Latest news with #HimanshiNarwal
New Indian Express
25-05-2025
- Health
- New Indian Express
The turmeric mask on patriarchy's face
Like many of you, I was taken aback by the shameful, unwarranted putdowns of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and Himanshi Narwal, one, a valiant soldier whose great-great-grandmother fought alongside Rani Lakshmi Bai, the other bravely transcending her devastating personal loss to urge peace and clarity. I got to thinking about the possible root cause, and the only answer I could come up with was the patriarchy's fundamental lack of respect for women. Don't get me wrong. I am proud of Hindu reform, entirely thanks to which I stand upright as its legatee. I love my religion and culture, well, most of it. But, as with every system, it has its dark sides that lash out even today, and I feel we must acknowledge and address that if we wish to walk the path of light. In our badly socialised society, women, even if they bundle up and shut up, are legit prey for men of all ages. In this nowhere land between myth and reality, a curious folk tale from Tehri Garhwal in Uttarakhand comes to mind. It's a local story about why turmeric is 'holy'. We know that Western science has empirically proven what we knew long ago, that turmeric has many health benefits. I don't relate to turmeric latte, though; it's too medicinal for me. Like others, I've grown up being dosed on the centuries-old Indian home remedy for cough, cold and congestion: a cup of warm milk with turmeric and black peppercorns, honey added to make it tolerable, drunk last thing at night so it can take its proper healing effect while you sleep, which means no staying up watching Netflix.
Hindustan Times
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Internal enemies that work against national interests
Operation Sindoor is a resounding success. India made its point loud and clear. The cessation of hostilities is continuing, and the border areas are peaceful again. This is the time we need to be alert to the shadows lurking beneath the glow of euphoria over the victory. These shadows are pregnant with questions. Indian history is littered with stories bearing testimony to such questions that have been ignored for centuries. From 326 BCE (Alexander's invasion) to 1962 (Chinese aggression), foreign invaders had won wars, killed our people and usurped our resources. In the light of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's uncompromising policies and bold actions, we should now make a concerted effort to bridge the gap between courageous action and strategic success once for all. Remember, we successfully divided Pakistan into two nations in 1971. Twenty-eight years later, on the freezing heights of Kargil, we stunned the world by defeating the Pakistan army in a brilliant and exceptional display of mountain warfare abilities. But these did little to stop cross-border terrorism or terrorist activities. This is why PM Modi has made a paradigm shift with Operation Sindoor. Now, every terror attack would be deemed as an act of war against India. And Pakistan's nuclear blackmail will not deter New Delhi from action against Islamabad. Another critical milestone is New Delhi has steadily escalated the velocity and pressure between surgical strikes and Operation Sindoor. Western nations trying to mediate, deeming it as a confrontation between two nuclear-armed nations, should focus their energies on Pakistan's terror factory. If a Pahalgam-type incident is repeated, its consequences can be far worse. Regrettably, while the entire nation stood behind the Prime Minister, some people chose to play spoilsport. Let me share some embarrassing examples. During the days of the operation, Colonel Sofiya Qureshi briefed the media daily. It was a wise decision on the part of the Modi administration to send a message to the world that the entire 1.4 billion people stood together. Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah's repugnant comment appeared in the media against this backdrop. He made an indecent comment, though obliquely. His words hurt the entire nation. The BJP brass intervened and forced him to apologise. But the impact of his misdemeanour is far-reaching. Similarly, remarks made against Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi during his India visit by a retired major who calls himself a staunch nationalist, forced Indian diplomats to do firefighting after Iran took note of the comments. Even foreign secretary Vikram Misri and his family were openly threatened by so-called 'nationalists' and were targeted by trolls. Himanshi Narwal, whose husband Lt Vinay Narwal was killed by terrorists in Pahalgam was also subjected to online attacks. All she said was that our fight is against terrorism and not Muslims. There are thousands like Himanshi Narwal, Colonel Qureshi, and foreign secretary Misri who were targeted by the troll army. Our armed forces can fight an external enemy, but who will take on these trolls? Let's return to the border. During the operation, while retaliating, Pakistan used many Chinese weapons. The claims of their effectiveness were highly exaggerated, yet security experts insist that the Chinese armaments pose new challenges, especially with China planning to export new-generation weapons to Pakistan. During the conflict, China openly supported Pakistan, complicating the strategic equations for India. On the north-eastern borders, we have their armies and on the western borders, their weapons. Immediately after the ceasefire, news came in that China had changed the names of many villages, hamlets, and towns in Arunachal Pradesh. The ruling establishment in Beijing has been indulging in such unwanted acts since 2017. But what was the need to go ahead with this when tempers were running high between India and Pakistan? Two of our former defence ministers, George Fernandes and Mulayam Singh Yadav, used to remind the country that China is the real danger for India. At that time, people brushed their fears aside, calling it socialist paranoia. However, did they really exaggerate the threat? Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan. The views expressed are personal
