Jaijit Bhattacharya: Social-Media Misinformation can be a Threat to India’s Security and Sovereignty

The expansion of social-media platforms has transformed the way information flows in modern societies. In India, where more than 900mn people have internet access and hundreds of millions actively engage on digital platforms, social media has become a central arena for public discourse. While these platforms have enabled greater participation in democratic processes and faster communication, they have also created vulnerabilities.

Misinformation, disinformation and coordinated narrative manipulation can influence public perception, trigger social unrest and undermine trust in institutions. When deployed deliberately, such tactics can pose serious threats to national security and sovereignty.

Social-media misinformation spreads rapidly because of the structural design of digital platforms. Algorithms often prioritise content that generates strong engagement, such as posts that evoke anger, fear or outrage. Sensational claims, misleading visuals and emotionally charged narratives travel further and faster than carefully verified information.

In a diverse and densely populated country like India, where information circulates across multiple languages and communities, the consequences of misinformation can be amplified.

Mobs Take Over

One of the most concerning aspects of social-media misinformation is its ability to provoke real-world violence. India has already witnessed several incidents where false information circulating online triggered panic or mob action.

Between 2017 and 2018, a wave of WhatsApp rumours about child kidnappers spread across multiple states. These rumours led to a series of mob lynchings in several parts of the country. The incidents show how quickly misinformation can transform fear into violence.

In situations where communities already face mistrust or political polarisation, misinformation can act as an accelerant. And as these messages spread through closed messaging groups and encrypted channels, they often reach large audiences before authorities or fact-checkers can intervene.

The 2023 violence in Manipur illustrates how misinformation can deepen conflict in fragile environments. During the unrest, several misleading images and videos circulated on social-media platforms. Some content consisted of old footage from unrelated incidents that was presented as evidence of new violence.

In conflict-like situations, misinformation does not remain confined to online discussions. It can influence how communities interpret events and can provoke retaliatory actions before accurate information emerges.

Public-health crises also reveal the dangers of misinformation. During the Covid-19 pandemic, social-media platforms became a major channel for false claims about the virus, treatments and vaccines. Rumours regarding miracle cures and conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus circulated widely. These narratives complicated public-health messaging and created confusion among citizens during a period when accurate information was essential for managing the crisis.

In an emergency situation, misinformation can delay public compliance with safety measures and erode trust in authorities.

Upending Democracy

Social-media misinformation also has implications for India’s democratic processes. Elections represent moments when information flows have direct political consequences. Political messaging, campaign narratives and public opinion evolve rapidly during election cycles. When misinformation spreads at scale, it can distort voter perceptions and undermine informed decision-making.

Digital platforms operate at a speed that institutional systems often cannot match. A misleading video, edited speech or fabricated claim can reach millions of users within minutes through reposts, influencer amplification and algorithmic recommendation systems.

Institutions such as election authorities, courts, fact-checking organisations and regulatory bodies require time to verify claims and respond through formal channels. By the time corrections are issued, the misleading narrative may already have shaped public attitudes.

The 2024 general election period illustrated the emerging risk posed by synthetic media. Deepfake videos, generated by artificial intelligence (AI), of well-known public figures circulated online, appearing to show them endorsing political positions they had never expressed. Although many of these videos were eventually identified as fabricated, they spread widely before verification mechanisms could catch up.

This demonstrates how advances in AI can further complicate the challenge of misinformation.

At scale, the continuous spread of misleading narratives can degrade democratic discourse. Debates may shift away from policy issues towards emotionally charged controversies fuelled by viral content. Repeated exposure to manipulated information can weaken trust in institutions, electoral systems and media organisations.

Information operations have become a recognised instrument in geopolitical competition.

Guardrails Needed

Technology platforms also bear responsibility for addressing the spread of misinformation. Improved detection of automated accounts, stronger moderation mechanisms and greater transparency in algorithmic systems can reduce the reach of coordinated campaigns.

Platforms can also support independent fact-checking organisations and provide users with clearer context around disputed claims.

Equally important is the role of digital literacy. Citizens who understand how misinformation spreads are less likely to amplify false narratives. Educational initiatives that encourage critical evaluation of online information can strengthen societal resilience against misinformation.

Safeguarding India’s security and sovereignty in the digital age requires sustained vigilance. Strengthening institutional capacity, promoting responsible platform governance and enhancing public awareness are essential steps toward protecting democratic processes from the destabilising effects of misinformation.

(The writer is president, Centre for Digital Economy Policy)