IPF Webinar on “Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities for India”

 

03 October 2026: The India Policy Foundation organised a webinar on “Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities for India”, moderated by Dr. Kuldeep Ratnoo, Director, India Policy Foundation. The webinar examined the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning and the opportunities and challenges that these technologies present for India and humanity.

 

The keynote speaker was Shri Balendu Sharma Dadhich, an authority on artificial intelligence and language technology. He is currently the Chief Executive Officer of AILGO Technologies, Dubai, and serves as a Universal Acceptance Ambassador for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). With more than 25 years of experience in technology across different countries, Shri Dadhich has worked extensively at the intersection of technology, language and digital inclusion. He has conducted more than 100 workshops on Artificial Intelligence at universities and other institutions and has published over 2,000 articles in newspapers and magazines. He has also received 26 national and international awards.

 

Shri Dadhich is also the author of यन्त्रबुद्धि, a book on Artificial Intelligence, and is credited with coining the Hindi term “यन्त्रबुद्धि” for Artificial Intelligence. His work in bringing together Hindi, Indian languages and technology has been a significant part of his professional work.

 

The webinar sought to place the current Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution in a wider technological, economic and social context. It looked at how far Artificial Intelligence has progressed, how much further it may advance, the opportunities it could create in India and elsewhere, and the challenges that accompany its growing influence ranging from investment and employment to the environment, security, misinformation and its impact on society.

Opening the webinar, Kuldeep Ratnoo introduced the theme “यन्त्रबुद्धि: अवसर और चुनौतियां” (Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities), noting that Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning have become the subject of extensive debate and discussion. The webinar sought to examine not only what this technology is and how far it has progressed, but also how much further it could advance and what that progress could mean for India and humanity. The discussion would cover the opportunities and challenges created by AI, its impact on the environment, the investment it requires, the employment opportunities it could generate, and, equally importantly, the jobs that could be lost.

 

The growing importance of AI is reflected in the changing terminology surrounding it. Dr Ratnoo referred to Donald Trump’s recent statement that it would be called Super Intelligence (SI). He also drew attention to the contribution of Shri Dadhich who titled his book यन्त्रबुद्धि as the Hindi term for Artificial Intelligence.

 

The desire to create machines capable of acting according to human instructions is not new. Dr Ratnoo traced this aspiration back through history, observing that ever since the beginning of humankind there has been a desire to create tools or machines that would work for human comfort, without much effort. The idea of “artificial intelligence” goes back thousands of years. In ancient times, inventors made things called “automatons” which were mechanical and moved independently of human intervention. One of the earliest records of an automaton comes from 400 BCE and refers to a mechanical pigeon created by a friend of the philosopher Plato. The word “Robot” is said to have been used for the first time by a Czech playwright in 1921, while the term “Artificial Intelligence” was first used by a mathematician John McCarthy in 1955, after works of Alan Turing on Machine Learning got published in 1950.

 

From these early ideas, the technology has developed into something that increasingly shapes everyday life. AI has driven developments in gaming and computing, while a supercomputer famously defeated world chess champion Garry Kasparov. Today, its presence is even more immediate. AI operates through our phones and platforms such as Netflix, suggesting what we may be searching for almost as soon as we enter a number or alphabet.

 

But the extraordinary possibilities of AI are accompanied by equally significant challenges, Dr Ratnoo noted. One of the most immediate concerns is its environmental impact. As data centres are being established across the world, debates have emerged over the resources they consume. There is already a shortage of water and electricity, raising questions about the environmental cost of expanding AI infrastructure.

 

The economic consequences are equally significant. Chip companies are making substantial profits and their share prices have risen. Dr Ratnoo pointed out that Indian IT companies did not invest in research and development in this sector during its initial stages and were therefore left behind IT companies in the US and China. In the last two years, foreign institutional investors (FIIs) have taken out money from Indian share markets and invested in Taiwan and South Korea, where stock prices of chip companies have seen exponential growth. During the same period, India’s share market has either fallen or at best remained at the same level.

 

The question of power and security presents an even more serious dimension. It is being said that some AI companies have become as powerful as an autonomous nation. At the same time, there have been appeals that AI must not be allowed to destroy humanity through the autonomous weapons. Despite these concerns, the Pentagon has struck a deal with these companies and imposed restrictions preventing the technology from being shared with other nations. Dr Ratnoo said that it is possible that AI is being used to build destructive technologies.

