The Quantum Hub

Authors: Sona Mitra, Sruthi Kutty, and Sonakshi Chaudhry
Published: August 30th, 2024 in The Hindu

Nari Shakti or women-led development remains at the core of announcements made by the hon’ble FM in this year’s budget, placed recently. The FM reiterated the government’s commitment to women’s empowerment that was reflected in budget allocations to pro-women programmes, as reported by the Gender budget Statement (GBS). The GB reached 1% of the GDP estimates in 2024-25 and the overall allocations stand at more than 3 lakh crores INR for pro-women programmes.

The GBS, since it was first introduced in 2005-06, consistently reported an average share of 5% of the total budgetary allocations, with marginal ups and downs. This year is special as the share of allocations to pro-women schemes stands at approximately 6.8% of the total budget expenditure for 2024-25, which is way above the usual trends and marks a positive departure from the earlier status quo.

The increase in the GB allocations are driven by two major factors – a part of this increase has been on account of newly included Part ‘C,’ a third part in the GBS that reports pro-women schemes with less than 30% provisioning for women. The PM Kisan scheme in the agriculture sector has been reported in part C with an outlay of INR 15,000 crore. This is 25% of the total outlay towards the programme.

The second factor driving the overall increase is driven by an increase in part A of the statement. Part A reports expenditures in schemes with 100% allocations for women. Part A had previously constituted 15-17% of overall allocations reported in the GBS till BE 2022-23. Since BE 2023-24, there was a sudden increase in the allocations in part A that raised the share of pro-women schemes with 100% allocations for women to almost 40% and above (figure 1). This was mainly due to a change in reporting where the PM Awas Yojana both rural and urban were reported in part A instead of part B. Incidentally, part B of the GBS reports programmes with allocations of 30-99% for women and hence only a part of Awas Yojana were reported earlier. This year the entire allocation of INR 80,670 crore, has been reported under part A.

Figure 1: Total allocations under Part A as share of total GB

Additionally, the entire allocation to the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) is reflected in Part A of the GBS, indicating that 100% of its outlay is dedicated to women and girls, which is technically correct and should have been done earlier. This is a welcome update from the Budgeted Estimates of 2023-24, where only 50% of the scheme’s total outlay used to be reflected in part B of the GBS.The GBS also correctly reported increased allocations for the Ministry of Electronics & IT and 48% of Jal Jeevan Mission in Part B. Meanwhile, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), which has the third highest allocation among schemes for women in the GBS, is currently reported under Part B with INR 28,888.67 crore, or 33.6% of its total outlay. It is important to note that women generated 59.3% of all person days as of December 2023, and should have received commensurate wages from the total MGNREGA budget, yet only 33.6% gets reflected in the GBS. The GBS also missed on reporting on the schemes for women entrepreneurs such as PM Vishwakarma, SVANidhi, and Stand-Up India. However, PM Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), which aims to assist entrepreneurs in setting up micro businesses in the non-farm sector, received a GBS allocation of INR 920 crore or 40% of the total allocation to PMEGP.

Experts for long have been pointing to the need for a detailed, three-part GBS to address reporting anomalies. To further strengthen it, the exercise should also include respective rationale for such reporting to ensure accuracy of allocations and reduce the probability of missing allocations.  The current format of the GBS gives hope for a better utilization of the tool in future.

Gender responsive budgeting is a powerful tool to close the gender gaps in an economy. Several years of advocating for improved reporting in the GBS by a range of stakeholders is reflected in the inclusion of a third part. However, it needs to be emphasized that detailed reporting is not a mere exercise in increasing the quantum of allocations reported for women’s development – it is an exercise to ensure actual spending for women in all government programmes, that are well planned and designed to include women’s needs from its inception. This will be achieved only when the GB tool is used effectively at all levels of the Union and the state government departments. That said, the promise to lead a path of women-led development can be fulfilled only when there is active participation of women in policy decisions as well as including women at the inception of programme designing. This will ensure that the benefits of development are distributed equitably amongst women and girls.

Sona Mitra and Sruthi Kutty work with IWWAGE, an initiative of LEAD at Krea University, and Sonakshi Chaudhry works at The Quantum Hub (TQH Consulting).

Authors: Ujval Mohan & Akanksha Ghosh
Date: 1^st August, 2024

For content creators and consumers alike, the 2020s have been transformative. Hundreds of creative Indians attained fame and fortune, with countless more looking forward to leverage India’s booming content economy. That may change if the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) implements proposed regulations aimed at content creators on social media platforms.

