As India hosts the AI Summit in Delhi, it confronts a strategic dilemma between championing global AI cooperation and safeguarding its technological sovereignty.
- This tension echoes the calibrated balance between collaboration and strategic autonomy pursued under Homi J. Bhabha during India’s nuclear journey.
The Paradox of AI: Universality vs. National Interest
- Public Good Narrative: Global forums portray AI as a universal public good for humanity, comparable to air or water, and as requiring cooperative governance and shared standards.
- Backstage Competition: Despite rhetoric of collaboration, major powers are engaged in intense zero-sum competition over compute capacity, semiconductor supply chains, talent, and foundational models.
- AI as Strategic Power: Given AI’s transformative economic potential and dual-use military applications, states are reluctant to share core technologies freely.
- Rise of Techno-Nationalism: AI is increasingly viewed as an instrument of geopolitical power, where technological superiority determines economic dominance, security leverage, and strategic autonomy.
Historical Parallel: Lessons from the Cold War (1955)
- Nuclear vs AI Rivalry: The current US–China AI contest resembles the 1955 nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, in which strategic technology shaped the geopolitical hierarchy.
- Bhabha’s Strategic Advocacy: At the 1955 Geneva Conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy, Homi J. Bhabha argued that developing nations must access nuclear technology for development and energy security, not remain passive recipients.
- Power Precedes Influence: Bhabha recognised that rule-making power flows from internal capability. Without indigenous strength, a nation cannot meaningfully shape global governance frameworks.
The Bridge Builder Approach: Partnerships for Capability
- External Collaboration: Bhabha leveraged partnerships with scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada to establish India’s early nuclear infrastructure, demonstrating strategic openness.
- Modern Technological Integration: Today, India’s AI ecosystem is deeply linked with global innovation hubs such as Silicon Valley, alongside major R&D clusters in Bengaluru and Hyderabad.
- Partnership-led Internal Growth: Building critical AI assets such as supercomputers, advanced chips, and foundational models—requires calibrated global partnerships combined with domestic capacity-building.
The “Lost Decades” Warning
- Post-1960s Slowdown: After the deaths of Jawaharlal Nehru and Homi J. Bhabha, India’s nuclear momentum slowed, contributing to strategic isolation.
- Competitors Surging Ahead: Countries such as China and South Korea, which entered later, scaled rapidly and became exporters of advanced nuclear technology.
- Risk of Repetition in AI: Policy indecision could allow emerging economies such as Vietnam and Indonesia to outpace India in digital competitiveness.
Way Forward
- Build Tangible National Assets: The Governments should prioritise sovereign AI infrastructure, including high-performance computing, semiconductor manufacturing, data centres, and skilled human capital.
- From Moralism to Rule-Shaping: There is a need to move beyond normative speeches to active participation in drafting global AI standards and governance regimes.
- Strategic Realism in Partnerships: India should deepen technological collaboration with the United States and Western allies, leveraging US–China rivalry for strategic gains while preserving autonomy.
- Capability First, Leadership Later: The aspirations to lead the Global South will be credible only if India builds world-class AI systems, similar to how digital public infrastructure like Unified Payments Interface enhanced its global standing.
Conclusion
India’s AI strategy must combine global cooperation with national strength, balancing openness with self-reliance and moral vision with real technological capability.
17 Feb 2026
.png)
Current Affairs
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
