top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

How Sovereign Resistance Is Challenging US Tech Hegemony

From colonial-era control of trade routes to today’s contest over satellites, data and digital infrastructure, India’s confrontation with American tech power exposes the growing tension between global connectivity, corporate dominance and national sovereignty. The historical memory of colonialism is long, deeply etched into the collective consciousness of the Global South. For centuries, foreign powers arrived on distant shores under the banner of trade, infrastructure, and philanthropy, only...

How Sovereign Resistance Is Challenging US Tech Hegemony

From colonial-era control of trade routes to today’s contest over satellites, data and digital infrastructure, India’s confrontation with American tech power exposes the growing tension between global connectivity, corporate dominance and national sovereignty. The historical memory of colonialism is long, deeply etched into the collective consciousness of the Global South. For centuries, foreign powers arrived on distant shores under the banner of trade, infrastructure, and philanthropy, only to strip sovereign nations of their resources, redraw their laws, and compromise their independence. Today, that old expansionist playbook has been digitised. Instead of physical gunboats and chartered trading companies, the instruments of modern dominion are satellite constellations, algorithms, and cloud infrastructure. The colonial empires of the past understood that control over ports, railways, shipping routes, and communications networks could translate into political authority and economic dependence. In the contemporary world, control over cloud computing, satellite communications, semiconductor supply chains, and the platforms through which societies exchange information can exercise a comparable structural influence, even without territorial occupation. The difference is that the new frontier is governed not only by states, but also by corporations whose technological reach increasingly rivals the capabilities of governments. The brewing geopolitical conflict between the United States and India has brought this “digital colonialism” into sharp, unmistakable focus. The current US administration, executing a hyper-aggressive, unilateral “America First” strategy, has increasingly aligned itself with tech billionaires to treat foreign sovereignty as an administrative hurdle. The recent high-stakes standoff over Elon Musk’s satellite internet service, Starlink, coupled with crushing US economic sanctions and visa freezes, demonstrates how tech monopolies and state power now operate as an interlocking machine. However, the heavy-handed approach has triggered an intense, grassroots nationalistic backlash, proving that the digital architecture of the 21st century cannot be built on the submission of sovereign nations. Digital Colonialism Digital colonialism refers to a structural system where a handful of technologically advanced nations, primarily the United States, use their corporate monopolies to control the digital ecosystem, data pipelines, and critical infrastructure of other countries. Under this model, developing nations are treated merely as data goldmines to be extracted and passive consumer markets to be dominated. For years, Silicon Valley executives utilised a standard “Twitter diplomacy” model to bypass foreign regulations. By leveraging massive digital footprints, corporate giants routinely bullied smaller or less tech-reliant nations into granting sweeping concessions under the guise of “bringing connectivity to the unconnected.” This corporate philanthropy is frequently a Trojan horse designed to secure data monopolies and hook local populations on proprietary, foreign-owned infrastructure. When this corporate pressure fails, the full weight of US state power is brought to bear. The Trump administration’s integrated economic squeeze—imposing massive $100,000-plus surcharges on H-1B visas, threatening universal tariffs on Indian goods, and suddenly freezing Indian tech firms out of the PERM Green Card application process—functions as an economic club. Obviously, it is a deliberate effort to create an asymmetric trap: utilising state tools to strangle a nation’s domestic industries from above, while corporate spearheads like Musk launch high-pressure campaigns to break open its regulatory defences from below. This struggle also belongs to a much longer history of post-colonial economic resistance. The Non-Aligned Movement emerged during the Cold War from the determination of newly independent nations to avoid becoming instruments of competing superpowers. Today, strategic autonomy must extend beyond military alliances and diplomatic manoeuvring to encompass control over data, digital payments, communications networks, and the technological standards that shape economic life. For India and much of the Global South, the challenge is not to reject foreign technology, but to ensure that access to it does not become a new instrument of external leverage. Aggressive Rhetoric The immediate flashpoint of this conflict ignited when Musk publicly accused Indian telecom regulators of committing a “crime against the people of India.” In an aggressive rhetorical campaign, Musk alleged that domestic regulations were designed to maintain a “monopolistic chokehold,” directly targeting Indian business leaders by asking on social media, “Is Ambani the real boss of India?” The underlying reality, however, is a matter of strict national security, not corporate favouritism. The Indian Ministry of Communications flatly rejected the billionaire’s claims, reiterating that Starlink, alongside all domestic and international competitors, must undergo mandatory data security audits and satellite gateway localisation assessments. In a world where data is the definitive currency of national power, allowing a foreign corporation to operate an autonomous, unmonitored satellite network that transmits domestic data directly to overseas servers is a fundamental national security risk. The US strategy fundamentally miscalculates the unique nature of India’s digital landscape. Unlike many regions that rely entirely on Western tech infrastructure, India has systematically built one of the world’s most advanced, self-reliant, and affordable digital public infrastructures, highlighted by the open-source Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and a hyper-competitive, hyper-affordable 4G/5G cellular network. Because India built its own digital foundations, its public and policymakers view foreign attempts to dictate regulatory terms not as a gift of modern technology, but as an existential threat to economic sovereignty. India’s experience carries wider significance because it challenges the assumption that technological modernisation must follow a model designed and controlled by Western corporations. Whether Silicon Valley or Washington understands it or not, the aggressive, top-down strategy has backfired at the grassroots level. In India, corporate bullying by foreign tech magnates does not intimidate the population; it unites them. Consumer groups, digital rights advocates, and everyday internet users have reacted with an intense nationalistic backlash, reframing the dispute from a telecom technicality into a defence of sovereign dignity. Indian consumers are uniquely sensitive to foreign encroachment. When a Western billionaire uses public threats to demand a bypass of national security laws, the public quickly recognises the echo of historical exploitation. This has sparked a growing sentiment that if Starlink refuses to respect the laws of the land, it will be banned not by the paperwork of the government, but by a quiet, devastating boycott by the consumers themselves. The global order is rapidly fracturing. By treating long-standing allies as economic targets and dismantling the international treaties that governed global behaviour, the US is alienating the very markets it seeks to dominate. The stakes extend well beyond the India–US relationship. As the European Union pursues digital regulation, China builds alternative technological ecosystems, and emerging economies seek greater control over their data, the world is moving towards a more contested digital order. Satellite internet is only one part of this struggle; artificial intelligence, cloud infrastructure, digital currencies, and access to critical computing resources will increasingly determine who sets the rules of the global economy. The unfolding resistance in India proves that the days of unchallenged digital colonialism are over. If a foreign entity wishes to operate in the world’s largest open internet market, it must do so as an equal partner, under local laws, and with explicit respect for the sovereignty of the people. No amount of geopolitical leverage from Washington can force a proud, independent nation to buy products from a corporate empire that views them with contempt. Critics argue that these developments point towards a broader, coordinated squeeze on the nation. On one front, the US administration’s shifting stance towards Pakistan signals an attempt to alter regional balances. On the domestic front, a recent public exchange between Elon Musk and opposition leader Rahul Gandhi regarding corporate monopolies has fuelled intense political debate. Sceptics view this digital alignment with caution, arguing that combining foreign corporate pressure with aggressive domestic political protests—which have previously disrupted parliamentary proceedings—risks destabilising the country’s economic and democratic momentum at a critical juncture. Now is the time to be on alert. (The writer is an advocate and a public policy analyst. Views personal)

