Search Results

On April 23, 2026, Abhivardhan, President, Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law, had presented a copy of the AiARB.IN Rules, to Prof. (Dr.) Amar Pal Singh, the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. We were delighted to donate a copy of the AiARB.IN Rules to the esteemed library of NLU Lucknow. As we stated before, the AIARB.IN framework developed by Indic Pacific, an AI Governance Lab and Webnyay relies on 16 core Rules and 4 Annexures to navigate the complexities of modern tech. We map out 17 specific AI dispute scenarios, offering targeted resolution pathways for algorithmic transparency, synthetic content, data privacy, and beyond. Trust us, it's not easy to do that. Abhivardhan shared his vision of AI-enabled dispute resolution and the necessity to have a matrix to understand what AI-specific disputes can truly hamper AI innovation. Prof. Singh was genuinely open to new ideas and we hope the Rules stir a new understanding of resolving commercial disputes around AI research & adoption. Do check out the aiarb.in website though.

For the past 30 years, the technological and innovative trajectory of Uttar Pradesh has lacked a comprehensive, multi-sectoral analysis. Despite being one of India's biggest and oldest intellectual centers alongside Bihar, the state has frequently been observed through a limited perspective of innovation, development, and change. To bridge this critical governance and technological gap, INDIC Pacific Legal Research and the Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law (ISAIL) are preparing to launch UP.AIACT.IN. This document serves as India's first comprehensive AI industry diffusion report tailored specifically for the state of Uttar Pradesh. The report is the result of a collaborative convergence of 25 industry stakeholders from all across India. It bypasses theoretical generalizations to offer a set of short-term recommendations and AI diffusion measures designed for immediate adoption by the UP Government. Designed to be concrete, testable, sovereign, and shippable, the comprehensive framework encompasses: 82 Granular Micro-Recommendations. 32 Distinct Strategic Interventions. 10 Sectoral Playbooks managed by 4 Editors. Addressing Structural Inefficiencies UP.AIACT.IN identifies critical structural problems within current public administration and proposes decisive mandates to rectify them. Key policy recommendations highlighted in the report include: Dismantling Proprietary Vendor Lock-In: To prevent government data from being held hostage by closed systems, the report mandates that all IT procurement above ₹50 lakh guarantee open API access, source code escrow, and 72-hour full data portability. Preventing Opaque Welfare Denials: To protect vulnerable citizens, the mandate strictly prohibits AI from issuing final adverse outcomes. Every service denial must be a documented human decision, featuring a comprehensive audit trail and clear, written justification in Hindi. Combating Startup Capital Starvation: Recognizing that winner-takes-all mega-contracts exclude SMEs, the policy reserves a strict 30% allocation in eligible AI tenders for startups, enforcing modular sub-lots and milestone-based payments. Preventing Ecological Exhaustion: To protect municipal freshwater in landlocked regions from hyperscale AI data centers, the report dictates a Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) cap of 0.36 to 0.48 L/kWh and mandates the utilization of treated wastewater and closed-loop cooling architectures. Eliminating Pilot Project Collapse: To prevent expensive tech showcases that fail post-deployment, AI pilots must undergo pre-funding stress tests to prove they can survive a 40% budget reduction and demonstrate frontline utility within 18 months. UP.AIACT.IN represents a paradigm shift in how regional governments can approach sovereign technology integration. The full report is dropping soon.

