Every political order rests on a fiction that must be renewed continuously, or it dies. Jean-Jacques Rousseau called it the social contract, and he was careful to note that it is not a document but a disposition. The general will remains general only so long as each subject internalises it as their own. That internalisation is personal morality: not obedience to law, but the mechanism by which an external political arrangement becomes an interior fact, felt as legitimate rather than imposed. Morality is the load-bearing wall between the political order and the subject, the thing that keeps the contract valid once the founders are dead and the reasons for the arrangement have faded into habit.
This is why technology and political revolution resist being understood as one term acting upon another, as though technology were a tool revolutionaries pick up and revolution a response technology triggers. Each new technological regime reconstitutes the conditions under which a subject can be said to consent at all: what they can know, whom they can address, which forms of coercion are visible, and which are ambient enough to escape notice. When those conditions change, the old morality stops performing its function. It no longer makes the citizen feel that the general will is theirs.
A gap opens between the political order and the subject, and that gap is where revolutions live. A revolution that changes the political order without closing that gap has not renewed the contract. It has relocated the crisis.
Three precedents
The printing press did this once. It dissolved the Church’s monopoly on textual authority, made vernacular scripture and pamphlet argument available to anyone literate enough to read them, and forced into existence a moral vocabulary capable of legitimating a post-clerical order: conscience, private judgement, the individual reader answerable to god without an intermediary. That vocabulary arrived because clerical mediation stopped working the instant print made it optional, and something had to fill the gap.
The factory did it again, more brutally. It manufactured, in one motion, an industrial working class and the conditions that turned that class into a political subject rather than a scattered population of labourers: concentration, common grievance, shared time-discipline. What it did not supply was the moral language to explain what was owed to that new subject. Liberalism and socialism competed for a century to write it, rights against exploitation on one side, the abolition of wage labour on the other, both attempting the same Rousseauian labour: making an industrial population feel that the order under which it lived was its own general will and not merely a system it was compelled to serve.
Nuclear weapons did something stranger. They created a new class of political fact rather than a new class of subject: mutual vulnerability at civilisational scale, for which the older vocabulary of just war and raison d’état had no precedent. The result was decades of improvised moral theory: deterrence ethics, non-proliferation as binding norm, the doctrine that certain weapons must be built so that they are never used. All of it was invented because the technology had outrun the inherited categories for judging political violence.
Also read: Indians employ a unique mechanism to marry science and faith. It leaves both hollow
The present regime
Digital infrastructure is doing this now, and at the level of the state it has produced technonationalism. It is the doctrine that sovereignty must be redefined around control of semiconductors, data flows, satellite constellations, and frontier AI models, on the reasoning that a nation which does not own its computational substrate cannot be said to own its politics. Washington’s chip export controls, Beijing’s drive toward indigenous fabrication, Brussels’s attempts to legislate data sovereignty into existence, and India’s own turn toward domestic semiconductor capacity, launch systems, and AI stacks are one story told in four accents. Each makes the same claim: dependency on another polity’s technological base is a species of unfreedom, because it leaves the conditions of one’s own deliberation in someone else’s hands.
Technonationalism is a moral claim wearing the language of industrial strategy. It asserts that a people cannot author its own contract while its technological base is rented from elsewhere, and that a nation governed by infrastructure it does not control is a nation whose consent is manufactured for it. The claim is Rousseauian to its core, and India’s version deserves to be met on those terms rather than waved away as protectionism or borrowed great-power posturing. A state that must ask permission, in effect, for the chips that run its elections, its banks, and its hospitals is exposed to having its deliberation captured by whoever holds the permission. The instinct to close that exposure is neither irrational nor novel; it is the instinct that made Rousseau insist that a people subject to another’s will in the essentials of its own reproduction has not achieved political existence.
But a moral claim in the language of sovereignty is not yet a moral revolution, and the honesty of this argument lives in the distance between the two. Technonationalism can produce a more capable state and leave a more moral one entirely unbuilt: the old hierarchy in new clothing, the nation-state reasserting itself through silicon and satellites while leaving untouched who, within the nation, actually benefits from the capacity reclaimed. A fabrication plant does not distribute its benefits by its own logic. A satellite constellation does not decide of its own accord to serve famine-relief logistics rather than surveillance. Those are choices, made or deferred by political subjects whose morality either does or does not demand them. The first century of the industrial revolution is the plain precedent: enormous new productive capacity coexisting for decades with a moral order that still treated most of the population it depended on as barely eligible to vote, let alone to claim a share of the surplus.