Caste-based Census Sparks Nationwide Debate

Writer: Darshan Solanki
Darshan Solanki
Oct 2, 2024
3 min read

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Caste-based Census

Caste-based identities continue to dominate rural India, directly or indirectly shaping electoral outcomes. Many major elections are influenced by specific caste groups. After the Bihar government released the first phase of its caste-based socio-economic survey, the caste census became a hot topic. The results, backed by evidence, showed improvements in the living standards and social status of marginalised communities, both in cities and villages. With parties like the JDU and NCP backing a caste census, there is growing momentum for the government to conduct one. However, every story has two sides—joy and sorrow. Even Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, raised concerns about the caste census.

Rahul Gandhi accused the BJP of being “anti-Bahujan.” The clear meaning is that his father and forefather refused to execute a caste-based census, which might have far-reaching effects and even permanently fracture India’s social fabric. This may be negative for caste-based beneficiaries. The last caste census in India was conducted in 1931 by the British government. Those times were different from the present scenario. The data was made public and became the basis for the Mandal Commission Reports and reservation policies for Other Backward Classes. Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has clarified that the caste-based population count data will not be used for core politics. But the agenda for politics is always twisted and expanded.

The Central Government also joined the legal debate by filing an affidavit with the Supreme Court, leaving the matter unresolved. India’s partition, rooted in the divide-and-rule strategy, is frequently cited as a cautionary tale. Including caste in official census data could further deepen social divides. This issue has become a political pressure point, with various states pushing the Centre for action. Although the Constitution uses the term “class” instead of “caste,” the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that caste is a relevant, and at times, sole or dominant criterion for defining a backward class.

After the release of caste-based census data in Bihar, discussions around conducting similar censuses have gained momentum in states like Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand. Karnataka, which has already conducted its own caste census, may release its data soon as well.

Notably, all these states are governed by anti-BJP parties. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also announced that Congress-ruled states have committed to carrying out caste censuses. Meanwhile, the BJP has remained silent on the matter, creating a significant roadblock.

Caste-based censuses focus on proportional representation in areas like jobs and education, with the argument that this will aid in targeted planning for the disadvantaged. However, the situation remains unclear, much like a foggy winter morning. The BJP’s stance on caste-based censuses and reservations seems different, as they fear the caste-based calculations could fragment their traditional Hindu voter base—an underlying concern for the party.

Professor Sanjay Kumar from The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, says, “Let alone the BJP; no party can openly oppose it; it is not free from danger. BJP gets a large number of votes from the OBC community, their population across the country would be around 52%. Another downside is that the caste-based censuses could disrupt the balance of socio-economic zones. Data theft is a common issue in government systems, and people may feel disconnected from their actual rights.

The moot question is that if the financial status of an ST/SC/OBC or Dalit citizen moves up by a few notches, will his social status change automatically? The lifestyle of any class will only change when the income of a particular class is changed. The actual source of income is employment. The reality is that only metro cities have enough place and space for workers. Aside from the GIDC and IT sectors, less than 30% of industries have their own designated vacancy periods. After a decade, the Jamnagar and Rajkot Corporations have opened their doors to newcomers alongside experienced staff. However, age and caste bias often operate behind the scenes. It’s important to recognise that poverty is also widespread among many upper-caste individuals, and their needs cannot be overlooked. In the overall interests of the nation, terms like SC/ST/OBC, Dalits, etc. must be deleted from the nation’s vocabulary. Every citizen should have only one classification, that of being an ‘Indian’, in the spirit of the constitution.

Last year, when the Bihar government decided to conduct a caste survey in the state, the BJP was also Nitish Kumar’s partner in the state government, and it supported it. Political expert and former professor of Tata Institute of Social Science, Pushpendra Kumar, says, “It is not that the BJP does not talk about caste. It tries to reveal the caste of the Prime Minister as well. For caste politics, the BJP also tried hard to raise the issue of Pasmanda Muslims.”

(The writer is a management professional based in Ahmedabad. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page