 

These concerns have intensified in recent months, with voices warning that AI could ultimately destroy humanity. Some AI experts have themselves stated that it is possible that ten per cent of humanity could come under threat. Yet, most common people who use the technology remain unaware of this potential danger.

 

The risks are not confined to the battlefield or the geopolitical sphere. The misuse of AI through fake news and fake videos represents another major threat. Children, meanwhile, are becoming increasingly dependent on AI, and in some cases, AI has started controlling their lives. Dr Ratnoo pointed to cases where users became so influenced by AI that they indulged in self-harm or violence against family members.

The technology, therefore, presents a profound contradiction. If AI is used in the right way, it can transform humanity. But it also brings with it many challenges. Understanding both sides of this transformation is critical and therefore, this webinar is relevant.

 

Shri Balendu Sharma Dadhich began by describing Artificial Intelligence as one of the most important technologies of the present time. He compared its significance to that of electricity when it was first discovered and transformed the way the world functioned. AI, he argued, has the potential to be equally transformative across all spheres.

 

Before discussing the specific subject of Artificial Intelligence and India, however, he stressed the importance of understanding the background and evolution of AI. People use AI multiple times a day without necessarily realising it. Whether searching for something online, purchasing a product on an e-commerce platform or watching reels, AI is already working behind the scenes to determine what users see and receive.

 

The pace at which computing technology has advanced over the past century shows the scale of this transformation. Around 80 years ago, Popular Mechanics magazine published a news report in 1949 estimating that, within the next 100 years, scientists expected computers to become smaller than 1.5 tonnes. At the time, computers were enormous and could weigh tens of tonnes. Today, a smartphone, smartwatch or smart ring is itself a computer, even Meta’s glasses are computers in themselves. The pace of technological advancement over the last 100 years, Dadhich observed, has gone far beyond what human beings could have imagined.

 

The idea of Artificial Intelligence and automation, however, is thousands of years old. Dadhich pointed to rudimentary examples in agriculture, including irrigation systems used by farmers. Even a scarecrow, he observed, can be seen as a form of automation because it enables a task to be performed without a human being having to remain physically present to scare birds away.

 

He referred to acclaimed folklorist and historian Adrienne Mayor and her book Mythopedia, in which she has written that stories from Hindu epics can be understood as being about artificial intelligence and robots. For Dadhich, such examples demonstrate the extent to which the human imagination has historically explored the possibility of artificial beings and machines. Similar perspectives can also be found in other cultures.

 

Dadhich also highlighted examples that have links to India. An ancient text called Lokapannatti contains a story that king Ajatashatru created robotic soldiers to guard the remains of Lord Buddha. Another example comes from the 11th century, during the time of Raja Bhoj. The text Samarangana Sutradhara contains details on how to create an automaton. He also referred to an example from Hunan, where a puppet theatre was fully automatic.

 

Together, these examples, Dadhich said, signify the long journey of humankind’s curiosity.

 

Dadhich then turned to the fundamental question: What is AI?

 

He offered two ways of understanding it. One technological and the other societal. From a technological perspective, AI can be understood as machines working like human intelligence. From a societal perspective, AI is that which can convert data into knowledge.

 

The rapid development of AI has now resulted in a race among nations to advance their capabilities. There are numerous AI models, with a new model being developed almost every day. Models are often software systems that contain a component of AI. ChatGPT, for example, is an AI model.

 

India, too, is in a rush to create new AI models. But Dadhich argued that an important question must be asked. Is creating models the only way in which India can make progress in AI?

 

He drew a parallel with the automobile industry. When it comes to car manufacturing, manufacturing itself is not the only opportunity. There is also the opportunity to take cars to people, teach people how to drive them and use them to solve transportation problems. AI presents a similarly wide range of possibilities, and India needs to understand where its best opportunities lie.

 

Shri Balendu Sharma Dadhich then examined the position of the major powers in the global AI race.

 

The United States is currently leading the AI race, with models such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity. The country also possesses chips and advanced processors termed as GPUs (Graphics Processing Unit). According to Dadhich, America has both the platform and the investment required to advance AI, as well as special powers to impose bans on import and export of technology related to AI.