Scroll.in
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Women and Operation Sindoor: The gap between optics and reality
On May 7, the Indian government fielded two women military officers to brief the press about the strikes carried out in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. One of them was Muslim – Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. For the international media watching India, the government's messaging was loud and clear: unlike Pakistan, India is a secular democracy with a professional army. But within a week, this careful projection has unravelled. Referring to Qureshi without naming her, Madhya Pradesh minister and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kunwar Vijay Shah said: 'Jinhone hamare betiyon ke sindoor uchala… humne unhi ki behen ko hamare jahaj mein bhej kar aise ki taisi karvai.' The ones who wiped off the sindoor of our sisters, Modi ji sent their own sister in our plane to teach them a lesson. 'You widowed our sisters,' he continued, rhetorically addressing the terrorists, 'so we sent your sister to strip and humiliate you.' Shah's crass and communal remarks drew outrage, criticism and an FIR. The apology that followed was just as revealing. 'Sister Sofia has brought glory to India by rising above caste and religion,' Shah told The Indian Express. 'She is more respected than our own sister.' Not only did the Madhya Pradesh minister perceive an accomplished and senior military officer as the 'sister' of Pakistani terrorists merely because of her religious identity, when criticised, his only resort was paternalism – that he respected the woman officer more than his own sister. This paternalism isn't limited to Shah. In his speech on May 12, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Operation Sindoor – code-named after the vermillion mark that is a symbol of marriage for Hindu women – represents the emotions of Indians. 'I dedicate Operation Sindoor to every mother, sister and daughter,' he said. Now every terrorist knows the consequences of 'removing the sindoor from the foreheads of our mothers and daughters', he added. In the ideological framework of the Hindu Right, only some women are seen as worth protecting or celebrating: the behen who lost her sindoor and the behen who avenged the sindoor. Not the women who dare express opinions different from the establishment narrative. Online abuse against women is rampant across India's internet. Except that this fortnight, the targets included the daughter of Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and Himanshi Narwal, the widow of Naval officer Vinay Narwal, who was shot dead in the Pahalgam attack. War-mongers, disappointed at the announcement of a ceasefire, directed their ire at the foreign secretary by picking on his daughter Didon for writing an article in independent news outlet The Wire and for apparently providing legal assistance to Rohingya refugees in Myanmar. Even as diplomats, Opposition politicians and associations representing the Indian civil and police services came to Misri's defence, the government was silent. Himanshi Narwal, despite being a 'sister who lost her sindoor', was subjected to sexual trolling because she had called for communal harmony and peace. The National Women's Commission was sufficiently troubled by the online hate to issue knuckle raps to no one in particular. In contrast, the Haryana Women's Commission has summoned Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad for a Facebook post pointing out the irony of Hindutva commentators praising Qureshi while Indian Muslims face mob lynchings, demolitions and persecution for their religious identity. Two things are evident. First, the official silence on Misri and Narwal sends the disturbing message that the trolling and online abuse come with tacit approval. This covert sanction allows online mobs to police the narrative by viciously attacking detractors and critics. Second, it is once again apparent that the ruling party invokes gender and women solely to further its narrative. Ideologically, Hindutva is intolerant of the religious pluralism that was put on display at the May 7 press conference. It was bound to come apart. Thirty years ago, scholar Amrita Basu had coined the term ' feminism inverted ' based on her research on women's political activism in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Basu contended that the BJP was accommodating of women and even tolerated a vocabulary of women's empowerment – as long as this served its 'electorally driven communal strategy'. The events of the past two weeks have confirmed this. Here is a summary of the week's top stories. Were migrants pushed out? The Supreme Court questioned a petition alleging that the Indian government had forcibly deported 43 Rohingya refugees to Myanmar by pushing them into international waters. The court also rejected a request to pass an interim order halting the deportation of Rohingyas. The bench sought material to be placed on record that would substantiate the allegations, stating that the petitioners were coming up with 'a new story every day'. 