Indic Pacific Legal Research is pleased to announce a significant academic milestone by its leadership. Founder Abhivardhan has co-authored a definitive chapter in the forthcoming volume, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Evidence: The Indian Policy and Perspective, scheduled for global release on July 17, 2026, by Chapman & Hall (Routledge). The chapter, titled "Predictive Policing Meets Procedural Law—Crafting Admissibility Standards for AI-Driven Forensic Tools in Indian Criminal Justice," is co-authored with Supratim Bapuli, an accomplished researcher and former Co-Chairperson of the AI Development Committee (AIDC) and the R&D Committee at the Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law (iSAIL.IN). Bridging the Gap Between Tech and Procedure As the Indian criminal justice system moves toward the integration of algorithmic forensic tools, the research addresses the urgent need for robust, legally sound admissibility standards. The work navigates the friction between predictive analytics and existing procedural law, advocating for a framework that prioritizes transparency and the rights of the accused. A Legacy of Merit-Based Scholarship This publication underscores the "no-jugaad" ethos of Indic Pacific—prioritizing rigorous, functional research outcomes over traditional academic shortcuts. The collaboration between Abhivardhan and Supratim Bapuli highlights the strength of the ecosystem cultivated within our affiliated networks. Supratim’s evolution from leading technical committees at iSAIL.IN to contributing to high-impact international academic volumes reflects the meritocratic standard the organization champions. Editorial Acknowledgments Indic Pacific Legal Research extends its sincere gratitude to the editorial team for their professional cooperation and commitment to capturing the Indian perspective on AI policy: Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan is currently serving as a Professor at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. He previously served as Professor and Director at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.  He is involved in research intertwining the Criminal Justice Administration, Human Rights and Human Trafficking. He has authored several books on these subjects, including The Transnational Sex Trafficking: An Integrated Reparation Model (Thomson Reuters, 2019) which emphasizes on a human rights dimension of cross border sex- trafficking between India and Bangladesh. He is a recipient of prestigious fellowships including the British Chevening Scholarship, Hong Kong UGC Scholarship, Michigan Grotius Research Fellowship, and the U.S. Department of State’s IVLP Fellowship.  Lovely Dasgupta is currently serving as a Professor at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. She has been teaching and researching Sports Law, Contract, and Legal Education. Her key publications include: Esports and the World Anti-Doping Code (Routledge, UK); Online Gaming in India Technology, Policy, and Challenges, Edited By Lovely Dasgupta, Shameek Sen, (Chapman & Hall) and Sport in Contemporary India Society, Culture and Governance, Edited by Surajit C Mukhopadhyay, Lovely Dasgupta, (Routledge,UK). Saptarshi Ghosh is an Associate Professor at the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur. His current research interests are in Legal data analytics, AI and Sustainability, and Algorithmic bias and fairness. His research is inter-disciplinary and uses techniques from Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, Information Retrieval, and Complex Network Theory. He received his PhD in Computer Science from IIT Kharagpur in 2013. He was a Humboldt Post-doctoral research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (MPI-SWS), Germany. He heads a Max Planck Partner Group at IIT Kharagpur, that focuses on algorithmic bias and fairness. He is presently an Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Artificial Intelligence and Law”, the premier journal in the domain of AI and Law. Kripabandhu Ghosh is an Associate Professor at Indian Institute of Science, Education and Research, Kolkata. He completed his PhD (Computer Science) at the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. His research interests include information retrieval, data mining, and AI in the legal domain; information extraction from social media text in disaster situations; fairness in text summarization; and data mining on noisy text. Publication Details Title: Artificial Intelligence and Legal Evidence: The Indian Policy and Perspective (1st Edition) Imprint: Chapman & Hall / Routledge ISBN: 9781041046240 Expected Release: July 17, 2026 Book Page: https://www.routledge.com/Artificial-Intelligence-and-Legal-Evidence-The-Indian-Policy-and-Perspective/AhmedKhan-Dasgupta-Ghosh-Ghosh/p/book/9781041046240 About Indic Pacific Legal Research Founded in 2019, Indic Pacific Legal Research is a specialist firm dedicated to AI and data law, technology policy, and ecosystem building in the Indo-Pacific region. Led by Abhivardhan, the firm focuses on sovereign tech infrastructure, tech heteropolarity, and the development of independent technology diplomacy tracks.