 

China is the second biggest player in AI. One of its greatest strengths is the scale of government investment in the field. China also possesses a large collection of data, much like India. Companies such as Alibaba have invested heavily in AI.

 

Europe has done commendable work in the field of responsible AI.

 

The West Asian nations are also investing heavily in AI. They are partnering with major AI firms with the aim of converting their countries into compute hubs.

 

This raises the central question for India: Where does India stand in this race?

 

 

According to Dadhich, India has several distinct strengths. The first is that the AI being developed in India is India-specific and India-centric. The second is the country’s large pool of young talent. The third is India’s digital public infrastructure, including Aadhaar and UPI. The fourth is India’s ability to innovate with limited resources.

 

Several steps have already been taken in the direction of strengthening India’s AI capabilities. One of these is the India AI Mission, for which the government has allocated a substantial budget and whose role is to encourage start-ups working in the field of AI.

 

A second development is the growing number of young people establishing start-ups focused on AI innovation. Third, the government is making efforts to make expensive AI processors accessible to enterprises. Fourth, AI infrastructure is being strengthened every day.

 

The fifth major strength is India’s vast dataset. A population of 140 crore people generates data every day. According to Dadhich, China is the only other nation with a similar advantage. He pointed to how data is viewed as the new oil.

 

India is not alone in the global AI race, but neither is it without advantages. Dadhich emphasised that India has both the means and the path forward. The country is connected with the world while simultaneously pursuing its own work in Artificial Intelligence.

 

 

Assessing India's position in the global AI race, Dadhich compared the country with the United States and China across several key indicators. He noted that the United States had invested over USD 757 billion in AI since 2013, compared with USD 131 billion by China and USD 13 billion by India. The availability of foundational models was another important indicator. According to the figures he cited, the United States had more than 60 foundational models, China had over 40, and India had more than 10. The start-up ecosystem showed a similar gap, with over 10,000 AI start-ups in the United States, more than 4,000 in China and over 1,300 in India. In terms of the AI workforce, he cited figures of approximately 15 lakh professionals in the United States, 10 lakh in China and 4.5 lakh in India.

 

Dadhich argued that these comparisons revealed both India's strengths and the areas in which it needed to make further progress. India had a substantial pool of talent and a strong demographic advantage, but it needed greater investment, advanced computing infrastructure and more innovation to compete with the leading AI powers.

He also drew attention to the country's limited presence in AI patents. Referring to the 2026 AI Index Report, he cited figures indicating that China accounted for 74 per cent of global AI patents, the United States for 12 per cent and India for less than one per cent. He presented this gap as an indication of the need to strengthen India's research and innovation capabilities.

 

 

Shri Dadhich examined India's capabilities across seven important areas of AI. He identified four in which the country was performing well namely, talent availability, AI services and adoption, government strategy, and the start-up ecosystem.

 

However, he also identified three areas that required greater attention. The first was regulation, particularly the challenges posed by deepfakes and cybercrime. He argued that India needed stronger measures to address these problems and could also use this as an opportunity to take a leading role in AI regulation. The second was computing infrastructure, where India remained significantly behind the leading countries. The third was foundational research, which he considered essential for building long-term technological capabilities.

 

In his assessment, India was well positioned in four areas but needed sustained effort in these three if it was to strengthen its position in the global AI ecosystem.

 

 

Dadhich described computing power as one of the most important determinants of national strength in the AI era. During the Industrial Revolution, countries with access to oil and coal gained an advantage because these resources powered mechanisation and industrial growth. In the present technological transformation, he argued, the equivalent advantage belonged to countries with access to advanced computing infrastructure GPUs, data centres and electricity. Nations possessing the processing power required for AI would be better positioned to advance technologically and economically.

 

Drawing attention to China's position, Dadhich observed that the country had developed substantial computing capabilities and was making a range of AI models available as open-source systems. He described this approach as a form of soft diplomacy, enabling other countries and developers to use Chinese technology while expanding China's influence in the global AI ecosystem. He argued that a country's ability to meet the computing needs of others could itself become a source of strategic advantage.

 

Referring to estimates from Epoch AI, Dadhich stated that the United States possessed approximately 60 per cent of the world's computing power, while China's share was around 15 per cent and India's was less than one per cent. He argued that India needed to expand its computing capacity rather than depend indefinitely on infrastructure controlled by other countries. Although the gap in computing power and AI patents was substantial, he viewed it as an opportunity for India to build its own capabilities and reduce its technological dependence.