'Who is the person watching them?' asked Justice Surya Kant about allegations that the persons were taken to the Andaman Sea and dropped into international waters. The advocate appearing for the petitioners quoted a report published by the United Nations on Thursday, which alleged that the refugees had been 'cast into the sea from naval vessels'. The bench said it will comment on the report when 'sitting in a three-judge composition'. Vineet Bhalla explains . And Rokibuz Zaman reports about Bangladeshi police's claim that there were three Indians among 78 'pushed' off boats into the neighbouring country. The scope of the judiciary. President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court's opinion about its ruling on April 8 that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures. The president asked whether such timelines could be set in the absence of legal provisions. The court had ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi's decision to withhold assent to 10 bills, some of which had been pending since January 2020, and refer them to the president after they were re-enacted by the Assembly was 'illegal and erroneous'. The court also imposed a three-month deadline on the president to approve or reject such bills. Vineet Bhalla explains and why the BJP launched a bitter attack on the top court. Islamabad's funding. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that any financial assistance provided by the International Monetary Fund to Pakistan is ' no less than terror funding ' and should be reconsidered. He was referring to the fresh $1 billion financial assistance programme that the United Nations financial agency approved for Islamabad on May 9 as part of its bailout package. The defence minister claimed that a large part of the IMF's funding would be used by Pakistan on 'terror infrastructure'. New Delhi does not want the funds it gives to the IMF to be used for creating terror infrastructure in Pakistan or any other country, said Singh. Also on Scroll this week
The Hindu
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why laws fall short in combating the surge in cyber-bullying cases
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Himanshi Narwal, the wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, issued a heartfelt appeal for peace and firmly rejected the vilification of Muslims and Kashmiris. Soon after, the grieving newlywed became the target of a vicious trolling campaign on X (formerly Twitter). Anonymous accounts hurled slurs at her, questioned her loyalty to her late husband, and even called for the cancellation of her pension. However, Ms. Narwal was not alone in facing such online vitriol. Following Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's announcement on May 10 that India and Pakistan had reached an understanding to halt military hostilities, his account on X was inundated with abusive comments, some of which targeted even his daughter. Mr. Misri was eventually compelled to lock his account, as several diplomats and politicians condemned the toxic trolling culture in unequivocal terms. Emboldened by the anonymity of the internet, faceless trolls have turned into virtual vigilantes, punishing those who dare to question dominant narratives. What regulatory reforms, then, are necessary to ensure that such depravity is no longer met with impunity? Regulatory loopholes A range of terms has emerged to describe contemporary forms of cybercrime, including cyberbullying, stalking, hate speech, and doxxing. Doxxing, short for 'dropping dox' (documents), involves the unauthorised online disclosure of private information, often with malicious intent. This may include home addresses, phone numbers, or sensitive images, leaving victims vulnerable to harassment and tangible real-world threats. Studies show that such abuse disproportionately targets women and minorities, suggesting that these attacks are often driven not just by cruelty or amusement but by organised political motives. The consequences can be severe, frequently escalating to rape and death threats. India lacks a dedicated law specifically aimed at tackling online hate speech and trolling. Instead, a limited number of provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2003, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, cover certain aspects of cyberbullying. The BNS contains provisions applicable to electronic communications, such as Section 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 75 (sexual harassment), Section 351 (criminal intimidation), Section 356 (defamation), and Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups). The IT Act supplements these offences with provisions like Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (impersonation fraud) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically). 'The existing regulatory framework is functional but far from complete. No provision squarely criminalises sustained online abuse that does not qualify as 'obscene,' 'threatening,' or 'fraudulent.' Stalking under the BNS is gender-specific—limited to men targeting women—and hinges on intent to engage personally, failing to capture the collective harassment that defines much of online trolling. While cyberbullying may sometimes be shoehorned into offences like criminal intimidation or defamation, these require proof of threat or reputational harm and are ill-suited to counter the rapid, anonymous abuse unleashed by online mobs,' Apar Gupta, advocate and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, told The Hindu. Moderation or censorship? Mounting domestic and international pressure to curb disinformation and hate speech has compelled social media giants to moderate and remove harmful content. While many advocate for 'self-regulation,' where platforms enforce their own community guidelines, this model has largely failed and faces growing