How do you assess the progress of the IndiaAI Mission so far?
I think it’s important to first be clear about what the IndiaAI Mission was intended to do. It was designed as a catalyst to focus attention on what needs to happen in the AI [artificial intelligence] space. In that sense, it has succeeded.
There are three core infrastructure components. First is AI compute capacity. Second is AI models particularly important for a country like India so that our culture and languages are adequately represented, and from a resilience perspective, we don’t become overly dependent on models from a single country. Third, we need flexibility to build models that make a real difference in priority sectors such as health care, materials and manufacturing.
We have focused on building AI compute by encouraging private sector investment, since they’re best equipped to do so. The government assures demand by committing to procurement. There were some issues raised by the industry, which we are resolving. It’s a relatively capital-light infrastructure model.
The next component is data ensuring adequate availability of high-quality datasets. That’s another area the AI Mission has addressed.
Beyond infrastructure, skilling is crucial. Encouraging start-ups and talent development is another major vertical. Trust and safety are also critical ensuring AI systems are safe, reliable and governed by clear principles.
Finally, the applications vertical is where we believe the greatest potential for job creation lies. Indian developers building and deploying scalable applications will ultimately determine our leadership.
India still does not have a globally competitive foundational AI model. Plus, we don’t have AI start-ups that have secured growth-stage funding yet.
I expect an Indian foundational model to emerge in the near future. Early on, there was considerable debate about whether India should build its own model or rely on open-source models while focusing on applications.
That thinking shaped the IndiaAI Mission, where the model vertical was intentionally launched later. Over time, a consensus formed: while leveraging open-source models is essential, India also needs its own foundational model particularly for representation and long-term resilience.
On the applications side, the ecosystem has progressed well. A number of start-ups have emerged and secured funding, with strong activity at the pre-seed, seed and Series A stages. Series B funding has been limited so far, but that reflects the global state of the market.
GCCs create high-end jobs that retain talent in India, talent that might otherwise move abroad and they generate valuable spillovers
Are you satisfied with the quality of proposals for IndiaAI Mission?
Absolutely. India has a very vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem. Many founders come in with ideas that are deeply thought through. We are impressed by the depth, clarity and rigour of their thinking.
3 February 2026
Get the latest issue of Outlook Business
With IT services firms holding billions in cash, should the government incentivise higher R&D and can IT services continue to drive jobs and forex earnings?
I don’t believe incentives are necessary anymore. The traditional model of labour arbitrage is no longer enough to drive growth. India’s IT services companies recognise that they must build products and proprietary capabilities of their own, and that shift is already underway. We must have a diversified economy. Over-reliance on any one sector is risky.
As iPhone sales and local manufacturing scale up, are local suppliers seeing real benefits and how can deep-tech start-ups better access procurement markets?
The PLI [production-linked incentive] scheme was designed to drive scale, and that has largely been achieved. Once scale is established, component suppliers tend to follow. While there were some delays due to geopolitical factors, the new ECMS [Electronics Components Manufacturing Scheme] is helping address those gaps.
On procurement, government programmes do support start-ups, including relaxed eligibility norms in areas such as cybersecurity. That said, the market cannot be limited to this alone. To scale meaningfully, start-ups must be globally competitive.
Can Indian players compete with global players on subscription pricing?
We have to. Any foundational AI model developed here cannot exist in isolation. For it to succeed, it must compete on a global stage, not just in terms of technology but also on usability, performance and pricing.
Founders point to a shortage of research-oriented talent in AI and semiconductors. Should India strengthen academic support to address this gap?
Absolutely. Strong industry–academia–research linkages consistently deliver results. IIT Madras Research Park is a prime example, as are IISc [Indian Institute of Science] and CCMB [Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology]. To build research and innovation capacity, we need to replicate and scale such models.
Some start-ups file patents mainly to attract investors, while global capability centres create jobs but keep patents overseas. Are these trends a concern for India?
Not necessarily. In sectors like semiconductors, firms may avoid patents to protect commercial secrets, and sophisticated venture capitalists can still assess real value. It would be unfair to generalise. GCCs create high-end jobs that retain talent in India, talent that might otherwise move abroad and they generate valuable spillovers, as employees often go on to start their own ventures.
Further, GCCs also collaborate on R&D and innovation.