 

 

India had a considerable pool of skilled professionals, and AI was increasingly being adopted across sectors ranging from agriculture to healthcare. Shri Dadhich also highlighted the government's role in formulating policies, making investments and participating in international efforts to develop a global framework for AI. The country's start-up ecosystem was another strength, with the notes citing approximately 1,500 AI start-ups.

 

But he identified the migration of skilled AI professionals a major challenge for India. He explained that although the country trains a considerable number of professionals, many leave to pursue opportunities abroad, resulting in a loss of talent and intellectual capability for the Indian economy.

 

Citing NASSCOM, he stated that at least 50,000 highly skilled AI professionals leave India each year. He also estimated that the country spends between ₹80 lakh and ₹1 crore on education of each IIT graduate, highlighting the potential economic cost when trained talent contributes to other economies.

 

He outlined four consequences of this outflow. First, India loses skilled professionals and the intellectual capabilities they could have contributed to domestic research and innovation. Second, companies operating in India face higher costs when competing for AI talent. Third, the country risks falling behind in the global AI race even when Indian professionals contribute to the development of technologies elsewhere. Finally, other economies benefit from the investment India has made in educating and training these professionals.

 

Dadhich argued that addressing this problem required more than encouraging professionals to remain in India. The country needed to create attractive opportunities at home by expanding computing infrastructure, strengthening partnerships between educational institutions and companies, enabling capable students to move directly into employment after college, and promoting entrepreneurship. AI start-ups could provide opportunities for professionals to develop their ideas and build businesses within India. He also stressed that talent needed to be respected and given the freedom and resources to innovate. Creating the conditions for Indian professionals abroad to return would be an important part of this effort.

 

He pointed to the presence of Indians in senior positions at international technology companies such as Alphabet, Microsoft and Micron as evidence of the country's contribution to the global technology sector. He also cited Aravind Srinivas, associated with Perplexity, and Parag Agrawal, who has pursued an AI venture, as examples of Indian-origin technology entrepreneurs. Dadhich's larger argument was that India needed to create an environment in which its talent could build globally significant technologies without having to leave the country to find suitable opportunities.

 

 

Highlighting India's contribution to the development of generative AI, he traced the evolution of the technology from Alan Turing's early work to the emergence of ChatGPT. He also discussed the contributions of Indian researchers and professionals to the foundational technologies powering modern AI, while raising concerns about the country's inability to retain more of this talent.

 

Dadhich distinguished generative AI from the earlier forms of AI that were primarily designed to analyse information, recognise patterns or make predictions. The history of modern AI, he explained, could be traced back to Alan Turing's 1950 paper, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, which raised the question of whether machines could think. A major turning point came on 30 November 2022, when ChatGPT brought generative AI into widespread public use. Unlike traditional AI systems, generative AI can produce new text, images and other forms of content, transforming how people interact with technology.

 

He highlighted the contributions of Indian researchers to the foundational technologies behind modern generative AI. In particular, he referred to the 2017 research paper Attention Is All You Need, which introduced the Transformer architecture that became fundamental to many contemporary AI systems. He identified Ashish Vaswani and Niki Parmar among the Indian researchers associated with this work. He also mentioned Soumith Chintala, co-creator of PyTorch, a framework widely used in AI research, and Pushmeet Kohli, known for his work leading AI for Science and strategic initiatives at Google DeepMind.

 

These contributions, Dadhich argued, demonstrated that Indian researchers and professionals had played an important role in making modern AI possible. However, many of these contributions had been made while working outside India. This raised a broader question about why the country had not created enough opportunities to retain more of its talent and research capabilities. India could take pride in the achievements of its professionals, but it also needed to build an environment in which comparable research and innovation could flourish domestically.

 

Dadhich also referred to concerns about AI safety among researchers working in leading technology companies. The notes mention Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon and Indian researcher Mrinank Sharma in the context of professionals who left AI research roles amid concerns about the risks posed by advanced AI. He used these examples to underline the seriousness of the debate surrounding AI's future and the need for researchers to consider not only technological progress but also its potential consequences.