scrutiny. Last year, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov was arrested by French authorities for allegedly failing to moderate criminal activity on the platform, including the circulation of child sexual abuse material and fraudulent content. Telegram later amended its privacy policy to permit the disclosure of users' IP addresses and phone numbers to law enforcement upon receipt of 'valid legal requests.' Also Read: Should digital platform owners be held liable The challenge is further exacerbated by the gradual erosion of content moderation policies in favour of monetisation. In a damning report released earlier this month, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate found that X had become a 'high-velocity distribution channel' for hate speech and conspiracy theories, particularly targeting British-Pakistani men as well as other South Asian and immigrant communities. An analysis of 1,365 posts generating more than 1.5 billion engagements revealed that the platform played a central role in weaponising the 'grooming gang' discourse to scapegoat Muslims in the U.K., despite police data showing that most offenders were white men. In India, Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to issue blocking orders on grounds aligned with constitutionally permissible restrictions on speech, such as national sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign States, and public order. Platforms that fail to comply risk losing safe harbour protection under Section 79, which ordinarily shields intermediaries from liability for user-generated content. However, experts have warned that these provisions are increasingly being used as tools for online censorship. In recent years, the Union Government has frequently taken down content without notifying affected users — a practice that contravenes the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. While the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A, it underscored that blocking orders must be accompanied by cogent reasons to enable judicial scrutiny. Following the Pahalgam attack, X disclosed that it had been directed to block more than 8,000 accounts in India, but said the government had not specified which posts violated the law in most cases. In March, the platform filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court challenging the government's reliance on Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders, arguing that it bypasses the procedural safeguards under Section 69A. Unlike Section 69A, Section 79(3)(b) neither defines what constitutes an 'unlawful act' nor provides for any review mechanism. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently informed a Parliamentary Committee that it is reconsidering safe harbour protections for social media platforms in a bid to combat 'fake news.' X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025 Judicial interventions In February last year, the Delhi High Court directed X to remove tweets revealing the personal and professional details of a woman who had reportedly posted a critical comment about Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The post triggered a wave of online harassment, with details of her workplace, residence, and photographs being widely circulated. Although these disclosures raised privacy concerns, Justice Prathiba Singh ruled that the incident did not constitute doxxing, as the information was already publicly available. However, the judge acknowledged that while doxxing is not yet a statutory offence in India, it poses a serious threat. She observed that it infringes upon the right to privacy and that, in the absence of specific legislation, courts could invoke tort law to offer redress. Accordingly, X was directed to disclose subscriber information associated with the offending posts. This case highlights the contested nature of what qualifies as public information. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, exempts from its scope personal data that is made 'publicly available', either through voluntary disclosure by the individual or by entities under a legal obligation. However, this exemption is riddled with ambiguity, as the law offers no clear definition for what qualifies as 'publicly available data.' This lack of clarity may facilitate cybercrimes such as doxxing, especially since fragmented data from multiple platforms can be easily aggregated and used for harassment or intimidation — ultimately undermining the law's intended objective. Challenges ahead Experts underscored that enforcement, or rather the lack of it, often determines whether victims can access remedies. 'All laws are only as effective as their enforcement. While posts and accounts are promptly removed when government directives are issued, the same urgency is rarely extended to ordinary users reporting harassment or abusive content,' Mishi Choudhary, technology lawyer and digital rights advocate, told The Hindu. She pointed out that for victims of gendered online abuse, legal recourse is typically a last resort. 'Survivors are often disbelieved or, worse, blamed for the abuse they face. The lack of awareness and institutional support has a profoundly detrimental impact, forcing many to navigate an uphill battle in their quest for justice,' she said. Mr. Gupta agreed, highlighting challenges such as perpetrator anonymity, cross-jurisdictional hurdles, and limited cybercrime training. 'While the BNS has modernised terminology and broadened the scope of online offences, gaps in legal clarity and enforcement persist. Merely creating new offences is insufficient and may even endanger journalists and rights defenders, especially given India's weak rule of law framework,' he cautioned.
