 Thanks, thanks a lot, Ubhav and thanks everyone for joining us today and thanks to in particular to Ubhav and Zainab who helped me sort of shape this presentation because as y'all might have noticed it's slightly different from the other presentations that you have heard previously in NPTB and the excellent presentations that we'll follow as and it is not going to go into the weeds of the report or the implications from a domestic regulatory or legal perspective. Neither is it going to be a session where I unpack what the different approaches to regulating NPDR because both of these things will be covered in or either have been covered or will continue to be covered throughout this week. So what I'm going to try and do and I think this is important to do whenever we appreciate any regulatory policy or try and evaluate any regulatory policies just take a step back and evaluate the broader context and this includes both the domestic political context but also because of interdependence the geopolitical context within which this report came about and therefore what are the ways in which India with its own sets of strategic interests and priorities how can it use the report to benefit and already sort of gave a broad overview of the research question of the stock which is how can it India use this report to benefit prioritize a strategic interest which is of course protecting and promoting fundamental rights and citizen liberty but also of course ensuring that there is fair and free innovation and competition. Sometimes it's perhaps easier to not mix these two agendas up but I'll try and explain how in terms of shaping rules this in principle this instrument or this regulatory initiative is something that could play a role given the complex political landscape we are in today although there are various reasons for which in its present form version two doesn't really fit the bill in some senses. So in principle it's a great thing and therefore I want to explore it from a foreign policy perspective but we have to really look at what the report is trying to do and how it fits into this ecosystem right. So the next sorry I'm having some difficulty with my slide share let me try again. It appears to not be moving okay got it sorry about that yeah so as I said the scope of the talk is already done and what I wanted to before we go into the substance of the talk is why geopolitics and foreign policy is relevant to an area that has traditionally been about economic regulation and economic regulation technical feasibility the legal aspects that have been covered in the report foreign policy hasn't actually explicitly been mentioned in the report as a consideration but of course the buzzword of sovereignty has been put up in the beginning. So to do that we need to appreciate where the regulatory context within which this report came about this followed a series of reports so we had the in 2018 August of 2018 we had the Sri Krishna committee's report that set up the personal data protection bill if you recall the slogan or the title of that report it was constructing a free and fair digital economy for India right it was that was the title there was a the e-commerce policy the draft e-commerce policy which again had the slogan India's data for India's development and within these trends we had even outside of the policy making world there were several media releases where actors from all across the spectrum whether it is industry douens like Mukesh Ambani or a set of civil society actors who wanted to reclaim this notion of sovereignty from what was being called digital colonialism right so there was a slew of policies seeking to assert greater regulatory control to essentially take back what is supposedly rightfully India's digital economy from the evil extractive practices of large technology companies and all of this is I mean sounds great and this was the political context in which this emerged and this is not the I mentioned three policies that are so many others that is the node policy that came about earlier last year there was the DEPA the data empowerment and protection architecture and so many more and non-personal data is also of course considered in the present version that we know of the personal data protection bill so it was this ecosystem that sought to make a statement globally that India is not going to continue to be the victim of data colonialism and essentially assert a greater sovereign over the way it's digital economies govern and that is the context in which the version one of the report and version two of the report came about and it's important for us not to forget this political context because there was in incessant lobbying both formal and informal formal being where stakeholders go and directly speak to the government informal where there are media statements that again try to sell this this narrative of India needing to reclaim its economy from from extractive foreign companies back to the age of colonialism so to speak so this is the narrative around the report and it's important to keep that in mind right so the next just quickly I want to run through this and this is the parameters through which I'm actually evaluating this question this foreign policy question is what do we mean by digital sovereignty everyone here would have definitely heard heard this phrase um and it's it's very complex it's used in multiple different texts from when we pen Chinese dates to report to when we assert greater regulatory scrutiny over the transfer of data sovereignty is the buzzword but very simply it is for me based on understanding of traditional sovereignty it is three things uh so one is obviously regulating the certainness which is the ability to impose domestic regulations and shape global rules it is um strategic uh independence from global uh global uh technology companies and from transition states now independence is uh an interesting term right because very often even if you want to be independent global realities and the way in which your strategic interests are structured require you to work with others we live in an age of interdependence where no matter how independent you want to be there will have to be a little give and take and a little bit of alliance building that goes on so independence with that caveat and because of India's constitutional ethos and the way in which our society is designed to be governed one in two should not be imposed in a manner that benefits a set of industry stakeholders but it should benefit largely individuals and champion fundamental rights while prioritizing innovation and competitiveness competitiveness so that Indian citizens benefit so Indian citizens are very much at the core of any regulatory scheme and they should be at the core of India's digital sovereignty approach as as well right so that's that now a little bit of very quick IR theory and I'm going to try and spend as less time on this as possible just to set the stage for the global landscape basically Finmore and Sikink who are two I mean they are like the I don't know like uh the the some of the rock there were two rock stars of the IR community back in the 1990s so um they basically came up with this theory of understanding how norms evolve evolve in the global uh domain and I'm going to try and explain this and make it not too boring by not using a tech example but by using an example that we are all familiar with which is war um so generally now if I ask you do you think war is a good thing or do you think nations should resolve resort to war because they feel like it your answer would be obviously not you're asking me a crazy question right but interestingly enough till