Digital Sovereignty Must Not Override Privacy

The privacy of our personal information is very important in this digital age. We leave a lot of information behind just by living our lives. So, protecting this information is a deal. For countries like Bangladesh, it becomes difficult to find a balance between two things: keeping personal information safe and giving the government control over it. 
India and Bangladesh are both trying to make rules for digital information. They are doing it in different ways. India has already made a law called the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. There are also laws in Bangladesh. Even though both laws are meant to help with the changes in technology, they are based on different ideas and choices. The law in India is based on the country's constitution. In 2017 the Supreme Court of India said that privacy is a right. This was a change. The court did not just say that privacy is important. It also made rules for when the government can look at our information. The government can only do this if it is legally necessary. 
This decision made data protection in India very strong. It means that any new law about information must respect our rights. India's data protection law is not a rule. It is part of a conversation about our dignity, freedom, and control over our information. Bangladesh's constitution also talks about privacy. It is not as strong as India's. The constitution says that our homes and letters are private. 
India's data protection law has some features. It says that the person who has the information and the person who uses it must be responsible. The law also says that we must agree to give our information knowingly. One of the ideas in the law is the "consent manager." This is a person who helps us give a look at, manage, and take back our agreement to give information. This could make it easier for us to control our information in a world where we often do not understand what we are agreeing to. This will only work if it is done correctly and independently. The Indian law also uses fines to make sure people follow the rules. This is a way of regulating things. Data protection is not a legal obligation. It is also about taking risks and being responsible. Fines are not enough. They only work if the people who enforce the law are independent, capable and transparent.
Bangladesh’s approach is more focused on the government. One of the ideas is to store and process information within the country. This is called "data localisation”. People who support this say it helps the country control its future and makes it easier to regulate things.
Storing information in the country does not automatically make it safer. If the government can look at our information easily, it does not protect our privacy. Digital sovereignty does not mean our information is safe. This becomes a problem when the government can bypass normal rules in the name of security or public order. If this happens, the purpose of the data protection law is lost.
So the difference between India and Bangladesh is not about technical things. It is two different ways of thinking about regulation. India's approach is more focused on rights and balancing different things. Bangladesh's approach is more focused on the government's power and control.
Both countries should not prioritise governance over privacy. A good data protection system must protect our freedom. Privacy is not a barrier to progress. Digital sovereignty is not an excuse for the government to have too much power.
The rules of data protection must be clear and fair. Citizens must be educated about their rights so they can use them. Ideally Asian countries should work together to make common rules for the protection of digital information. 
The debate about data protection is really about the kind of society we want. If our personal information is valuable, the rules about it must be based on dignity, autonomy and responsibility. The government can pursue sovereignty, but it must do so without taking away our freedoms. A good data protection framework is not about how powerful the government is. It is about how it protects us.

The writer is a student at Department of Law, International Standard University (ISU)