By Srinath Sridharan, Corporate advisor & independent director on corporate boards
What does sovereignty mean in the digital age? Can a nation truly call itself sovereign if the algorithms and devices that shape its economy are coded abroad, if the personal data of its citizens is monetised in foreign boardrooms, and if the very tools of its digital future are owned by others? Can India aspire towards greater power when its technological foundations are rented, not built?
Today, much of India’s digital backbone is provided by western Big Tech. We are landlords of the land but tenants of the machinery and the brains. That is a fragile basis for sovereignty.
Our dependence is visible across every layer. Government systems rely on operating software built abroad; defence assets carry mission codes we do not control; and social conversations flow through platforms headquartered overseas. This goes beyond convenience and to the core of national security and strategic autonomy.
The contrast with China is instructive. By excluding foreign rivals and nurturing its own champions, Beijing created operating systems, cloud services, and e-commerce giants that dominate at home and compete abroad. This gave China both digital sovereignty and digital power. India, by opening markets without building comparable depth, produced users rather than champions. The distance between our aspirations and abilities has grown.
Announcements of new chip design and manufacturing capabilities in India are welcome and reflect hard work, yet they are only the first steps. We still lag behind the world’s best in cutting-edge technology, where speed, scale, and mastery of complexity define leadership. Benchmarking where we stand today is equally important, so that it acts as a guide to chart the path ahead.
Yet we are not without proof of capacity. The Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and the Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, and Mobile (JAM) trinity reshaped financial inclusion and set global benchmarks. These were not mere digital products but evidence that scale and relevance are possible when India builds for itself. However, the world has already shifted to artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and synthetic biology. The lesson from UPI is that innovation is within reach, while that from history is that laurels cannot be resting places.
The phrase “data is the new oil” has now become doctrine. For India, with its 1.4 billion citizens and a young digital economy, data is the foundation of both growth and security. The question now is who controls its flows, who sets the rules of its use, and who turns it into power. Those who master this will not just adapt to the future but shape it.
Artificial intelligence (AI), in particular, is no longer only a commercial tool. It is a strategic multiplier that shapes military planning, finance, diplomacy, and governance. Falling behind in the AI race risks eroding sovereignty itself. Today, India still imports advanced chips, depends on foreign platforms, and sees its best talent drawn abroad by opportunity.
Three constraints explain this predicament—our scientific ecosystem is fragmented and poorly linked to industry; public research funding remains below global standards, leaving long-term projects undernourished; and our industrial base has yet to master large-scale manufacture of semiconductors and advanced hardware that can compete globally. Equally urgent is the need for liveable cities—our top urban centres are in a shambles, offering little respect for quality of life, making it difficult to retain or attract the talent India needs.
In this context, public discourse sometimes mistakes slogans for strategy. Announcements, hackathons, and glossy documents dominate headlines, but institutions cannot be built on hashtags. National industrial policy cannot operate like digital marketing.
The harder question follows—do we have a digital policy that integrates how India envisions its role in this century, or do we still treat technology as a sectoral add-on instead of the organising principle of economic strength, social stability, and geopolitical influence?
Digital sovereignty must become a strategic mission. It requires investment in research at scale, industrial ecosystems that can manufacture hardware of global quality, and cultivation of talent that will not merely serve but lead the AI era. It also requires honest introspection and deeper policy initiatives to scale.
The challenge is not only technical, but also societal. AI already shapes how people think, act, and relate to one another. Algorithms influence how information is consumed, opinions are formed, and even relationships are chosen. In a diverse society like ours, unchecked AI risks deepening divides, distorting democratic debate, and shaping millions of minds without oversight. Sovereignty must therefore also mean safeguarding the social fabric so that technology strengthens cohesion.
This is where governance must rise to the challenge. Technology evolves at the speed of code while regulation often moves at the pace of committees. We need foresight, ethical frameworks, and agile institutions that can anticipate risks before they become crises. Without this, even the most ambitious investment in chips or code will not shield us from vulnerability.
For any proud nationalist, this trajectory is troubling. Safeguarding India’s future will require every institution, policymaker, business, and citizen to play a part in building our digital strength. True sovereignty today means not only guarding our borders but ensuring that we remain digitally sovereign in the century of AI.