about 90 till about a hundred years back in the 1920s that was how global politics was structured war was actually okay as long as you were writing or wrong I mean before 1600 you could go to war for anything in the 17th century shifted to where you could only go to war if you were writing a wrong but there were no restrictions and then only after world war two did a norm emerge where a certain set of actors basically again there is a commercial interest there a set of banking lawyers who felt that their economic interests were getting harmed by by world war one who decided that this is not a normal state of being and then there was they took it to um global fora there was basically where the could say that there is a little bit of disruption of this cycle which is the fourth phase that's not in this diagram where you actually have a new kind of war coming in right where without actually raising military weapons you could undertake cross-border cyber attacks that may or may not come in within the traditional understanding of war and that is what is is leading to um a recon an necessary reconfiguration of where we are at today so this is the norm cycle explained to the lens of war same norm cycle um let's uh talk about the data governance uh landscape that has led us to where we are today right so historically since a digital economy came about it was a very clear status quo right where essentially there was a tussle between the us like hands-off approach that said that there should be free flow of data across borders little to no regulatory intervention and companies no matter how big they got should drive the market the largely till about five years back the EU also opted into this approach they believe that the best way for the digital economy to proliferate is for governments to exercise as few regulatory hurdles as possible a number of countries emerging economies including India actually resisted this this approach and didn't actually agree with it at international fora but because of the muscle the sheer financial muscle and regulatory cloud that the US had throughout the 1990s 2000s there were very few countries that actually chose to oppose status quo with China sort of being a bit of an bit of an exception right because they did assert fast stronger regulatory controls this all changed around 20 sort of maybe five years back towards the middle of the next decade where there was a tipping point largely because there was a split in how the US and the EU saw this debate the EU because of civil society pressure actually wanted to exercise greater regulatory scrutiny on on big technology companies there was the famous 2016 judgment of the european court of justice the shrems case that had a reprieve recently as well which said that the US does not protect in privacy enough and so you had this bit of a tipping point and then there is a new norm you could say that's emerging because the old norm is getting disrupted where emerging economies you are all looking to exercise greater regulatory scrutiny example of that obviously is the non-personal data report on the policies that I mentioned but if you look at in the annex of the report there are various other examples given right Japan is looking to exercise greater scrutiny the Netherlands is looking to exercise greater scrutiny of course the EU is in itself taking on all of Europe approach to data sovereignty so really it is we are in a phase where we are moving from norm emergence to norm cascade where the exact contours of this regulatory scrutiny the exact contours of how data must be shared is actually being debated at the at the global global element therefore we are now really at a tipping point which is emerged because of the split between US and the EU and also I suppose the recognition among regulators in the west that unregulated big tech can cause harm to citizens and India has recognized that as well so therefore this is the very long setup to the context we are in today right again as quickly as possible so the WTO again there was a split like I mentioned where in 1998 there was some agreement among again the developed world that there needed to be regulation on e-commerce and they started what was a work program on thinking of how restriction e-commerce so basically they wanted to eliminate any domestic regulation of e-commerce that would harm the global global free flow of services and there was basically the similar kind of blocks where India was ours to their ability to regulate e-commerce that was the setting up of the of the work program therefore was a bit of a compromise because what the developing world which India was of course you could say a flag bearer and leader of got the fact that any discussion on e-commerce would happen at the general council of the WTO now why is this body important is because it operates on consensus not on majority voting but on consensus so it means that if any measure needs to get passed which restricts the ability of a country to regulate then you need to get all the members of WTO on board so while there were no clear rules on e-commerce the developing countries got their bit where they said that any future negotiations have to happen at the general council and till everyone agrees there will be no rules no trade obligations as such what the developed world got on the other hand was a moratorium on customs duty so custom duty is one kind of regulatory restriction that we come about and they said that there will be no customs duties at all and India and South Africa repeatedly there have been a major player the WTO would have seen in the news that with respect to the COVID vaccine waiver also they've been sort of up in arms about some of the actions of the other countries and they said that this continued imposition of no customs duties is harming our economy so there has been this long-standing debate at the WTO in 2017 it sort of split up where the developed world said we can't handle this consensus system where we are getting blocked all the time so therefore they basically said that we won't we will create a separate parallel track outside of the general council so there's no need for a consensus it's called the joint statement initiative and that led to the famous 2019 Osaka track which I which has been in the news for a for some time at the G20 meeting in June of 2019 where certain countries said that we will commit to creating rules on data governance and India notably opposed that so throughout this process India has been opposing the limitation of its right to regulate and why because it wants to have regulatory space to come up with the non-personal data report the question really is are we actually shaping it in a manner that is benefiting us right so again if you object to things which I think has been a fair thing to do in line with India's strategic interests the question is can you then utilize whatever regulation you have to shape it in a manner that benefits the criteria of sovereignty as spoke about earlier interestingly enough there has been some discussion on whether the NPD report violates any international trade law so to speak that exists it actually does not because the two major obligations in trade law very simply put is basically that you shouldn't discriminate against companies from outside so the companies within India and the companies outside of India should be subjected to the same regulations which the report does and you shouldn't there shouldn't be I mean the most there shouldn't be sort of sops given or preferences given to one country over the other unless overall the trading regime is benefiting so really it's not really violating any international