MIB is reportedly considering regulating “news and current affairs” content on social media platforms under the draft Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill. Concerningly, some interpret that the Bill goes even further, impacting  high-reach content creators even if they do not create news and current affairs content.

Though MIB is yet to clearly state its objective driving this proposal, drafts have been shared with select stakeholders as per reports. Following this, critique on opaque consultations and potential free speech implications have rightly dominated discourse. However, its potential to stymie India’s ambitions of a shining content economy is equally concerning. It is clear that MIB’s proposal perhaps sacrifices too much to achieve too little.

Impact on India’s Content Creation Economy

India’s content creation economy is exploding, with 100mn+ content creators putting out content. YouTube’s creator ecosystem alone contributed INR 16,000 crore to India’s 2022 GDP by some estimates, rivaling contributions by traditional industries. The sector has leveraged the borderless internet to enhance India’s soft-power appeal and expand the market for India-created content. For individuals, there is a promising chance of monetizing their creativity outside conventional employment avenues. To find Indian music routinely making it to top trending lists is emblematic not just of the art’s popularity but also of an untapped economic opportunity, which hasn’t gone unrecognized. PM Modi heralded social media creators as ambassadors of “vocal for local” innovation, urging them to engage global audiences.

MIB’s proposal threatens this achievable vision. Creators have innovated precisely because of vast freedoms in choosing how they entertain their audience. Imposing close scrutiny and bureaucratic compliances on self-driven entertainers will erode incentives to operate in this buoyant arena. If every vlogger has to ‘intimate’ the Government of their follower count, set up a ‘content evaluation committee’ to approve their uploads and fulfill other such regulatory requirements, fewer Indians would take up such creative endeavors.

The ability to impulsively leverage audience engagement, mix and match genres, and ‘meme’-ify dull topics will weaken if content standards similar to MIB’s ‘Program and Advertising Code’ (Code) would apply to our favorite vloggers the way it applies to TV channels, all to the detriment of the overall content economy.

Key Unanswered Questions: Practical Challenges

Who will these regulations apply to? To craft this law, MIB has the unenviable task of defining ideas like “professional”, “content creation,” and importantly, “news and current affairs content”. MIB’s definition seems to draw the line at content of “socio-political, economic or cultural nature”, which could arguably describe much online content. This begs the question, would meme-based sports updates be considered ‘news and current affairs’? Would an engineer who vlogs their daily routine be considered a ‘professional content creator’? Would a channel that comments on social issues while mostly posting baking or make-up tutorials have to abide by the Code? These are not hypothetical edge-cases but represent the bulk of routine dilemmas and disputes that will arise when regulation meant for traditional media is imposed on a fundamentally different internet environment.

Even if that barrier is crossed, who will enforce the new law? Users upload tremendously large amounts of content to platforms everyday. Follower/subscriber reach too is dynamic and changes week-on-week, such that who is popular today may be forgotten next week. Further, content creators can have inconsistent reach/popularity between platforms and often cross-pollinate their content, which adds to this complexity. Agencies/regulators enforcing the new law will likely struggle to mobilize resources to monitor creators’ reach on a given day, and check that their content is Code-friendly.

Reports suggest that social media operators may have greater due-diligence obligations to enforce these laws. The existing IT Rules, 2021 already set out content moderation mandates that require companies to address harmful and illegal content on social media. The new law could divert already stretched resources from pressing online safety issues to scrutinize routine uploads, subjecting users to collateral censorship triggered by the vague Code and threat of criminal penalties.

Looking Ahead

Given these challenges, it is worth recalling that MIB already has broad powers to prevent harmful content and is empowered to issue emergency directions to block content on any online forum. By contrast, the proposed law would add little to MIB’s existing arsenal to address harmful content. Instead, MIB and MeitY’s jurisdictions will intersect in vast plane covering most of the internet, creating everyday confusion for users, creators, and companies

In all, allowing MIB to dictate what one is permitted to “like, comment, or subscribe”  risks hurting incentives for creative Indians to earn and grow, and India’s ability to attract technology investment, while also failing Indian productive hunger for creative and engaging content.

Ujval Mohan is a Senior Analyst; and Akanksha Ghosh is an Analyst working on technology policy issues at The Quantum Hub (TQH) – a multi sectoral public policy firm.

