Amid a global surge in synthetic media threats and the militarization of generative artificial intelligence (AI), India is preparing to tighten its regulatory framework for AI models. The move follows a rise in deepfake incidents and growing concerns over the potential use of such technologies in disinformation campaigns and cyber-enabled psychological operations (PSYOPs).
New Regulatory Push Targets Generative AI Misuse
India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has signaled a significant policy shift by drafting new guidelines aimed at controlling the deployment of generative AI tools. These include large language models (LLMs), image/video synthesis platforms, and voice cloning systems—technologies with dual-use potential that can be weaponized for military-grade information warfare.
The proposed rules would require developers to obtain government approval before releasing any “under-tested” or “unreliable” AI models to the public. This includes mandatory watermarking of synthetic content generated by such tools. The regulation also mandates clear labeling of content as AI-generated when disseminated on social media or other digital platforms.
This regulatory tightening comes after several high-profile deepfake incidents in India targeting political figures—including fabricated videos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi—and amid increasing concern about foreign influence operations leveraging generative tools.
Dual-Use Concerns: From Civilian Tools to Military PSYOPs
While the public narrative focuses on safeguarding elections and preventing misinformation, defense analysts point out that these regulations are also motivated by national security imperatives. Generative AI has emerged as a critical enabler for modern PSYOPs, cognitive warfare, and deception operations—all key components of hybrid warfare doctrines employed by state adversaries like China and Pakistan.
- Voice cloning: Can be used to impersonate military leaders or disrupt command-and-control (C2) chains.
- Synthetic imagery: Enables creation of fake battlefield footage or satellite imagery to mislead ISR systems or manipulate public perception.
- LLMs: Can generate plausible disinformation narratives at scale in multiple languages with cultural nuance.
The Indian Armed Forces have already begun integrating counter-disinformation capabilities into their cyber commands. The new regulations would provide legal backing for monitoring civilian-origin platforms that could be exploited for hostile influence campaigns targeting Indian troops or civil-military cohesion during crises.
Legal Framework Evolves Amid Global Trend Toward AI Governance
The latest draft guidelines build upon India’s existing Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. However, they go further by directly addressing foundation models—a category that includes systems like OpenAI’s GPT-4 or Google’s Gemini—that can be fine-tuned for malicious purposes.
This aligns India with a broader international trend toward regulating frontier AI systems. The European Union recently passed its landmark EU AI Act categorizing high-risk applications—including those related to biometric surveillance and misinformation—as subject to strict compliance requirements. Similarly, the United States has issued Executive Orders mandating safety evaluations for dual-use foundation models under Defense Production Act authorities.
India’s approach is more centralized but reflects similar concerns—particularly around national security vulnerabilities stemming from unregulated access to powerful generative tools by non-state actors or foreign intelligence services.
Industry Pushback Highlights Tension Between Innovation and Security
The draft guidelines have sparked criticism from Indian tech startups and global platform providers who argue that pre-approval requirements could stifle innovation in the fast-moving field of machine learning. Industry groups like Nasscom have called for clearer definitions around what constitutes an “unreliable” model or “harmful” content under the proposed rules.
However, MeitY officials maintain that unchecked proliferation of synthetic content poses unacceptable risks—not only in terms of electoral integrity but also operational readiness during conflicts where adversaries may attempt to sow confusion via fake alerts or falsified battlefield reports distributed through social media channels frequented by soldiers or first responders.
Cognitive Warfare Frontline Expands: Implications for Military Doctrine
The Indian military establishment is increasingly aware that future conflicts will not be fought solely on kinetic fronts but across digital cognitive domains as well. In this context:
- Civilian tech regulation becomes part of strategic deterrence: Limiting adversarial access to domestic platforms reduces attack surface area for influence ops.
- Synthetic media detection becomes a force protection priority: Tools are being developed within DRDO labs to identify deepfakes in real-time communications streams used during joint operations or UN peacekeeping missions.
- PsyOps doctrine modernization underway: The Directorate General of Military Operations (DGMO) is reportedly working with cyber agencies on protocols for countering synthetic narrative attacks during grey zone scenarios along border regions such as Ladakh or Arunachal Pradesh.
This convergence between civilian tech policy and military strategy underscores how deeply integrated artificial intelligence has become within modern defense planning—even when it originates from consumer-facing platforms like ChatGPT or Midjourney.
Ahead: National Strategy on Responsible AI Deployment?
The current regulatory effort may serve as a precursor to a broader National Strategy on Responsible Artificial Intelligence Use in Defense Contexts—akin to frameworks released by NATO’s Emerging Disruptive Technologies division or Singapore’s MINDEF Digital Defence blueprint. Such a strategy would likely include:
- DARPA-style funding mechanisms for secure-by-design LLMs tailored for ISR fusion or multilingual OSINT parsing;
- Synthetic content attribution standards, co-developed with CERT-In;
- Bilateral export control agreements, especially with Quad partners like Australia and Japan;
- Civil-military collaboration protocols, ensuring rapid response when hostile synthetic campaigns are detected targeting defense personnel networks;
If implemented effectively, India’s regulatory push could become a model among Global South nations seeking sovereign control over dual-use digital infrastructure while maintaining alignment with democratic norms around transparency and accountability in algorithmic governance.
Conclusion: A Preemptive Strike Against Algorithmic Chaos?
The Indian government’s planned tightening of generative AI rules reflects not just electoral anxieties but deeper strategic calculations about emerging forms of conflict where bits may precede bullets. As adversaries experiment with algorithmically generated deception at scale—from fake orders issued via cloned voices to battlefield footage created entirely through GANs—nations must adapt their legal arsenals accordingly.
This latest move positions India at the forefront among developing powers attempting to bridge civilian technology governance with military readiness against cognitive threats—a domain likely to define both deterrence posture and operational tempo in future hybrid wars across Asia-Pacific theaters.