obligations that India has further there are actually no rules on data so you could argue that okay even if there are no rules on data there are traditional obligations India is violating through this NPD report that I can strongly say that there isn't actually any obligation they're violating but there are obviously concerns right so I'll go through this relatively quickly so when we evaluate the NPD report for its the possible role it can play in foreign policy the one thing that sticks out is the sovereign purpose rule for sharing data the problem with it is not so much what additional obligations the sovereign purpose rule brings about for companies or how it harms individual privacy more technically the committee has said that we will not do anything because there are already rules that regulate that but what we have is actually one of the most draconian surveillance regimes in the world and it is in terms of how well the privacy of one's own citizens are protected it's actually worse than the U.S. which has got its fair set of flag so by mentioning the sovereign purpose devoting a paragraph to it and then saying that we will not comment on it because obligations already exist what's happening essentially is norm entrenchment right where you are normalizing something that should be recognized as hugely problematic so this use of sovereign purpose and we should recognize the kinds of problems that the surveillance regime has brought about from a foreign policy perspective it has prevented us from getting several agreements into place executive arrangements under various that the cloud act one could argue that the surveillance regime is one of the reasons for it it is definitely violating the standards that the GDPR and and the the european convention on human rights is laid down so it is it is a problem because if you want to have access to data and you want to be perceived as a responsible data governance power you cannot continue to assume that this access to data for sovereign purpose is is is more than enough right so yeah so Bhava has told told me that I have three four minutes more which is perfect so the two quick compliance compliance issues one is cross border flows and again there's something that hasn't been been spoken about enough um let's understand what the data sharing mandate is right it basically says that any non-personal data uh with of course I mean there are the public code in the high value data set but basically it is data set that may not necessarily be stored in India because as per now the regulatory scheme of the personal data protection bill only applies to sensitive personal data and anything that the government notifies as critical data so it's very possible that the kind of data sharing regime that this report calls for will actually have data stored in other countries so you'll actually have to comply with the laws of the other country which may or may not have the same uh data sharing mandates that we have right so because we are in a very early stage it's important to ensure that we harmonize so that we don't aren't in a position where there is a conflict of laws where a company that's supposed to comply with something under this regulation whenever it does become a regulation uh while also trying to compete with the regulators of another country and I think the cross border data flows is an issue that needs to be looked at um and because all of the data may not necessarily be stored in India the second and this was actually something Bhava was discussing with me is that very often data from uh that a company inferred data that a company gets is often like like a supply chain is often inferred from uh citizens of various parts of the world right so when it is de-anonymized unless you actually have harmonious uh so uh uh hormone sorry when it is anonymized when unless you have a harmonious regulatory regime you actually have a problem where India has one data sharing regime so you have to ensure that you comply with whatever public board and all the regulatory questions here but you have um the EU and the US having very different regimes right so while there is a norm cascade there isn't important to work with allies to actually ensure uh coalition um this and therefore recognize the interdependence that countries have on one another the final point I actually go into my final slide is that point four here is that because we are so far early into this stage right no other country except for the EU has even thought about regulating data in or regulating data sharing specifically in this way they've thought of regulating data it's going to be a process that takes a fair amount of time so is it my fourth point here is it now should we already be setting up mandates whether it is you know the version two has a far less onerous mandate than version one but is it already time to be setting up mandates three very quick suggestions on how the the government should play this um one is work across institutions historically if you look at any successful regime that India shaped climate change tobacco control nuclear weapons test ban it has always been because institutions are aligned and institutions work with one another to get the best expertise capacity out also the best regimes come when there is consultation with civil society so these kind of events uh the kind of event that has geek is organized is very very important um as I said clarify sovereign purpose that that makes uh I mean very little sense if you if you're not a big fan of civil liberties that's fine but it doesn't make sense from a pure foreign policy perspective either and be very clear about the advantages of shaping the route because in some senses India you could argue is a norm shaper and India is driving norm emergence but there are clear costs of being excluded where if the regime is not harmonized with um or other countries don't come on board then there is always a possibility of uh costs economic or otherwise that India may impose and that is a challenge in terms of its of its foreign policy none of this thinking at least explicitly is in the reports this is all stuff that sort of I am drawing from it but I do hope that the government and the writers of the report consider these uh questions because it does offer an opportunity but if not uh done properly uh offers a number of costs as well with that sorry for exceeding time I'll yield back to you thank you thank you so much Arindu that was a I think a very fantastic overview of like the framework in which um international diplomacy is grappling with the idea of data governance in a manner that maintains interoperability I think in particular it was very very interesting to see how the various sort of mandates that this report has taken upon itself one why it's never explicitly mentioned like you said uh is is of sort of trying to create India's position on the international arena for how it should govern uh and answer many of these questions of data but um we have seen like both since uh july august of last year as well as when the second version of the report came out later in December there have been many members of the committee of experts that have drafted this report that have again and again said that this is India's attempt to frame a conversation globally for the first time and is and very clearly pointed towards its that sort of diplomatic angle that this report is expected to play to sort of not to build internal consensus in India but also to galvanize other countries around the world towards this topic um and I think I'm going to use like some of that setting context because uh in in the conversation that we were having