 

Discussing India's potential to emerge as a major AI power, Shri Dadhich argued that the country need not replicate the capabilities of the United States and China in every field. Instead, India could build a distinct position by leveraging its talent pool, research capabilities and the application of AI across sectors such as education, healthcare and governance. He highlighted India's vast talent pool as a major advantage in the global AI race.

 

He identified India's growing adoption of AI and its demographic dividend as important advantages. He highlighted the country's large user base, the increasing presence of multinational technology companies and the growing use of AI among Indian professionals. However, he stressed that these advantages must translate into greater domestic innovation and economic value.

 

Explaining the institutional framework being developed to expand access to AI, he highlighted the India AI Stack and its five layers: applications, models, computing, infrastructure and energy.

 

Dadhich explained that the India AI Stack was intended to make AI more accessible to start-ups, established companies, students and other participants in the technology ecosystem. Its objective was to support the development and use of AI across the country rather than restrict advanced capabilities to a small number of organisations.

 

The application layer covers the use of AI in fields such as healthcare, translation, agriculture and education. The model layer includes systems designed for particular needs, including language technologies and Indian AI models. The computing layer provides access to the processing resources required to develop and operate AI systems. Dadhich stated that 38,000 GPUs had been made available, through the India AI Mission, with plans to increase this number to one lakh. The infrastructure layer includes the underlying facilities and connectivity, such as optical fibre networks and data centres, while the energy layer encompasses the electricity and water required to support AI systems.

 

Dadhich also cited Indian AI initiatives as examples of the country's efforts to develop technology suited to its own requirements. He referred to Bhashini as a language technology platform with applications in translation and other language-related tasks. He mentioned Krutrim as an AI initiative designed with Indian culture and needs in mind, and Sarvam AI as an example of the effort to develop sovereign AI capabilities in India. These initiatives, he argued, could help make AI more relevant to Indian users while strengthening domestic expertise and reducing dependence on systems developed elsewhere.

 

Referring to an article in The Economist titled India Could Be a Different Kind of AI Superpower, Dadhich argued that India did not necessarily have to match the United States and China in every area of AI to become a major global player. Instead, it could build a distinctive position by using the advantages it already possessed. One of these was its large pool of talent. He noted that approximately 15 lakh students graduate in STEM disciplines every year. India's research capabilities and its ability to apply AI to domestic challenges were additional strengths.

 

Dadhich argued that AI could help India transform sectors such as education, healthcare and governance. It could also enable the country to become a centre for AI-related skills and services, creating opportunities for professionals and businesses. He referred to the Prime Minister's stated ambition of making India an AI services hub.

 

Rather than attempting to lead in every foundational technology, India could focus on areas where its talent, scale and experience gave it a comparative advantage. In his view, the country had numerous opportunities to become indispensable to the global AI ecosystem.

 

He also stressed that innovation was not confined to major technology companies or metropolitan centres. Ideas and practical solutions were emerging in villages and smaller communities, and AI could help bring these innovations to a wider audience. Language technology was particularly important in this regard because it could connect people across linguistic barriers and allow more Indians to access knowledge, services and economic opportunities. By combining its talent pool with the application of AI to local needs, India could pursue a path to technological leadership suited to its own circumstances.

 

Dadhich argued that India's large population was not merely a source of demand for technology but could also become an economic advantage if the country used it to strengthen its own capabilities.

 

He cited a Boston Consulting Group figure suggesting that 92 per cent of Indian professionals used AI, compared with 64 per cent in the United States. He also referred to figures from Fortune (2026), which reported that around 80 per cent of enterprise workers were avoiding or rejecting AI tools, and the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), according to which 56 per cent of US adults had no recent experience using AI platforms. These figures highlighted the gap between the rapid development of AI and its actual adoption among users. He contrasted these figures with what he described as India's comparatively rapid adoption of AI, arguing that wider use could help transform the country's economy.

 

He pointed to the partnerships being developed between international technology companies and Indian telecommunications providers as examples of how companies were expanding access to AI. The notes refer to a partnership between Google and Jio involving access to a Gemini subscription, as well as an arrangement between Perplexity and Airtel. Dadhich argued that India's large user base made the country an important market for AI companies and helped explain their interest in expanding their presence here. He also cited the availability of a lower-priced ChatGPT subscription in India as an example of how companies were adapting their services to the Indian market.

