanwhile, 75% of executives admit their company’s AI strategy is “more for show” than a meaningful guide to outcomes. Only 29% report significant ROI from generative AI, despite 97% claiming to have already deployed agents across their organisation. 39% of business leaders admit they made employees redundant as a result of deploying AI of whom 55% concede they made the wrong decisions about those redundancies. Organisations are moving fast, getting it wrong, and the cost is being absorbed by the workforce.

‍

Conclusion
‍

AI is not directly causing quiet quitting. However, AI is changing how we view working relationships; it will continue to result in predictable outcomes of poor execution of AI (i.e. passive to active disengagement) and radically change the way that we work, primarily by creating an increase in job demands, reducing autonomy, and  raising worker anxiety without providing any transparency about future AI technology use.  If AI continues to create a challenging work environment, it may lead to increased psychological detachment from work and ultimately result in productivity losses, possibly canceling out the very gains expected from AI integration. This globally rising disengagement from AI tools begets the question: is technology being deployed responsibly? 

‍

References 
‍

1. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx 
2. https://www.walkme.com/news-releases/enterprises-lose-51-workdays-per-employee-to-technology-friction-annually-despite-record-ai-investment-walkme-global-study-of-3750-finds/.  
3. https://www.activtrak.com/resources/state-of-the-workplace/ 
4. https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/employee-retention/quiet-cracking/ 
5. https://www.webpronews.com/the-quiet-revolt-gen-z-workers-are-deliberately-undermining-ai-deployments-from-the-inside/ 
6. https://www.uctoday.com/productivity-automation/44-of-gen-z-workers-are-sabotaging-your-enterprise-ai-rollout-the-problem-isnt-gen-z/ 
7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11939379/ 
8. https://huntscanlon.com/workforce-trends-2026-leaders-confront-burnout-disengagement-and-ai-driven-change/ 
9. https://fortune.com/2026/04/08/gen-z-workers-sabotage-ai-rollout-backlash/  
10. https://peoplemanagingpeople.com/employee-retention/quiet-cracking/
11. https://www.hrgrapevine.com/us/content/article/2026-04-09-ai-adoption-is-tearing-companies-apart-says-new-report 
12. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/india-leads-in-workplace-disengagement-as-quiet-quitting-trend-rises-why-are-indians-mentally-checking-out-at-jobs/articleshow/130104773.cms?from=mdr 

‍

The concept of web accessibility (i.e., access to the internet) stems from the recognition of internet access as an inalienable right. In 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) General Assembly referred to the access to Internet as an essential human right. The Supreme Court of India also declared such internet access as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Various international instruments of which India is a signatory, such as the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) mandate access to information. The heavy reliance on the internet and websites necessitates making the web space inclusive, navigational and accessible to all individuals, including persons with disabilities.

Various laws mandate web accessibility:

• Right of Persons with Disability Act, 2016: The Right of Persons with Disability Act 2016 Is the primary document for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities to ensure their full participation. The Act provides several direct and indirect provisions (such as Section 2(y) “Reasonable Accommodation”, Section 40 on “Accessibility”, and Section 42 on “Access to Information and Communication Technology”) to ensure that technology products and services are accessible to a person with disabilities. 
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017: The 2017 rules under Rule 15 (2) task the respective Ministries and Departments to ensure compliance with accessibility standards.
• Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW): The GIGW provide a framework for websites to be designed in accordance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 standards. The GIGW enables websites to obtain certification by the Standardisation Testing and Quality Certification Directorate, after audit. 

Various other policies include;

• National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility, 2013: The National Policy ("Policy") on Electronic Accessibility recognizes the need to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disabilities and to facilitate equal access to Electronics & ICTs. The National Policy also recognizes the diversity of differently-abled persons and provides for their specific needs. The Policy covers accessibility requirements in the area of Electronics & ICT by different stakeholders. It recognizes the need to ensure that accessibility standards, guidelines and universal design concepts are adopted and adhered to.
• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG): The WCAG defines how to make web content more accessible to persons with disabilities. While adhering to these guidelines is optional, various versions of the WCAG have been issued. It operates on four principles; perceivable, operable, understandable and robust. It provides a path to ensuring compliance and demonstrating reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.

However, despite the laws, web accessibility remains a challenge. A vast majority of Indian websites, especially e-commerce entities and several government websites remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities and most often do not conform with international accessibility standards. A report by the Centre of Internet and Society states that out of the 7800 websites of the Government of India, 5815 had accessibility barriers and 1985 websites failed to open. The report also notes that more than half of the websites had no navigation markup and only 52 websites had the option to change colours. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITy), during the 258^th Session of the Rajya Sabha on 9 December 2022 noted that 95 websites of the Central Government have been made accessible to persons with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, only 45 websites of the Central Government have been certified as compliant under the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW). As of that date, certification of the remaining governmental websites remains incomplete due to the pandemic. Meity also stated that the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities in 2017 sanctioned a project to be implemented by ERNET India for making 917 websites of State and Union territories. Under the project, a total of 647 websites have been made accessible as of that date.

Conclusion 

While India has established a robust legal framework and policies emphasizing the importance of web accessibility as a fundamental right, the existing gap between legislation and effective implementation poses a significant challenge. The reported accessibility barriers on numerous government and e-commerce websites indicate a pressing need for heightened efforts in enforcing and enhancing accessibility standards. 

In addressing these challenges, continued collaboration between government agencies, private entities and advocacy groups can play a crucial role. Ongoing monitoring, regular audits and public awareness campaigns may contribute to improving accessibility for persons with disabilities to ensure an inclusive environment and compliance with fundamental laws.

References:

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2967-right-to-internet-and-fundamental-rights.html 
2. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf 
3. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Universal%20Electronics%281%29_0.pdf 
4. https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Universal%20Electronics%281%29_0.pdf 
5. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#:~:text=Web%20Content%20Accessibility%20Guidelines%20(WCAG)%202.1%20defines%20how%20to%20make,%2C%20learning%2C%20and%20neurological%20disabilities. 
6. https://www.boia.org/blog/india-digital-accessibility-laws-an-overview
7. https://cis-india.org/accessibility/accessibility-of-govt-websites.pdf/view 
8. https://sansad.in/rs/questions/questions-and-answers