on you today about this uh session Tarnama had brought up the fact that this report seems to be like a one ring or a slash bill to rule them all and and covers so many vast areas in one go that it may not necessarily end up doing a good job of all of them at the same time so Tarnama I would like sort of welcome you to come in provide your thoughts both to what Vasu has said as well as otherwise uh on this area okay uh thanks Sudhav and also thanks for that was a fantastic overview I learned a lot from that historical trajectory as well so I think you know one thing you mentioned digital sovereignty and I think one thing I always think is that data sovereignty is not the goal right like it is a means to the end of digital sovereignty and when you think of the the value chain there are so many different aspects um of let's say a data business right and um even if let's say some uh a certain country specifically if we're thinking of the countries that participated in the Osaka track if they are emphasizing on data that's that's because that is where the bottleneck for them is in terms of um sort of economic growth within the data industry right but that's not necessarily where India's bottleneck is right in terms of in terms of the industry and so uh when we're thinking about sort of we're emphasizing so much on data without really considering all the other aspects of the industry that required us to be uh in some ways independent or self-reliant right and the question is can we be self-reliant in those in those areas and if we can't and this is what I didn't see what you were saying is that uh that there is like strategic independence because there is interdependence right and so when we when we look at data exclusively right we should also understand that eventually there is there are going to be implications and negotiations on other aspects of the of the industry when uh what we are arguing for in terms of uh data does not match what they actually expect right so so our dependence on hardware we are dependent on america we're dependent on east asian countries for a lot of the hardware for a lot of hardware needs right and so uh I do think that it's it's um that's also somewhat like the challenge looking at specifically data which is also in some ways the most tricky aspect to intervene because that's where digital like your your sort of national sovereignty actually uh can contradict bodily sovereignty right and so in some ways we're picking like the the hardest avenue to intervene and um asserting that as the only means of digital sovereignty so I do think that I mean again you you've mentioned all the different ways in which um you know we are we are like proposing and we want to be the norm center and I do think that uh any proposal has to be um implementable right like it has to be something that that is feasible right and for it to be and I think it's it's good for us to actually uh state our interests but I think it also has to be um it has to be feasible for for it to be considered fairly seriously right and so if um sort of looping back to the question of like the different interdependencies if today we are very particular about data sovereignty and um one of the things that you know uh Anindrijith you were mentioning that how does that even work when a lot of these data sets are hosted outside the country so if that is the case uh I guess one of the responses would be to let's say do you know uh do like data storage do sort of npd with like localization which is again another like uh sort of consistent refrain in the policy discourse for the last two three years um but what does that mean in terms of like local industry development when um an aws only provides certain kind of services you know in the us but does not provide certain processing capabilities in India right um and so again I the the point being that there is all these this um you know there are all these other various factors that are needed for that for the for the growth of the industry and we're actually going to possibly um focusing specifically on data and sovereignty there um yeah like impede or sort of uh strike a goal against our broader broader vision uh so I'm gonna pause at that um I'm not actually I wasn't sure how long I was supposed to speak but I'm gonna pause at that yeah so thanks Armanu we can always come like if there are other points you want to cover we can always like come back to them uh Shashanta I mean like from your uh like sort of vantage point within Umedyar where you you have an ability to see not only at a lot of the sort of work that civil society is doing in India but also in the industry side in terms of investment startup then like those perspectives um from a global interoperability perspective and and the vision that an Indian startup or a player may have to be a global player in a particular field and their perception of this entire sort of non-personal data reports but even independently how India's considering it the governance is uh I'm sure something that you have talked in opinions about so over to you uh for maybe the next three to four minutes me thank you for that fantastic overview and thank you Tarunima for your thoughts before we began I was telling you how this particular perspective or approach is quite unique from what I'm regularly used to which is more an in-depth detailed dissection of the entire report versus looking at you know the more the sovereignty and the international norm setting perspective of the data governance discussion it's quite fascinating and I'm happy to be here thank you to Hasgeek for inviting me um so I just wanted to begin with a small event that I was part of in fact organized which was around uh and this is hard to communicate but around rethinking the data paradigm as to reimagining our relationship with data and few things that struck out for me and this was a global conversation including US, EU and of course some uh some of our members of the committee as well from India and some things that stood out was in terms of and we're trying to use the framework that or I'm trying to use the framework that Auranguji spoke about which is norms emergence cascade and then internalization so I think we are in the phase of norms emergence where India is playing a role and it's kind of walking shoulder to shoulder with the global discourse and there reasons for that I think some of the norms that we saw getting shaped uh one was on you know this distinction about you know data is an IP and property and copyright of the collector down to almost like an internalization internalization of thinking about the rights and civil liberties of associated with personal data the second is uh data was uh data was uh is uh at least known to be intricately linked to an individual and therefore is is known as individuals data data about an individual and there there's an increasing recognition that there's a relational nature to data uh data about me can tell you about Auranguji best to where he was uh where he was in the evening on this 25th Jan and therefore these norms are also getting shaped that it's not just the individual the third is around uh looking from private profits only in terms of the how data is being utilized how data is being uh seen in the value chain of businesses to thinking about public interest public purpose again from uh going from the data as property down to thinking about uh data as uh you know the relational nature of data data as uh something that has a community value associated with and lastly which is more around how things are getting shaped more and more the conversation is shaped from open data bringing value to a nuanced conversation