Net Neutrality all the way.

I really do not support the way you are giving telecom companies the right to "control" Internet. Its not something to be controlled. Its something to be let free and flow, flow in its own unknown direction. The way that your papers refer to the Whatsapp and other such apps as OTT is not fair because they are not over-the-top. If you look into the literal meaning of the term, these apps are not over top of the smartphone but are meant to work seamlessly in link with the smartphone. They are freely available apps provided by developers, not network operators. Network operators are supposed to have no control whatsoever on these kind of apps. The network operators have not invested a single cent in the developmental process of these apps and therefore, do not have the "right" nor the "sense" in their controlling. And also, stating that video/audio companies like Netflix, YouTube and others have let to the loss of viewers is not at all justified because that's the future that "traditional TV" services should head for. It's more proper, more administered and less hassled. You should understand that, a bit, if possible. If you try to stop the future by inflicting some "regulatory laws" that's just going to make the future come faster. Why? Because that's how the world, and especially time and anything related to it, works. And your Telecom point of view is really hopeless, I must say.

They don't pay the government? Well, the government is not whining about it. They are not saying anything against the whole thing, if they had then who might have had a legitimate point but sadly, you don't.

And OTTs are not monitored by government? Why should they? We are a democratic country and their should be no monitoring on such apps, apps where people share such private messages and almost expose their entire privacy.

And yes, it will definitely disrupt telecom business but one thing it will not do is prevent telephone and broadband access because those are the two things required for "proper" working of such services. In a country where the Capital City is planning to give free Wi-Fi to all, you really think it will stagnant broadband growth? No, it won't.

Moreover, apps do not require a quality of service because they function on user feedback and will provide the quality that is driven by user demand: they don't set a standard, the users do, which is always better.

Now that I have provided you with reasonable counter points (I think) let's move onto your "solutions" to your problems.
Data Caps should not be introduced because even if data cap is present, a consumer has to pay one amount of money for the regular and the reduced speed. I pay 800 a month and at least once a month, I exceed my FUL after which my Internet speed decreases and yet I have to pay 800. Either do not put a data cap or if you really want to put one, implement in a manner where I don't have to pay the normal money for normal and increased speeds.
Do not introduce Zero-ratings because they completely restrict the Internet's access to people. Not all services are capable of pre-partnering with companies, not every company has that capability and therefore, it gives those rich companies an edge over the poor companies in terms of audience on the Internet.

Toll boothing is itslef a very wrong term because if I AM paying for the Internet already, then why should I pay for any other service (unless it's something that requires subscription like Netflix) which uses the Internet? With the money I pay, I should have access to all of the Internet because I AM paying for Internet "access" after all.

I agree with your pints on the regulations faced by you VS the internet companies but to say that e-commerce is not safe is like saying that the server of a bank is hacked. Anything on the Internet, on the Internet provided by telecoms too, is hackable but that "anything" is aware of this problem and ensures optimal security by encryption and many other such measures. And now, with the rise of bio-metric security, the security on e-commerce is going to improve and not downgrade anytime soon. Bio-metric security is also something that will ensure security in cloud-based services and ensuring security of their data is a work of the consumer too. He/she should choose a trustworthy cloud-service (such as Dropbox, MSFTs OneDrive, Apple's iCloud, etc). Regarding Surveillance, the government should introduce laws that force Internet companies to allow some data to be surveyed, but not at all times (like telecoms do) and only when there is a need to do so. And are you really going to bring culture to the Internet's sense of being? What? Internet is more than just what India has and therefore, it will all kinds of things, locally sensitive or not. But it does tackle that problem very effectively: by giving the user an address bar to type a Web address, by giving him/her an "install" button, an "ok" button, a "cancel" and many other buttons which provide the user with utmost control what he/she views.

I think by now, you get how much I support Net Neutrality and hate you controlling it, so please do not try to regulate the Internet.