Authors: Rohit Kumar & Srijan Rai

Published: August 6th, 2024 in The Indian Express

A draft version of the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2024 has been recently circulated among a handful of stakeholders from the industry by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB). This Bill aims to extend the regulations currently applied to traditional television and radio, to the internet. While seemingly designed to consolidate existing guidelines and increase accountability among broadcasters, the Bill does much more. It is expansive in its remit, covers all large influencers, content creators, and political commentators online, and tries to regulate speech. If introduced and passed in Parliament, the Bill could significantly undermine creative independence and stymie online freedom of expression in India.

Recent elections have shown that digital media can serve as a critical alternative space for creators and commentators to scrutinize government policies and demand accountability. It can enable dissenting voices that don’t find traction in mainstream media and help organize counter-narratives around critical issues – all vital for a well-functioning and vibrant democracy. The Broadcasting Services bill threatens to disrupt this dynamic.

Selective consultation and regulatory overreach

The draft Bill reimagines the term ‘broadcaster’ to include digital news broadcasters, defining them as anyone who ‘systematically’ broadcasts news and current affairs online, including on social media platforms via text, video or audio. What this means is that commentators on YouTube, Twitter, blogging portals or podcasts discussing current affairs and socio-political issues will all get covered under the Bill.

Digital news broadcasters with a certain threshold of subscribers/viewers must notify the government, conform to a Programme Code, set up a grievance redressal mechanism, and adhere to a three-tier regulatory structure. For content other than current affairs (a programme providing historical overview, for instance), broadcasters are also required to get pre-certification by a ‘Content Evaluation Committee’ that they set up. While allowing users to raise complaints against Programme Code violations, the Bill also gives the central government the power to impose penalties, direct broadcasters to go off-air, and even prohibit transmission in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, decency, morality, or foreign relations.

While some of these requirements may seem benign and perhaps an attempt to equalize TV and internet broadcasters, this view overlooks critical issues and ignores fundamental differences between TV and the internet. Unlike TV where linear programming is disseminated one to many, content on the internet is demand-based and one-to-one. It’s not clear, therefore, why they should be regulated in the same manner. Second, by opening the door for regulating social and political commentators and granting the government broad powers to intervene, we run the risk of serious censorship. Already, constitutional challenges to Part III of the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, which attempted to create government oversight over media, have led to these Rules being stayed by the Courts.

Third, unlike TV broadcasters with significant resources, many commentators on the internet are smaller-scale content creators and independent journalists. Applying the same regulations as TV on these broadcasters and requiring pre-certification of creative content, can unfairly burden these players and significantly increase costs while reducing speed to market.

Extra-territorial application

Unlike the 2023 version of this Bill, the current draft does not restrict the application of the law to broadcasters who are citizens of India or entities registered in India, potentially bringing global content creators, news publishers, and commentators of current affairs within the scope of the Bill. Does this mean that every foreign influencer, journalist or commentator with significant reach in India (think John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Fareed Zakaria as examples) will have to intimate the Indian government of their presence and comply with the Programme Code and adhere to the three-tier governance framework? Given the global nature of the internet, how will this provision even work?

Threatening safe harbour, yet again

The Bill imposes new obligations on social media intermediaries, including compliance with government demands for information about broadcasters on their platforms. The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and the accompanying IT Rules already require social media intermediaries to establish grievance redressal mechanisms, comply with government orders, and operate a notice-and-takedown regime for flagged content. Introducing parallel legislation to regulate social media intermediaries and threatening safe harbour protections will only add to the regulatory quagmire and create a chilling effect on free speech.

Respecting free speech and recognizing the limitations of internet regulation

Regulating content on the internet presents inherent challenges due to the global, decentralized nature of the web. Unlike traditional media, the internet hosts a far greater number of creators and influencers, there is a lot more content being generated, and the dissemination of this content transcends national boundaries, making jurisdictional enforcement complex and often impractical. Attempts to impose stringent regulations – what MIB seems to be doing through the current Bill – can lead to serious consequences. If the government is concerned about fake news or harmful/ misleading content, other mechanisms need to be leveraged, like the IT Act 2000 which already provides for a flagging and takedown regime.

The draft Broadcasting Bill, 2024 needs a serious rethink. At the minimum, it requires thorough deliberation and discussion with a broad and diverse range of stakeholders before it is made into law. This legislation isn’t just about a few companies and media outlets – it is about the future of the internet and the digital citizens on it.