about how can you responsibly steward data to unlock the value that is coming out of it so all of this these norms in the context of these norms being uh shaped as we speak uh I think India and this discourse and I'm wearing the hat of an optimist as I told Tarunima earlier uh India is uh is playing the role or at least uh uh walking step step in step with the global discourse as far as these norms are uh concerned and this has taken quite some time for us to get here get to this stage in terms of how the conversation has evolved I think you should take a look at the e-commerce draft report that had come out and look at the non-personal data report that has come out and if you do a comparative analysis the maturity of the discourse is far more advanced and maturity of the conversation that we are having let's not say quality maturity but at least the nuance of the conversation that we are having in terms of data is far more advanced and uh of course India is playing a role in that taking an example of data governance the Ontario Waterfront project in Canada which was the whole sidewalk labs discussion around how Google is taking up as a private data trust and will control data and things like that there's a large conversation large scholarship that is associated with what data trusts are what are intermediaries supposed to do how will governance come out of it but I think of a another externality that was far more important which was around the scholarship that emerged out of that practice uh the the scholarship that has come out from Canada on data intermediaries on data trusts on data stewardship is very rich and it's very context dependent it's very much rooted in the laws and regulations that have come out from Canada and that I think is a contribution that this report can also make in whatever limitations that it may have is is sparked through its statement of intent it has sparked this conversation around the norms and is helping shape the emergence of these norms and to that end if I look at European Union talking about data altruism which is sort of very similar to if you do a comparative assessment very similar to the intent that the non-personal data has uh data report has come up with and of course the arc is towards being less coercive being making it less mandatory which is all very welcome but US is playing catch up and again in one of the conversations that we were part of while it's generally accepted that mobility data will bring a lot of value to the community say in India or in Europe or in the UK and this is part of scholarship as well it it comes as a sort of a nuanced new perspective in terms of thinking about value or community's value in the US and therefore I would say in norm setting in practice US is playing catch up and there is a role for countries like India of course EU and now UK outside of EU to play in how these things shape up um I think one of the elements that I want to put a spotlight on is on data trust the way the report and this is where I'm going a bit specific the report calls out data trustees in a very broad definition which takes into account either uh public trust or a private trust or a non-profit and whatnot and therefore gives a very uh gives gives gives a uh gives a broad spectrum on which a data trust can operate I think this is where uh digressing from the global conversation needs a bit more detail around you know why we are saying what we are saying in terms of what the roles and responsibilities of the data trustees are and also rooted in the regulatory and the legislative framework I think with the center for legal policy did fantastic work in finding out in which uh what are the gaps in terms of our legislative framework in which data trust can and cannot operate and you know what how can we fill that gap in terms of the principles so we should take inputs from that and one specific suggestion and this will be my last point above one specific suggestion on to the committee in terms of shaping these norms and shaping it in a more credible manner my read of the opportunity is that the conversation is uh conceptual and theoretical at this stage and and I would not I'm not surprised that it is conceptual and theoretical but that's where the opportunity lies in terms of the data infrastructure that India has created and is funding and an example of that is the Indian urban data exchange that has been put together funded by the government of India or media network is also a supporter incubated at Indian Institute of Science trying to make sure that there is interoperability for data which is useful for smart cities can we use some of that infrastructure to test some of these recommendations which are very broad across sectors and therefore make it more specific to can we pick up mobility data and see how some of these recommendations on creating a data trustee making sure there's value that is being created and ensuring that the rules and regulations the accountability framework is being set and and lastly being able to make sure that we can conduct a cost-benefit analysis as well there is value can we demonstrate that value and in in in a more evidence-based no more empirical manner and therefore we can then steal a march or we can then credentialize the discourse that we are having here in more evidence and therefore be in a position to shape the norms and the discussions coming in from the EU increasingly it will be from the UK as well and there are other countries like Netherlands that are in the Rajiv called out US of course is is is way behind or lagging in terms of these just thinking so I'll just sum it up by saying that you know India has been in other sectors being more of either a taker of global norms or an objector like always objecting to what's what they do not agree with and this is an opportunity to shape some of these norms and that's incredible and this is the right time to ask questions about where does value get created from data in the value chain and how can countries such as India we have the equitable share of that value by shaping some of these norms so I'll I'll I'll close that and pass it back to you. Thank you so much Roshan for that sort of excellent overview I think I'm going to spend maybe about two three minutes just responding to some of the sort of high level points that are in the G that made mostly like expanding I think on some of them and then I was thinking we could give our energy maybe three minutes to respond to like humiliatedly everything that he's heard from us so far and then we could like do a round of Q&A the first point that I'd largely like to sort of make because I definitely touched upon it but it's something that I thought that we could go into a little bit in detail it's just how serious India is really about sort of like wanting to play all of this out of the international and global arena right so to give you all an example when Anujit mentioned that at the WTO there's a group of developed countries that have now decided to create a sub working group and have started looking at e-commerce more specifically on that day that that committee had its first meeting India had a separate meeting in New Delhi where it called the group of 77 countries who it often sort of leads as a trade bloc member and had a separate meeting here in India where they in like deep detail discussed like pretty much the exact opposite of what those developed countries were discussing at in Geneva on that same day right and what I think this really showcases is the level of sort of not just strategic planning and interest but the seriousness with which India is deciding to engage on this issue not necessarily