[random42]

This post is slightly misinformed. The reasoning behind asking BBM to have its server is not to have "access to encrypted communication", but to bring BBM (and similar communication platforms) operations under Indian laws, make them accountable to Indian government and possibly ensuring access to their servers and data to intelligence agencies for audit.

[kamikazearun]

The post was penned down as a joke and not really meant for a serious discussion. In any case, you seem to have confused reason and excuse. Two things to note here

1. We are ruled by a government that has failed to act on information they DID have in the past. "We could not protect you because the terrorists encrypted their communication" doesn't really work.

2. Let us assume that the reason for the terrorist/law&order situation is ENTIRELY the fault of encryption. So what is the extent of a "ban" on encryption? At most they can disable some services like BBM and encrypted mail. Which means everyone who needs encryption, including criminals, will start running their own servers and encrypting their stuff themselves. Net effect: Cost of encryption for citizens goes up. Criminals aren't affected.

Let us not forget that government after government in India are guilty of abusing state organisations for their their own gains (Central Bureau of Investigation anyone?)

[random42]

Neither of the aforementioned points are government reasoning. Having servers in India does NOT prevents encrypted communication or gives some magical ability to intercept it. No one even claims that. It just makes the company operating in the country, makes answerable to Indian judicial system and laws (equivalent to the powers FBI enjoy in the US, over the websites operating in the US). eg. providing server access to the intelligence organizations of the country.