Imagine waking up one morning to find a police officer permanently stationed inside your home. He sits in your bedroom while you sleep. He watches every time you open your bank account. He follows you to work, shadows your conversations, counts every bite of your lunch, notes every show you watch, and records every private moment with your family.
Impossible? Unthinkable?
No democratic nation would dare attempt this?
Yet, this unsettling scenario is the closest metaphor to what many fear could
soon become a reality through a new mandatory government-backed application - Sanchaar
Saathi.
This is not a fictional dystopia. It
is a debate knocking at India’s door today.
Why the Concerns Are Explosive
The core of the public
worry is simple: If an app cannot be switched off, cannot be deleted,
and demands permanent access to your camera, microphone, keyboard, and
location - does it not behave like the digital version of a policeman lodged
inside your pocket?
The government argues
that this tool protects citizens from mobile theft and digital fraud. But
critics—from the Opposition to even many right-leaning commentators - ask a
deeper question:
Why must
such an app be compulsory? And why must turning it off be treated like a
punishable act?
For the first time, major
smartphone manufacturers would be forced to pre-load an app that cannot be
removed by the user - placing India in the same category as countries known for
heavy-handed digital control. Those using older phones would receive the app
through mandatory software updates.
In other words, citizens would carry a
permanent digital observer - at home, at work, in their cars, and in their most
private conversations.
A Shift from Privacy to Permanent Monitoring
Opposition leaders,
digital-rights advocates, and constitutional experts argue that such compulsory
surveillance violates the spirit of Article 21, which protects personal
liberty and privacy.
Some of the strongest warnings have come from voices not usually
critical of the government. Several commentators known for supporting
ruling-party policies expressed shock, calling such access “dangerous,”
“excessive,” and “a tool for tracking every citizen.”
Their
questions echo across the country:
- Why should an anti-theft tool require
microphone and camera access?
- Why must it override a user’s own privacy
settings?
- Who controls the backend of this data?
- Which agencies can view it, and under what
safeguards?
- How can citizens trust that such power will
not be misused?
These are not political attacks—they
are fundamental democratic anxieties.
The Shadow of Pegasus
The controversy
resurfaces memories of the Pegasus spyware episode that shook the nation. That
tool entered phones silently.
The new concern is that a
far more powerful application might now enter openly, backed by law,
making it impossible for a citizen to refuse.
The lesson learned from Pegasus seems
clear: If hidden surveillance creates backlash, legalising surveillance makes
it unstoppable.
From Democracy to Digital Custody?
Critics argue that
mandatory digital monitoring without opt-out provisions could gradually convert
citizens into unofficial detainees - not jailed, but constantly observed.
A democracy functions on trust between
the citizen and the State. Compulsory surveillance reverses that equation: It
treats every citizen as a potential suspect.
If such an app can log
every message, monitor every call, note every location, and access every
digital move, the fear is not what it does today, but what future
governments could do tomorrow.
A Rare Moment of Shared Anxiety
The debate
has united unusual allies:
- Opposition parties calling it unconstitutional
- Civil society groups warning of misuse
- Ordinary citizens worried about privacy
- Right-wing commentators expressing shock
- Technology observers asking why users cannot disable it
Even the telecom
minister’s verbal assurance that the app “may not be un-installable” has not
calmed concerns, especially since official documents still warn that attempts
to remove it could invite legal consequences.
Until there is a written, formal correction,
the unease refuses to go away.
What Happens Next?
The ball is now squarely
in the Opposition’s court. Will they settle for token protests? Or will they
take this debate to Parliament, to the streets, and to the citizens whose
rights may be at stake?
And just as importantly -
ill Indians speak up before their phones become permanent government terminals?
Democracies do not
collapse overnight. They erode quietly - one mandatory app, one forced
permission, one silent surveillance tool at a time.
The question is not
whether you “have something to hide.” The question is whether a free nation
should ever require its citizens to live under a spotlight that never switches
off.
India stands at a
crossroads. Does it choose security through trust - or control through
surveillance? Because if your phone becomes your warden, then freedom becomes
an illusion.
And a country of free citizens becomes
a country of monitored subjects.
The debate is no longer technical. It
is existential.