from from the perspective of like non-creation as Basu mentioned because it's obviously doing that but also from a sense of like geopolitical posturing like India definitely sees itself as being an entity that could be at the like the tip of the spear of a group of a large number of countries and push for a form and a way of data regulation that like honestly I don't think the world has really seen in the past because of how heavily influence has been with the European Union and I think that that is a particular importance because that makes all the points that Arinduji had raised about the importance of civil liberties the broader idea of being placed in the constitutional democracy all the more important because in the international arena I mean if you talk diplomats if you like speak to people who have engaged in the field for quite some time India has quite an enviable reputation right it's known as a country that more often than not is greater diplomacy and stands for the right things but is very good at prioritizing sovereign and national interests I mean just the examples that Basu gave around climate change around nuclear sort of energy and like nuclear weapons are all fantastic examples the law of the sea and the unclos of where India managed to play a very big role in not only helping developing countries all over the world in achieving a particular outcome but doing so in a manner without necessarily like sacrificing its sovereign interests and things that we now presume for granted as a part of sovereign interests are things that countries like India fought for in the international arena and now are part of like you know international law and international relations so I think if anything this is all the more a reason for us to push towards an idea or like an ideal where we are asking for India to be we ask like within India as Indians but also otherwise for India to engage in an iterative process of making sure that the position that it actually advocates for in these fora is as representative of its reputation as a democracy all over the world and I completely agree with Shantan that like we've definitely seen that happen and we've seen India's like little experience in dealing with technology regulation improve on a month to month not even year to year basis with given how conversations have gone over the past couple of years but it's definitely something that we should do a fair bit right and the second point that I would like to make is like I think it's also a very interesting case where India is also starting to realize that like the positions that it takes internationally and in geopolitical negotiations don't necessarily have to completely align with current domestic positions a but b they can also be make or break decisions right and I would like to use the example of our set which is this like regional trade agreement that was signed in the Asia-Pacific region last year and India decided to not become a part of the RCEP which is called the Regional Economic Comprehensive Partnership for various reasons but one of the key reasons was because there were provisions that prevented national mandates for data localization of in the agreement which many like I mean and it's like it's not a point that I think many I've heard many people discuss so far but China was the key like instigator of the RCEP agreement right and you have a country like China that pushed for a trade agreement and thanks to like Australia, New Zealand being members contains the provision that says it if possible you should avoid having data localization measures as a part of your national legislation so why is China doing that right and I think that like the reason China is doing that even because countries like China understand the geopolitics of being a part of a more global interconnected economy and not saying that just because we have a law that says you have to localize your we will we will only advocate for that position when we are creating this international agreement right and I think that that level of strategic awareness and give and take is something that like India can not just learn from but also should like serve as a counter fall too like and picking again the first point that I said like I think the idea is that India stands for when it comes to like its constitution, fundamental rights, being a democracy and broadly having a functional sort of governance framework in a way that very few countries I would say in the Asia Pacific region can came to claim to have the tradition of it is something that we should leverage much more actively to push for the vision of data governance that is like not just interoperable but allows country like India and other developing countries to stake their claim on the international arena but to do so in a manner that is interoperable and that does let the rest of the world can mean around certain points and and achieve like I think things that even just a couple of years ago nobody would have really thought countries like ours would be able to achieve on the international arena when it comes to technology regulation and I think that that's a great thing right those are the two broader sort of high level points that I wanted to make Basu over to you for like maybe like three minutes of responses and I'm aware that we probably have about like five to ten minutes left for the discussion so I also want to be able to make sure that like Yitzr Shant and Tarun Nima have responses to you they can cover those as well awesome awesome thanks so I'll I agree with pretty much everything that was said after after I spoke and thank you for summarizing in great detail a number of important developments that I wasn't able to get to so thanks thanks a lot I'm going to limit it to three points and and largely again be extensions of what has already been said so initially Tarun Nima spoke a favorite about interdependence and I think this speaks to again understanding global governance today there is there is a theory put out by two scholars Farrell and Newman called weaponized interdependence and that sounds like a very cool term but that is the reality we are in we are in today it sounds very you know heavy like weaponized interdependence but it is it is a reality of where we are today right where essentially if you regulate in a certain way in a manner that arms the country it is because of the interdependence of supply chains it is very possible for that country to hit back through retaliatory measures as long as they are justified as per trade law in some way and very often this independence doesn't actually play out in a manner that can be challenged at WTO a lot of these things don't actually even go to the WTO because of various reasons because countries are I don't want to litigate essentially or bear the cost of litigation so often independence plays out politically right where if you ban a tiktok then china will come back at you by doing something that that hits you where it hurts so there are vulnerabilities that each country has and essentially what I mean every country's time to figure out is what the adversary's points of weakness are and that is what weaponized interdependence essentially is so I really I mean I really like the way Tarun Nima put it another point that she made that's been discussed there's a great set of papers by internet democracy project on it is whose sovereignty are we protecting when we say digital sovereignty often you have a situation where it is the I mean and more abstract notion of national sovereignty that's protected at often at the cost of individuals so really there is a need to center the individual again and that speaks