_____

Rohit is Founding Partner and Srijan is an Associate at The Quantum Hub (TQH) – a public policy firm

Authors: Shashank Pandey & Srijan Rai

Published: 7th August, 2024 in The Print

On 29 July, the Union government released draft amendments to Rules 17 and 18 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules 2017. Prima facie, the objective of such an amendment is to tighten the requirements for obtaining a disability certificate. This action by the government appears to be influenced by a recent controversy involving a former trainee IAS officer misusing a disability certificate. However, this move is expected to create further delays and additional barriers for Indians with disabilities seeking certification.

The proposed amendment to Rule 18 increases the certification period from one month to three months. A pressing concern is that there is no clarity on when the three-month period begins. Currently, disability certificates must be issued within one month “from the date of receipt of the application”. The amendment eliminates this deadline and stipulates that the certificate or Unique Disability ID (UDID) be issued within three months “if any disability is diagnosed”. Thus, it is unclear whether this three-month period will start from the date of the application or from when the medical authority confirms the disability.

The existing timeline of one month is not fulfilled in most cases. One of the co-authors of this article applied for certificate renewal and has not received it even after six hospital visits and more than 50 days since applying. The recent amendment is likely to further delay certificate issuance.

The extension of the timeline exacerbates the difficulties of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in obtaining certification for education or employment, where documentation deadlines are often tight. Instead of diagnosing the underlying issues in the current system, the new rules will lead to further setbacks and complications.

Complex assessment process

Amendment to Rule 17 of the RPwD Rules introduces the mandate to submit identity proofs in addition to the previously required Aadhar number. The process for availing Aadhar card is already tedious for many PwDs who don’t enjoy the exemption from biometric requirements under Aadhar laws. Additionally, the application for issuance of a disability certificate or UDID must be submitted only to the medical authority or any other competent ‘medical’ authority at the applicant’s place of residence. The rationale for adding the term ‘medical’ is unclear and may be directed to exclude authorities like blind school principals and those who have certification powers in special cases.

Earlier this year, the central government issued revised assessment guidelines to simplify the process for PwDs. The certification process, carried out by state governments, is based on these guidelines and specifies medical authorities responsible for assessments. However, the process at the state level suffers from a lack of expertise and know-how in the medical assessment panels.

The assessment process, based on the medical model of disability, grants significant discretion to doctors. The time required for proper assessment varies across states, districts, and hospitals. The current certification process involves multiple examination levels that vary across disabilities, leading to inconsistent diagnosis of disability percentages. This inconsistency is particularly problematic for individuals with invisible disabilities or symptoms, such as multiple sclerosis, thalassemia, sickle cell, and learning disabilities, among others. Such stringent rules and discretion with medical authority with an extended timeline for certification can be exclusionary in practice.

Creating ambiguity

The proposed amendment also formalises the UDID issuance process by giving it statutory authority. It introduces three types of UDIDs: White (for less than 40 per cent disability), yellow (40 per cent to 80 per cent) and blue (more than 80 per cent). However, this sub-categorisation without specification of the corresponding benefits can lead to further confusion in assessments and allocation of benefits. Last year, the central government made UDID compulsory for availing of the facilities of 17 centrally sponsored schemes. The sub-categorisation might lead to exclusion or preferential treatment within such schemes or potentially stigmatise holders of white or yellow UDID cards.

The UDID is still not widely accepted for accessing various facilities. For example, the Ministry of Railways and several state-level schemes still require separate certifications for benefits. The disability certificates/UDIDs often need further medical assessments for exams like UPSC and NEET. This multiplicity of certifications adds a bureaucratic burden, risks contradictory assessments, and may lead to confusion and denial of benefits. It raises the question of whether these extensive certification processes are enabling provisions for PwDs or merely creating artificial barriers to their empowerment.

Amendment influenced by social outrage

The proposed changes reveal a misguided belief that the primary issue is the prevalence of fake certificates rather than the systemic barriers PwDs face. Extending the certification period and implementing stricter assessment or sub-categorisation measures could further marginalise PwDs with disability percentages close to 40 per cent or those with invisible disabilities. Such measures contradict the spirit of the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016, which seeks to promote inclusion and accessibility for PwDs. Certification is a fundamental prerequisite for the inclusion of PwDs.

These new requirements threaten to obfuscate the real issues—namely, the system’s rigging by privileged individuals. Genuine PwDs already face immense difficulties in obtaining certification, and the recent amendment can make this process even more arduous. It is disheartening that the amendments have been encouraged by public fear rather than the need to promote true inclusion.