The question we keep deferring
That gap between capacity and obligation has a specific name in our moment: hunger. So the deferred question has to be put directly. Can the technical capacity now assembled actually eliminate mass poverty and extreme hunger within a generation? Precision agriculture, biometric cash-transfer infrastructure, cold-chain vaccine logistics, satellite-guided last-mile distribution, desalination, drought-resistant cultivars: put together, can they end what ails humanity?
The honest answer is yes, and it would not have been honest 50 years ago. That change is the single most important fact in this age, and most public argument about technology and development is organised to avoid stating it. Our situation is no longer that of 1950, when scarcity was still partly a fact of production: yields were genuinely too low, logistics were too primitive, information about who needed what and where was too poor to act on in time. Green Revolution-era India lived inside that constraint directly. It no longer does. What remains scarce is not calories in aggregate, nor the means of moving them, nor the administrative instruments for identifying who needs them; India’s own direct-benefit-transfer architecture is proof of how far that state capacity has travelled. What remains scarce is the decision to aim the assembled capacity at that end rather than another.
This is the hinge of the whole account. Distribution, at the scale we are now capable of, is a moral and political choice, not a technical constraint. That sentence was false in 1950. It is true now, and pretending otherwise is itself a moral evasion: it allows the question of will to be quietly re-described as a question of capacity, which is easier to live with and no longer accurate. The hungry are not waiting on an invention. They are waiting on a decision.
Which forces the second question, one a nation building sovereign technological capacity cannot avoid, however much its rhetoric prefers to. Having established that it can, does it want to? Technonationalism, if it halts at the assertion of control, answers this implicitly and dishonestly. It aims the reclaimed capacity at strategic autonomy, prestige, and deterrence, and files the elimination of hunger under residual benefits that may or may not follow, rather than under the test against which the whole project’s legitimacy should be measured.
A moral revolution would reverse the order of justification, demanding that the reclaimed capacity answer to that test first, and requiring the political subject, not merely the state or the technologist, to insist that sovereignty over technology carries responsibility for what that technology could do and currently does not.
Also read: Science can be the bridge between India and China that diplomacy could not build
Where the intermediary does its work
Here Rousseau’s intermediary does its real labour, and the argument returns to its beginning. One objection has to be met directly: why must the will to end hunger arise from individual conviction, when the state could simply choose to direct its new capacity at hunger without any moral awakening among its subjects? Because a state acting from strategic calculation rather than an internalised general will produces exactly the residual-benefit posture already diagnosed. Charity from above, undertaken for prestige or stability, is discretionary by nature, extended when convenient and withdrawn when the calculation shifts, answerable to no one when it is. Only an obligation internalised by subjects as constitutive of what their sovereignty was for, becomes non-negotiable, something a government can be held to have violated rather than merely declined. That is the difference between a benefit a state may grant and a duty a people may enforce. The first leaves the hungry dependent on the mood of power. The second makes their feeding a condition of the contract’s legitimacy.
So the general will cannot by itself decide to feed the hungry, and neither can a satellite constellation, a fabrication plant, or a sovereign AI model, however capable each becomes. Only subjects who have internalised the idea that feeding the hungry is what their sovereignty was for can compel the state to do it, converting a technical capacity into a political obligation and refusing every account of national achievement that leaves it out. Technonationalism creates the material possibility of a moral revolution. It places unprecedented capacity in the hands of a reconstituted political subject, exactly as the printing press and the factory and the bomb each did in their turn. But possibility is not will.
Technonationalism supplies the will no more than the printing press supplied the doctrine of conscience or the factory supplied the labour movement. The will has to come from where it has always come: individual conviction, aggregated into public demand, insisting that the contract be judged by what it delivers to the poorest party bound by it, and declining to accept sovereignty as an end in itself.
The instruments have arrived ahead of the morality required to direct them. That is the true condition of the present moment, more precise than either the triumphalism of technonationalist rhetoric or the cynicism that writes it off as posturing will allow. Its specific shape is a generation that could be the first in human history to end extreme hunger, holding every instrument the task requires and awaiting only the decision to use them for it. Whether the required morality arrives in time is not a question technology can answer, and not one a nation can dispose of by building the capacity and declaring the matter closed. It remains, as it always has, ours to answer.
Pranav Sharma is a historian of science who lives and writes from New Delhi, India and Paro, Bhutan. His X handle is @quantumpranav, and he is on Instagram @cosmicpranav. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prasanna Bachhchhav)