to the values point that that was making at the end so shant as always fully agree with with pretty much all his all his points just I mean I don't I don't want to go too much into the weeds on this but in terms of the Netherlands regulation I was speaking about actually has more of a responsive regulatory approach than the present version of the NPD where they essentially start off with voluntary sharing and then they have mechanisms for mandatory sharing if that voluntary sharing doesn't work out but I do agree that the ethos is to actually move away towards from mandatory sharing to data altruism and I think that's that's a good thing and I mean the last thing that Sushant said I can't I mean he said it really well so I don't want to go into that but the fact that we are still at a very early stage of this discussion and I mean there is there is a long time to go having we were trying to hedge bets on how long it will take for this to become enforceable regulation I said at least a year Sushant had said maybe much more than that so we yeah so I think we are in very early stages but but therefore there's a five sorry five years yeah I said five five years yeah exactly so so long long time long time left so yeah so I mean so let's let's try and be as responsive rather than assertive as possible the final point and this ties in what both Udbha and Sushant said at the end which was that India has been a taker and this is actually I mean this is may not interest people who are not I mean interested in the history of foreign policy but I think this is relevant for this discussion is that India has been a taker and not a shaper of previous rules and Udbha then said that but India has been very active on this particular question so a person I've had the privilege of working with a little bit as well Kartik Nachiapan based at NUS he's written an excellent book called Does India Negotiate where he actually looks at the history of India's negotiation in four regimes if you buy that book it's it's a little highly priced but I mean it's a very very much worth the what the expenses so it looks at four different regimes and it says that India's negotiation and the extent to which it negotiates how well it negotiates what it says is dependent on three criteria and I'm going to try and apply these three criteria broadly to data governance one is strategic interests is this a foreign policy priority for India or not Udbha was already told you why it is right there is clearly and Sushant as well right that there is value that India can gain from this that various stakeholders within India can gain from this India wants to be a rule shaper it wanted to be a rule shaper on tobacco control because of the for example on tobacco control because of the harms that a lack of tobacco control was actually causing to just Indian people and the number of deaths from it right so therefore India was very assertive on that front India has not been assertive even in other cyber regimes they've not been so assertive on the at the UN first committee the UN disarmament committee on regulating cyber weapons and cyber security and things like that it is because for whatever reason they don't see that as an immediate strategic priority digital economy they definitely do and and I think that's a fair approach to take second is institutions I already spoke about this but our government institutions aligned are they are the right institutions working with the negotiators the MEA and the ministry of commerce at the G20 are they working with them to shape rules in a manner that benefits everyone Udbha have already given example of how when there was one meeting going on in Geneva sort of India put got together another meeting in Delhi goes to show how institutions are aligned and the final point is again meetings like this about stakeholders what are the different stakeholders in this ecosystem of course domestic industry is a huge one and they have shaped India's approach to WTO previously as well but there are several other players like civil society organizations um foreign industry and therefore the extent to which India shapes and whether it chooses to be a passive viewer or a person to persistent objector is dependent on these three criteria which uh I mean is reflective despite of its relatively small size our relatively mature foreign policy establishment using the maturity in the context of tech policy what I think having looked at how the MEA is engaged in in regime shaping over the past 20 30 years and even how it's engaging now um it does reflect a certain sense of maturity and and leadership which I think is a good thing the question really is do we have the domestic regulation to back up that that maturity and I think I mean all the suggestions that came from Sushant, Karinima and Uddhav I think are great to ensure we improve our domestic approach so that we are able to shape it in an appropriate manner thanks Uddhav and thanks everyone. Thank you Ranjeet. So now very quickly like Tanuma like a minute to two do you have any concluding sort of remarks we have a live question for Basu that I'll ask just to be done but I'll quickly give you and Sushant two minutes each. Oh we're good I I think learned a lot from what all the panelists and in the Rijithya presentation I I do hope that Sushant's estimate is closer to what's going to happen in the Rijithya estimate and I do hope that that that the motivation is of this document is a statement of intent I think there is a lot of iterations and work that needs to be done so I'm going to pause at that. Yeah very quickly Uddhav I think the point about India being a shaper of some of these norms I think there is demand as well so I've been part of some world economic forum conversations which brings together private players private sector players and civil society delegates from Africa typically have made this point that at least in the old order where there was raw material which went to get finished and then we bought the finished product at least we get paid for it's very simplistic but bear with me at least we get paid for the raw material in this today's data economy we are just data is being extracted out and you know there are no taxes and the value accrues elsewhere and in that context shaping of the norms as to what is okay in this globalized open internet in terms of data governance would be very very critical and challenging the norms takes a lot a lot of scholarship it takes a lot of confidence on the global scale as well and some of this discourse will lead us towards that. So we had a question from from Katz as well saying hi you spoke about the fact that India is not violating any international agreements however it has been observed in recent times that international agreements are being tied with data norms most commonly about data localization non-personal data norms could be next at the same time the government of India is starting for more foreign investments in the country do you think that the NPD regulation and its current form is likely to contradict India's foreign trade policy where India is consciously pushing for the idea that it's an open and innovative ecosystem for new businesses. Hi Situ hope you're well so it could so first of all yeah I mean just to reiterate that isn't actually an existing there is I mean there is possibly something on trips the the intellectual property agreement under the WTO that this report may violate the database agreement but it's it's debatable I don't think it will it will go to litigation but apart from that there is no existing international law that it violates right. So on India's foreign trade and I was actually