_____

Shashank Pandey is a lawyer and founder of the Politics and Disability Forum. Srijan Rai, is a policy researcher and Associate, Public Policy at The Quantum Hub (TQH).

Authors: Aditi Jha and Aparajita Bharti

Published: 7th August 2024 in Hindustan Times

A decade ago, the Companies Act of 2013 and SEBI’s 2014 rules sparked hope for significant shifts in corporate leadership demographics. The Companies Act of 2013 requied certain classes of companies to have at least one woman director on their boards, while SEBI’s 2014 rules limited independent directors’ tenures to two consecutive terms i.e. 10 years. These measures aimed to enhance gender diversity and leadership within corporate boards. As a result, over the years, women’s representation on boards has increased from 6% in 2013 to 18.3% in 2023.

The progress has been incremental but also slow and uneven. As per a report by Fortune India and SP Jain Institute of Management and Research, only 20% of Fortune 500 companies in India met the requirement of having at least one woman director as of 2023. With approximately 30,000 independent directors set to complete their 10-year term in 2024, it remains to be seen how companies refresh their boards this year. At this critical juncture, companies have the opportunity to walk the talk on diversity and gender inclusion. But at the same time, we must also remember that the Board is not where womens’ leadership journeys begin.

The leaky pipeline continues to hamper women representation

LinkedIn’s Economic Graph data reveals that globally women comprise 42% of the workforce. However, they only hold 31.7% of senior leadership positions. Further, the hiring of women in leadership roles has declined since 2021 globally, dropping from 37.5% to 36.4% by early 2024. In India, in contrast, there has been an increase in female representation in senior leadership roles albeit on a much lower base. It has risen from 16.6% in 2016 to 18.7% in 2023, slightly dipping to 18.5% by May 2024. Female leadership hires increased from 18.8% in 2016 to 25.2% in 2021, then declined to 23.4% by May 2024.

The concept of a “leaky pipeline” aptly describes the career trajectory of women in the workforce. While women show strong representation at entry and senior individual contributor levels, there is a notable decline as they move into managerial roles. Starting at 29% at the entry level, female representation drops significantly at the managerial level and continues to decrease through the director and vice president levels, ultimately reaching just 15.3% at the C-suite level. This decline often coincides with life stages where women face increased pressures from marriage and caregiving responsibilities, leading to higher attrition rates.

Uneven progress in women representation across sectors

Sector-specific trends further highlight the challenges and opportunities. Globally, women make up only 28.2% of the workforce in STEM fields, in stark contrast to 47.3% in non-STEM sectors. Yet, emerging technology sectors show promise, with the number of women in AI engineering having more than doubled since 2016.

In India, the landscape is varied: Financial Services and Technology sectors see around 19% female representation in senior roles, whereas Education and Government Administration boast higher figures at 30% and 28.7% respectively. Other fields like Consumer Services, Professional Services, Hospitals, and Health Care also show moderate female leadership representation, indicating pockets of progress amidst broader challenges.

Conversely, Construction, Oil & Gas, Mining, and Utilities traditionally perceived as a “male domain” have female representation below 10% in senior roles. These insights reveal that certain sectors require more concerted interventions to make them gender inclusive. Occupational segregation disproportionately impacts Indian working women, and limits their career growth opportunities. For instance, industries such as Construction, Manufacturing, and Oil, Gas, and Mining face entrenched gender stereotypes, a lack of female role models, and work environments that discourage female participation.

So, how can we bring change and make the workforce more inclusive for women?

LinkedIn’s Economic Graph findings also reveal that while it is crucial to drive compliance of existing mandates, it is  also important to go beyond them to prepare women to take leadership roles in their careers. Implementing supportive workplace practices like flexible hours, remote work where possible, and childcare support can aid in retaining more women in the workforce. Women returning to work after maternity leave need special support and flexibility so that they can continue their career trajectories. Further, while evidence suggests that women in leadership can foster more gender-responsive organisations, it’s essential to recognize that women taking up these roles require additional support to bring about these changes. Mentorship support is required for women at all stages of their careers as they have fewer role models.

On a broader level, we need more nudges for organisations to be intentional in fostering women leaders. Establishing a National Dashboard on Women’s Leadership in the private sector can aid in tracking progress, showcasing successful initiatives, and disseminating best practices across industries. We also need increased investment in care infrastructure and policy action towards paternal leaves to redistribute women’s workload at home.

With “Women-led development” firmly on the government’s agenda, women’s representation and leadership in the private sector is an important piece of the puzzle. Women in leadership in each industry open up new opportunities for the next generation. Sectoral gender disaggregated data on job roles can help us identify crucial roadblocks, so that we can remove them one by one.