The Hindu
17-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why the law falls short in combating the surge in cyber-bullying cases
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Himanshi Narwal, the wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, issued a heartfelt appeal for peace and firmly rejected the vilification of Muslims and Kashmiris. Soon after, the grieving newlywed became the target of a vicious trolling campaign on X (formerly Twitter). Anonymous accounts hurled slurs at her, questioned her loyalty to her late husband, and even called for the cancellation of her pension. However, Ms. Narwal was not alone in facing such online vitriol. Following Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri's announcement on May 10 that India and Pakistan had reached an understanding to halt military hostilities, his account on X was inundated with abusive comments, some of which targeted even his daughter. Mr. Misri was eventually compelled to lock his account, as several diplomats and politicians condemned the toxic trolling culture in unequivocal terms. Emboldened by the anonymity of the internet, faceless trolls have turned into virtual vigilantes, punishing those who dare to question dominant narratives. What regulatory reforms, then, are necessary to ensure that such depravity is no longer met with impunity? Regulatory loopholes A range of terms has emerged to describe contemporary forms of cybercrime, including cyberbullying, stalking, hate speech, and doxxing. Doxxing, short for 'dropping dox' (documents), involves the unauthorised online disclosure of private information, often with malicious intent. This may include home addresses, phone numbers, or sensitive images, leaving victims vulnerable to harassment and tangible real-world threats. Studies show that such abuse disproportionately targets women and minorities, suggesting that these attacks are often driven not just by cruelty or amusement but by organised political motives. The consequences can be severe, frequently escalating to rape and death threats. India lacks a dedicated law specifically aimed at tackling online hate speech and trolling. Instead, a limited number of provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2003, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, cover certain aspects of cyberbullying. The BNS contains provisions applicable to electronic communications, such as Section 74 (assault or criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 75 (sexual harassment), Section 351 (criminal intimidation), Section 356 (defamation), and Section 196 (promoting enmity between groups). The IT Act supplements these offences with provisions like Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (impersonation fraud) and Section 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material electronically). 'The existing regulatory framework is functional but far from complete. No provision squarely criminalises sustained online abuse that does not qualify as 'obscene,' 'threatening,' or 'fraudulent.' Stalking under the BNS is gender-specific—limited to men targeting women—and hinges on intent to engage personally, failing to capture the collective harassment that defines much of online trolling. While cyberbullying may sometimes be shoehorned into offences like criminal intimidation or defamation, these require proof of threat or reputational harm and are ill-suited to counter the rapid, anonymous abuse unleashed by online mobs,' Apar Gupta, advocate and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, told The Hindu. Moderation or censorship? Mounting domestic and international pressure to curb disinformation and hate speech has compelled social media giants to moderate and remove harmful content. While many advocate for 'self-regulation,' where platforms enforce their own community guidelines, this model has largely failed and faces growing scrutiny. Last year, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov was arrested by French authorities for allegedly failing to moderate criminal activity on the platform, including the circulation of child sexual abuse material and fraudulent content. Telegram later amended its privacy policy to permit the disclosure of users' IP addresses and phone numbers to law enforcement upon receipt of 'valid legal requests.' Also Read: Should digital platform owners be held liable The challenge is further exacerbated by the gradual erosion of content moderation policies in favour of monetisation. In a damning report released earlier this month, the Centre for the Study of Organized Hate found that X had become a 'high-velocity distribution channel' for hate speech and conspiracy theories, particularly targeting British-Pakistani men as well as other South Asian and immigrant communities. An analysis of 1,365 posts generating over 1.5 billion engagements revealed that the platform played a central role in weaponising the 'grooming