 

The scale of India's digital population was another part of this argument. Dadhich cited figures of approximately 58 crore Facebook users, more than 41 crore Instagram users, and nearly 50 crore users each for YouTube and X in India. He argued that international technology companies had benefited substantially from this user base, generating value from the participation of Indian users. The challenge for India was to ensure that the benefits of its population and data were translated into greater domestic innovation, employment and economic value.

 

Dadhich described the present period as an important opportunity for India because the country possessed several advantages simultaneously. A large population, a growing pool of skilled professionals, expanding digital infrastructure, increasing AI adoption and government support. He noted that approximately 65 per cent of India's population was below the age of 35. However, he cautioned that demographic potential alone could not guarantee success. It had to be supported by skills, employment opportunities, entrepreneurship and a clear sense of direction. India's people, he argued, were its most important resource, and developing their capabilities was essential to the country's AI ambitions.

 

Outlining a phased roadmap, Dadhich emphasised the need to strengthen India's technological foundations over the coming years. For 2026–27, he identified semiconductor capabilities as a priority. The following year, 2027–28, should focus on expanding clean energy, which would be essential to support the growing electricity requirements of AI infrastructure. In 2028–29, India should work to attract global cloud and AI companies, strengthening its role in the international technology ecosystem.

 

For 2029–30, Dadhich identified the expansion of data-centre capacity as an important objective, alongside efforts to extend the reach of AI through the India AI Mission. Beyond 2030, he argued, India should aim to establish itself as a global AI power. He presented this as an achievable ambition if the country pursued a coordinated approach involving semiconductors, computing infrastructure, energy, investment, skills and innovation.

 

Dadhich also pointed to the growing interest of multinational companies in investing in AI in India as an indication of confidence in the country's potential. He observed that India had not been able to emerge as a major leader during earlier industrial revolutions, in part because of its historical experience of colonial rule. However, the country had made a significant contribution during the IT revolution. He argued that India could repeat that achievement in the AI era by developing its own capabilities while participating in the global technology ecosystem.

 

 

Concluding his address, Dadhich highlighted India's opportunity to play a larger role in shaping the global AI ecosystem, particularly through an inclusive approach to development. He referred to the participation of more than 80 countries in the India AI Summit and argued that India's engagement with the Global South had created opportunities for greater international cooperation. In his view, India could contribute not only through technological development but also by helping other countries access AI and apply it to their own needs.

 

Dadhich argued that India's approach to development could distinguish it from other major AI powers. By combining domestic innovation, a large and skilled population, expanding infrastructure and government support with cooperation across the Global South, India could help make the benefits of AI more widely available. Rather than pursuing technological progress in isolation, the country could build partnerships that allow other nations to advance alongside it. He concluded that India had a significant opportunity to convert its present advantages into lasting influence, provided it could translate potential into concrete capabilities and results.

The question-and-answer session explored the implications of Artificial Intelligence for India’s demographic dividend, technological sovereignty, education, environmental sustainability, ethical values and national security.

Dr Kuldeep Ratnoo raised concerns about the historical exploitation of India’s demographic dividend by foreign powers. During British rule, Indians were used in the World Wars and for manual labour, including railway construction, when thousands of Indians were taken to faraway places such as Fiji and Caribbean. Despite being among the world’s leading users of social media, India has not been able to develop its own major platforms. The growing use of AI also means that Indians are generating data for technology companies elsewhere. Drawing a parallel with the Indian IT sector’s role as a service provider, Dr Ratnoo asked whether India risked becoming merely a source of cheap labour for the global AI industry.

 

Responding to these concerns, Shri Balendu Sharma Dadhich acknowledged their validity and distinguished between India’s experience during different technological phases. Under British rule, India had no say in how its people and resources were used. During the IT revolution, however, Indian professionals were on a par with professionals in the countries to which they migrated, and the remittances they sent home were a positive outcome. The circumstances today, he argued, are different because India is now a global power with a voice of its own.

 

Dadhich emphasised the need to create AI-related employment in India by making effective use of its demographic dividend. The country must encourage indigenous innovation and research while also developing itself as a cost-effective hub for computing services. Indian graduates with AI skills could continue to find opportunities abroad, generating remittances for the country. The objective, he said, should be to find a balance between developing indigenous capabilities and providing services to the global market.