doing this as well that data localization and this kind of data sharing mandate need to be looked at slightly separately even though it's part of the same narrative and part of the same sovereign ecosystem they need to be looked at separately why one because the trade agreements that exist you look at the regional comprehensive economic partnership you look at the trans specific partnership you look at the US Mexico trade agreement all the regional trade agreements that exist right now they do have a clear obligations on data localization and clear exceptions as well right but on this sort of a data sharing approach there isn't actually any clear obligation built into the regional trade agreement so when we look at localization and the violation of possible future trade laws that may exist we are possibly looking at something more more immediate and and direct because of the way in which regional trade agreements are actually mentioning this fairly explicitly with regard to domestic regulatory control which essentially is what data sharing of this nature is I think we are less likely to be violating existing global rules and much more likely to be actually just making it difficult for companies to operate in India it is going to make it difficult maybe for Indian companies to operate in other parts of the world if there is sort of this informal kind of retaliation and of course what my point is not that the report in its entirety is a bad thing but if you have regulatory uncertainty and my basic issue is with that sovereign purpose and the regulatory uncertainty around HVDs and public goal then it's possible that the kind of compliance issues that are being generated might make it difficult for companies to exist so I don't think again it doesn't violate any existing laws it is unlikely to violate any laws that will come up in the near future but it might just make compliance more difficult and that's something that should be looked at and that also includes the data storage point that I had made earlier so that I think is my response not violating any laws but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's all all question. Wonderful thank you so much Rinnejit for answering that question and I think that's it for the sort of questions I noticed that we have none on YouTube either but if there are any other questions you can see that Nathika has shared we can zoom sort of chat a link to the privacy mode website where you can leave your questions and we can sort of answer them in a synchrolystic offline as well so please feel free to do that and we're already about a minute over time so I'm going to like thank everyone for spending like the partner with us and listening to like what was a very enlightening and fascinating conversation and hand it over to Nathika to sort of thank you. Thank you so much Thank you Arinduji, thank you Sushant Taranima for joining us and thank you for all the questions and responses. I just noticed there's one more question by Aman I think maybe we can take this I think we can go for a couple of more minutes and then we can wrap up or you want to answer this offline. I mean I'm happy like it seems like a pretty interesting question so I think we can give yeah let's just do it right. Sure so the question is in Indira Gandhi's tenure we saw bank nationalization and now in the present regime we are seeing data nationalization is section 91 to asserting that the government can acquire data in the name of eminent domain effectively in this way is the government going around the right to fund the right to privacy judgment and also is the non-personal data framework a death need to intellectual death need to international property rights. Anyone want to take this question? Sushant do you want to take this or? Yeah I mean I'll give a quick perspective but the details of it are 100 back to you. So I think it has in the point about the non-personal data bill actually bringing it up and then sidestepping the question bringing up data for sovereign purposes and then side stepping it by saying that it's the purview of personal data protection bill. I would again wear the hat of an optimist and say that since it's being examined threadbare the personal data protection bill and it is outside the purview of the non-personal data protection bill. I'm hopeful for an outcome that is protective of civil liberties and respectful of the judgment it cannot go beyond what has been set as the requirement of proportionality of the other checks that Supreme Court has put in place. So while I feel the need for discussing it in further detail as to you know the merits of it and where should the line be drawn because it seems like it's giving a carte blanche to the government for acquiring data for sovereign purposes for pandemic response and whatnot. However I think over the period of discourse discussions consultations it would evolve into something far more acceptable and respectful of civil liberties and within the personal data protection bill I think it is outside the purview as it should be of the non-personal data protection report. The report is going to great ends to say that it's not a definite IPR and I think it's also too premature to have that discussion because we don't know how it's going to play out on ground. So one example that comes to my mind is you know when financial regulation asserted that credit bureaus should share credit reports with their customers right like with their customers because it's a it's like a right to information for them to know how they're doing in terms of their financial aid. What no one expected and what ended up happening was that selling credit reports became like a profitable market right like so basically you now have you know banks or you have sorry you have credit bureaus basically that will sell you and I don't know if you guys are not policy bull or any of these things that consistently send you messages saying do you want to access your credit report right. So I think I trust that the industry is smarter than you know than me what we are making out from this bill and so if this was to play out I expect that they would be creative enough to make sure that their IPR or at least their economic interests are protected. Thank you. Very quick I think in terms of section 91 of the personal data protection bill which I think is what is closest to eminent domain I think yes it is definitely the state exercising powers of eminent domain over the differences that in the case of banks you could say that fine I mean it is owned by the community of Indian citizens who are and therefore the banks are operating for the benefit of a community. What is actually more dangerous with this kind of eminent domain is that it's probably much closer to the kind of eminent domain that's exercised when land is taken away to build like whatever dams and projects and stuff right where I mean even though it's not a proper area in relationship it's actually something that's much closer to the person it is I mean data as as person is also a interpretation that we know well right. So it is eminent domain for sure you're absolutely right I would I mean second you and further extend your point and say that it is a slightly more dangerous kind of eminent domain if it's mandated but that in that sense the the report the report so section 91 of the PDP bill is I think hopefully will get changed but I think in that sense the report as Sushant mentioned earlier as well is trying to reduce that interventionist encroaching approach and make it much more altruistic and along the lines of the data governance section that sense the report tries to mitigate it a little bit so.