gang' discourse to scapegoat Muslims in the UK, despite police data showing that most offenders were white men. In India, Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to issue blocking orders on grounds aligned with constitutionally permissible restrictions on speech, such as national sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign States, and public order. Platforms that fail to comply risk losing safe harbour protection under Section 79, which ordinarily shields intermediaries from liability for user-generated content. However, experts have warned that these provisions are increasingly being used as tools for online censorship. In recent years, the Union government has frequently taken down content without notifying affected users — a practice that contravenes the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. While the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A, it underscored that blocking orders must be accompanied by cogent reasons to enable judicial scrutiny. Following the Pahalgam attack, X disclosed that it had been directed to block over 8,000 accounts in India, but said the government had not specified which posts violated the law in most cases. In March, the platform filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court challenging the government's reliance on Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders, arguing that it bypasses the procedural safeguards under Section 69A. Unlike Section 69A, Section 79(3)(b) neither defines what constitutes an 'unlawful act' nor provides for any review mechanism. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting recently informed a parliamentary committee that it is reconsidering safe harbour protections for social media platforms in a bid to combat 'fake news.' X has received executive orders from the Indian government requiring X to block over 8,000 accounts in India, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment of the company's local employees. The orders include demands to block access in India to… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) May 8, 2025 Judicial interventions In February last year, the Delhi High Court directed X to remove tweets revealing the personal and professional details of a woman who had reportedly posted a critical comment about Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The post triggered a wave of online harassment, with details of her workplace, residence, and photographs being widely circulated. Although these disclosures raised privacy concerns, Justice Prathiba Singh ruled that the incident did not constitute doxxing, as the information was already publicly available. However, the judge acknowledged that while doxxing is not yet a statutory offence in India, it poses a serious threat. She observed that it infringes upon the right to privacy and that, in the absence of specific legislation, courts could invoke tort law to offer redress. Accordingly, X was directed to disclose subscriber information associated with the offending posts. This case highlights the contested nature of what qualifies as public information. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, exempts from its scope personal data that is made 'publicly available', either through voluntary disclosure by the individual or by entities under a legal obligation. However, this exemption is riddled with ambiguity, as the law offers no clear definition for what qualifies as 'publicly available data.' This lack of clarity may facilitate cybercrimes such as doxxing, especially since fragmented data from multiple platforms can be easily aggregated and used for harassment or intimidation — ultimately undermining the law's intended objective. Challenges ahead Experts underscored that enforcement, or rather the lack of it, often determines whether victims can access remedies. 'All laws are only as effective as their enforcement. While posts and accounts are promptly removed when government directives are issued, the same urgency is rarely extended to ordinary users reporting harassment or abusive content,' Mishi Choudhary, technology lawyer and digital rights advocate, told The Hindu. She pointed out that for victims of gendered online abuse, legal recourse is typically a last resort. 'Survivors are often disbelieved or, worse, blamed for the abuse they face. The lack of awareness and institutional support has a profoundly detrimental impact, forcing many to navigate an uphill battle in their quest for justice,' she said. Mr. Gupta agreed, highlighting challenges such as perpetrator anonymity, cross-jurisdictional hurdles, and limited cybercrime training. 'While the BNS has modernised terminology and broadened the scope of online offences, gaps in legal clarity and enforcement persist. Merely creating new offences is insufficient and may even endanger journalists and rights defenders, especially given India's weak rule of law framework,' he cautioned.
