Governments frequently use internet blackouts to silence dissent, but offline messaging apps are creating new obstacles for these strategies. India’s recent attempt to block Bitchat, an application launched by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey in 2025, suggests this conflict is intensifying. The software allows nearby phones to communicate over Bluetooth even when mobile networks or internet access are completely cut off.
Last month, the app faced its most significant real-world test after authorities shut down internet access during student protests in New Delhi. As demonstrators turned to Bitchat to organize, the Indian government moved to restrict access to the app’s source code on GitHub, a Microsoft-owned platform where developers host and share software. Digital rights advocates note that while India has previously banned apps from official stores, this appears to be the first known attempt to geoblock an open-source software repository.
A Decentralized Challenge
Bitchat’s functionality relies on a mesh network, which bypasses the need for centralized infrastructure. “The decentralized architecture of the app means that there is no central server or database and therefore there cannot be a central kill switch,” said Namrata Maheshwari, senior policy counsel at digital civil rights nonprofit Access Now. “Downloaded apps will continue to work as long as they are within the physical proximity required for the mesh network to function.”
Related: State-owned AI fails to address growing inequality
This confrontation marks a distinct escalation in digital censorship. Rather than simply filtering specific posts or websites, authorities are now attempting to dismantle the underlying infrastructure that allows peer-to-peer communication. By targeting open-source repositories, the state is effectively trying to outlaw the fundamental concept of software that operates independently of centralized control.
The usage statistics reflect the app’s growing relevance. Bitchat reached an all-time high of 430,000 daily active users in India on July 26. Between July 20 and July 26, India accounted for 74% of the app’s global downloads. The software has also seen spikes during unrest in Myanmar, Nepal, Uganda, Madagascar, and Iran. It previously topped Apple’s App Store charts in Jamaica during power outages caused by a hurricane last year.
Government Pushback
On July 23, the Indian government directed GitHub to disable access to three Bitchat repositories in India within three hours. Dorsey publicly shared the government’s directive on X, stating that officials “do not like technologies like Bitchat and wants it taken down.”
Prateek Waghre, a tech policy expert based in Bengaluru, suggested the government’s approach may have been counterproductive. He noted that without the public notice to GitHub and Dorsey’s subsequent tweet, the issue would have stayed within tech policy circles. “It would not have become a larger conversation — but it did, and because of that, I think a lot of people probably downloaded it,” Waghre said.
Related: Myanmar rare earth mines exact heavy toll
Maheshwari argued that blocking an entire platform based on potential misuse sets a dangerous precedent. “If the mere possibility of a technology being misused sufficed to block it entirely, we would have no email services or search engines or AI chatbots or even Microsoft Office for that matter,” she told Rest of World. She emphasized that anonymous communication and decentralized architecture are essential for privacy and autonomy, allowing people to contact family, document events, and access emergency services during unrest.
Shifting the Boundaries
At the time of publication, the repositories remained accessible in India and had been mirrored on decentralized platforms including Radicle and GitLawb. The clash over Bitchat occurs as India, home to the world’s second-largest internet user base, increasingly challenges the design of communication platforms rather than just the content they carry.
In June, the government temporarily banned the encrypted messaging app Telegram for a week. The following month, it stalled the rollout of WhatsApp’s username feature, citing threats of impersonation and fraud. Waghre questioned the logic of intervening simply because a platform’s function is disliked. “Anything that enables communication can be used by two people to communicate something that’s illegal,” he said. “So where do you really draw the line on that?”