Last year, a newspaper clipping about retired IAS officer Akshay Sood from Himachal Pradesh unexpectedly appeared on my Facebook feed. The news item praised his decision to decline the use of an official vehicle after being retained post-retirement. Finding it inspiring, I circulated it across several WhatsApp groups. Within hours, it reached Mr. Sood himself, who kindly called to express his appreciation—before adding that the article was, in fact, several years old. That brief conversation was my first real introduction to the notion of digital immortality: the reality that information, once online, rarely fades away.
In today’s information landscape, nothing is ever truly lost. Whether through news archives, social media platforms, or third-party aggregators, digital content persists, resurfaces, and can be repurposed long after its original publication. While this permanence helps preserve public memory, it also creates new vulnerabilities—especially when old material is retrieved to shape political narratives in the present.
A recent episode illustrates this dynamic clearly. A letter written by 272 former judges and civil servants to the Leader of the Opposition resurfaced on Twitter along with the list of signatories. Political actors responded immediately by reposting older social-media content authored by some of these individuals, including posts that had long since disappeared from public attention. This incident demonstrates a central feature of digital communication: everything written online remains accessible, retrievable, and potentially usable in unforeseen contexts.
Political leaders across the spectrum have experienced this. Videos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi from his years as Chief Minister of Gujarat—voicing concerns over GST, criticising Aadhaar, or commenting on the rupee’s depreciation—periodically reappear in online debates. Likewise, statements made by Arvind Kejriwal during his early political activism, especially his public refusal to accept government accommodation, official vehicles, or VIP privileges, resurface regularly, often to contrast evolving political realities. In both cases, older statements are revitalised not merely as historical records but as strategic tools in contemporary political communication.
However, digital permanence is only part of a more complex ecosystem. The rise of AI-generated deepfakes has fundamentally altered the nature of political information. Unlike older videos or tweets, deepfakes are not genuine records being revived—they are manufactured artefacts designed to imitate authenticity. In this environment, distinguishing between genuine archival content and synthetic material becomes increasingly challenging for the average citizen.
India’s political landscape provides ample evidence of this emerging threat. During recent election cycles, AI-generated videos of prominent leaders, deceased political figures, and even fabricated speeches circulated widely. These manipulated artifacts blur the lines between truth and fabrication in ways that threaten not only individual reputations but also the foundations of democratic deliberation.
These developments have significant policy implications:
1. Digital Accountability and Public Communication
Public representatives, bureaucrats, and influencers must recognise that every online statement carries enduring implications. Digital literacy training—focused on responsible communication, contextual awareness, and long-term reputational risks—should become a routine component of institutional capacity-building.
2. Regulatory Frameworks for AI-Generated Content
India urgently requires clear guidelines for the detection, labelling, and circulation of AI-generated media. Election-period regulations must specifically address the challenges posed by manipulated audio-visual content.
3. Platform Governance and Contextual Integrity
Social media platforms must adopt stronger measures for contextualising resurfaced content. Simple interventions—such as time-stamping, archival warnings, or prompts indicating older content—can mitigate the misinterpretation of outdated material.
4. Strengthening Democratic Discourse
The weaponisation of old statements, combined with the proliferation of synthetic media, risks reducing public debate to selective outrage rather than substantive engagement. Policy must therefore focus not only on regulating content but also on strengthening institutional norms of deliberation.
In this changing landscape, the virtues of prudence, accuracy, and restraint have become essential. Digital immortality ensures that every remark, image, or video may resurface years later, often stripped of its context and interpreted through a new political lens. The amplification power of social media—and the distortive potential of AI—magnifies these risks exponentially.
The Internet may never forget, but democratic societies must learn how to respond to this permanence. Whether through regulatory reforms, improved digital literacy, or institutional safeguards, India’s policy framework must evolve to protect the integrity of public discourse. The challenge is not merely technological but civic: to ensure that digital tools strengthen, rather than weaken, democratic governance.