_____

Aditi Jha is the Country Head, Legal & Government Affairs and board member at Linkedin India. Aparajita Bharti is the Founding Partner of The Quantum Hub (TQH) Consulting, a public policy firm.

Author: Aparajita Bharti

Published: 24th April 2024 in the Mint

Recently, reports emerged that India’s ministry of electronics and IT has been working on an app, Safenet, that links parents’ phones with those of their children, so that they can monitor the online activities of their offspring. While parental controls on internet platforms typically offer options of granting app or website access and placing limits on the time spent, Safenet is said to go further by sharing call details and SMS logs, apart from data on all content viewed on platforms like YouTube. The Internet Service Provider Association of India has suggested that this app should be made available by default on all personal devices. This proposal is a classic example of techno-solutionism, an attempt to use technology to solve a complex social problem.

Online safety for kids is a complicated issue, with debates over the overall impact of internet usage on children. Since this impact is highly context-dependent, policymakers present a strong argument that any ‘duty of care’ in the online environment should rest primarily with parents, just as it does in the physical environment. However, the devil always lies in the details.

First, in the physical environment too, parents do not have complete control over a child’s information ecosystem. Parents are often in fact surprised to discover how much their children know, because they do not control all their interactions in school either with peers or their environment. However, in the digital realm, while parents can potentially get complete visibility of their child’s online interactions, it could conflict with a teenager’s need for independence, as child psychologists point out. There’s a delicate balance between parental oversight and teen autonomy that needs to be addressed.

Second, tools made available that allow an intimate invasion of privacy are very likely to be misused. This is particularly concerning for children who face abuse from their own families. Further, one-third of women in India experience intimate partner violence, according  to National Family Health Survey-5. Abusive partners can also use such tools to monitor and exert complete control over their victims. Identity verification, often proposed as a solution to this, is far from foolproof, given low digital literacy among women. In the gender context, another unintended impact of such tools would be parents exerting more control over the activities of adolescent girls than boys, a phenomenon observed routinely in the offline world. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a recent interview with Bill Gates, spoke about the immense power of technology in the hands of women. However, in a deeply patriarchal society, tools that allow such control over the information ecosystem of girls would not sync with that vision. It could widen the gap between boys and girls with respect to information access on top of an already prevalent digital divide.

As is evident, over indexing on one part of the ‘online kids safety’ puzzle leads us to newer problems. We therefore need an all-of-ecosystem approach.

First, we need to update our laws. For example, under the new Indian law that replaces the IT Act, 2000, there should be room for codes of practices similar to the UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code and the Aotearoa New Zealand Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms. These codes provide guidance to platforms on features to make them safer for children. The newly passed Online Safety Act in the UK also requires platforms to conduct a risk assessment from the perspective of children.

Second, we need platforms to design behavioural ‘nudges’ to drive uptake of the parental controls already available. Many popular platforms have parental controls or family centres that aim to maintain a balance which lets parents know about their child’s usage patterns without granting them the power to eavesdrop. Platforms should come forward to co-design child safety codes with the government that would suit the Indian context.

Third, we need education institutions to chip in. Among parents’ key concerns are screen time and their inability to monitor legitimate uses versus unwanted activities. However, even schools (especially affluent ones) have been driving up screen time by making education more tab or screen based in the post-pandemic world. This perhaps requires a rethink.

Fourth, every educator and parent would acknowledge that every solution, technological or otherwise, is prone to circumvention by children. Children are creative, often more adept at using the internet, and have networks with peers that adults often know little about. Therefore, we need to invest in fostering children’s own ability to navigate the online world safely. We should focus on inculcating  self-responsibility, so that kids are able to tell good apart from bad, feel free to seek support when needed, and develop mature relationships with technology where they are in control and not the other way around. For this, we should update school syllabi , introduce this as a life skill, revise civic education curriculums and also create space for discussions on tech and society.

Finally, a survey by Young Leaders for Active Citizenship revealed that 80% of parents seek guidance from their children off and on to navigate the internet. We perhaps ought to flip the entire household dynamic on its head, so that today’s up-to-date teenagers can become coaches for safer internet usage at home. After all, we know that many millennial parents themselves are hooked to Reels and may be in need of help too!

—

Aparajita Bharti is the co-founder of The Quantum Hub, a public policy firm and Young Leaders for Active Citizenship (YLAC)