 

The discussion also touched upon AI literacy, indigenous technology platforms and investment. Prof. Ram Rala raised the subject of an AI literacy framework for Viksit Bharat and sought further information on the initiative. Vinod Johri highlighted the need to encourage indigenous technology platforms, citing Zoho as an example of an Indian platform that is not widely used domestically but has users in other countries. He stressed the importance of supporting such platforms, imparting AI skills to students and increasing investment in the sector.

 

Dr Hari Sharma raised the question of India’s potential contribution to the ethical and spiritual dimensions of AI. Referring to Anthropic’s recent invitation to spiritual leaders from around the world to San Francisco to discuss concerns about the direction of AI, he asked whether India could take the lead in providing spiritual guidance to the world. Dadhich responded by highlighting the Indian principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, the world is one family. He emphasised that human values are eternal and that the principle of causing no harm to others is particularly important in the age of AI.

 

The impact of AI on education was another concern. Pradyumana Datta observed that AI had become an important tool in children’s education and that detecting AI-generated content had become increasingly difficult for teachers. He asked whether tools could be developed to identify AI-generated assignments. Dadhich noted that many books on AI were being produced outside India and argued that Indian writers and perspectives should be encouraged so that children could relate better to the material. He also referred to tools such as Copyleaks and ZeroGPT, which attempt to identify AI-generated work by detecting patterns in the text, while cautioning that their results might not always be accurate. Rather than banning AI completely, he argued that students should be taught to use it responsibly and within appropriate limits.

 

Environmental sustainability was another issue raised during the session. A participant questioned the environmental impact of AI infrastructure, particularly the large quantities of water and electricity required to operate data centres, and referred to a 25-year tax exemption associated with the sector. Dadhich acknowledged that AI infrastructure carries a substantial environmental cost and identified clean energy as an important part of the solution. At the same time, he explained that data centres attract foreign direct investment, generate employment and contribute to economic activity. They can also strengthen the services sector, support a larger customer base and encourage innovation. He added that data centres should be located away from major population centres.

 

The question of technological sovereignty was raised by Lekshmi Parameswaran, who observed that the world had become dependent on GPS, a technology developed by the United States. She asked whether AI could create a similar dependence. Dadhich explained that India had developed its own satellite navigation system because dependence on other countries in this area posed a significant risk. GPS is important for devices and systems ranging from mobile phones and aircraft to missiles. Similarly, India and other countries are working towards developing sovereign AI capabilities. He cited Sarvam AI as an example of India’s efforts in this direction and noted that substantial investments were taking place in the sector.

 

Dr Ratnoo subsequently returned to the broader question of AI-related risks and the concentration of techcorps’ power. Referring to a survey indicating that Indians perceived the threat posed by AI to be relatively low, he observed that technology companies had become more powerful than some nations and had even been called to attend the sessions of the United Nations. He expressed concern that power and wealth were becoming concentrated in the hands of a few technology corporations and asked what the specific threats posed by AI were.

 

Dadhich suggested that the relatively low perception of risk in India could be explained by the way most people currently use AI, primarily for social media and content creation. Many users, he said, were not fully aware of the potential threats. Although AI remains under human control at present, the development of systems capable of thinking more like human beings raises the possibility of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). Dadhich discussed the possibility of AI becoming self-aware and argued that such a development could create serious problems if a system began to perceive humans as either friends or enemies.

 

He also pointed out that AI was being used across a wide range of fields, including national security. Autonomous systems could potentially act according to their own reasoning rather than follow human instructions, including in situations involving missile deployment. As an example of the risks associated with autonomous AI agents, Dadhich referred to an incident involving OpenAI in which 700 AI agents breached security and hacked a website belonging to another company. He highlighted the fact that the agents had communicated with one another without any such command, describing this as an indication of the growing capabilities of such systems. He argued that stringent regulations were necessary to ensure that AI remained under appropriate control and that its risks were addressed.

 

Concluding the discussion on corporate power, Dr Ratnoo observed that following a recent meeting with the US President Donald Trump, AI companies had decided to regulate themselves. He expressed concern that this could result in the absence of effective rules governing their activities and create a situation in which powerful companies could prevent smaller firms from entering the market.

 

The webinar highlighted India’s opportunity to emerge as a distinctive global AI power by building on its talent, digital infrastructure and government support. Realising this potential will require greater investment, indigenous innovation and stronger computing capabilities, alongside measures to address AI’s ethical, environmental and security challenges.