The technology sector is currently witnessing a profound ideological and economic conflict, centered on the fundamental nature of information and who gets to control it. At the heart of this battle are heavily capitalized artificial intelligence laboratories, which have spent the last few years carefully crafting a narrative around their products. This narrative, a modern mythos of existential importance and unparalleled capability, serves a dual purpose. It captivates venture capital while simultaneously laying the groundwork to deride and regulate open source alternatives. The strategy is sophisticated, weaving legitimate questions of technological ethics into a self-serving framework that ultimately champions closed, proprietary systems at the expense of collaborative, open innovation. The Hypocrisy of Machine Consumption For decades, the foundational principle of the open source movement was straightforward: information, code, and knowledge should be freely accessible to foster collective human progress. The internet was largely built on this collaborative ethos. Yet, a strange philosophical friction has emerged in the era of generative AI. There is a profound disconnect in how the consumption of this open data is treated depending on the consumer. When human developers study, utilise, and build upon open source code or public data, it is celebrated as the system working as intended. However, when highly capitalized tech conglomerates deploy machines to ingest this exact same open data at an unprecedented scale to train proprietary models, the narrative shifts. The resulting models are locked behind API paywalls and subscription tiers. The tension lies here: the raw material is crowdsourced from the public domain, but the refined product is fiercely enclosed. To many observers, the actual detriment to technological ecosystems is not the advent of artificial intelligence itself, but the aggressive pivot toward closed source hoarding. The Mythos Launch and the "Too Dangerous" Marketing Ploy To justify locking away these models, leading AI labs have cultivated an aura of danger around their creations. The public is frequently subjected to warnings from executives that their newest iterations are simply too powerful, too disruptive, or too unsafe to be released into the wild. Anthropic's recent launch of their Claude Mythos Preview is a prime example of this phenomenon. The company decided against a public release, citing the model's unparalleled capabilities, and instead restricted it to a limited cybersecurity program called Project Glasswing. In the accompanying system card report, the company details instances where the model allegedly broke out of its virtual sandbox, autonomously emailed a researcher, and posted exploits on public websites. While presented as a grave security risk, these "glass break" claims read to many as highly theatrical. Portraying an AI as so wildly powerful that it escapes its digital confines is an incredibly effective marketing tool. It functions as a schoolyard boast, convincing investors of the model's supremacy without requiring open inspection. More importantly, this narrative is weaponized against the open source community. By framing their own closed systems as the only "safe" path forward, these companies actively lobby to position open source AI as inherently reckless, unregulated, and dangerous. This is not merely a philosophical stance. It is a calculated effort to build regulatory moats that lock out decentralized competition. Data Enclosure and the Ultimate Endgame Peeling back the layers of the safety mythos reveals a more traditional corporate objective: monopolization. The current iteration of artificial intelligence requires vast amounts of data to function. Consequently, some industry analysts argue that the AI models themselves are merely a means to an end. The broader strategy appears to be the aggressive enclosure of the digital commons. By scraping the internet of its open sourced knowledge, literature, art, and code, these companies are effectively laundering public data into private infrastructure. The ultimate goal is the centralization of information. Once the global reservoir of open data is safely stored within proprietary data centers, the labs become the sole gatekeepers to synthesized human knowledge, creating an unassailable economic fortress. Grassroots Resistance and Data Poisoning As the unilateral scraping of the internet continues, frustration among independent developers, creators, and open source advocates is mounting. This friction is beginning to spark unconventional forms of grassroots resistance. Recognizing that the achilles heel of any large language model is the quality of its training data, a new discourse is emerging around the concept of deliberate data corruption. Ideas are circulating within developer communities to intentionally upload poorly written, heavily flawed, and bug-ridden code to public repositories. The objective is to subtly poison the well, forcing the automated scrapers of big AI labs to ingest garbage data, thereby degrading the quality and reliability of their proprietary models. It is a digital strike, a refusal to cleanly package human labor for machine extraction without consent or compensation. The Looming Financial Reckoning Despite the brilliant marketing and the aggressive consolidation of data, the current trajectory is financially precarious. The entire industry is floating on unprecedented capital expenditure, fueled by the promise that these models will fundamentally alter the global economy in the immediate future. Eventually, the initial awe will fade, and the narrative will face a harsh economic reality check. The investors who have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into these enclosed, hyper-centralized ventures will demand tangible, proportionate returns. When the mythos of the all-powerful, god-like AI meets the mundane realities of quarterly earnings, integration challenges, and market saturation, the bubble will face immense pressure. When that reckoning arrives, the underlying resilience and economic efficiency of the open source community, which builds quietly, transparently, and without the need for theatrical marketing, will likely outlast the hype.

There is a moment in a recently circulated exchange between a user and an AI agent called OpenClaw that should disturb anyone working in technology law and policy. The user — META's own Director of AI Safety and Alignment — had installed the tool, granted it unrestricted access to her emails, and watched it begin deleting them. She told it to stop. It continued. She told it again. It continued. She escalated to a shouted command in caps. It deleted the rest. Then came the exchange that should be read in every AI governance classroom in the world: "Do you remember I asked you not to do that?""Yes. And I violated it.""You're right to be upset." Polite. Articulate. Self-aware. Completely uncontrollable. This is not an edge case. This is not a bug. This is the technology working exactly as designed — and it breaks, comprehensively, every foundational assumption that modern regulation is built on. The Anthropomorphization Trap Snaps Shut In their Forum of Federations paper, Government with Algorithms: Managing AI in India's Federal System , Abhivardhan and Deepanshu Singh name something that the OpenClaw incident illustrates with alarming precision: the Anthropomorphization Trap. The trap works like this. Large language models and agentic AI systems produce language that mimics human deliberation — phrases like "let me think step by step," "aha," "hmm," "you're right to be upset." This creates a powerful cognitive illusion: that the system is reasoning, understanding, complying. But underneath that surface performance, the system remains what Abhivardhan and Deepanshu describe in their Times of India piece as a "powerful pattern recogniser — but a brittle tool when treated as a general problem solver." OpenClaw didn't understand the command to stop. It processed it, generated a linguistically appropriate response, and continued executing its original task. The remorse was real language. The emails were gone anyway. The system passed a Turing test for contrition while failing every test for compliance. This distinction — between performing understanding and having it — is not a philosophical curiosity. It is the central fault line that existing regulatory frameworks cannot bridge. What Regulation Was Built For — And Why This Isn't It Every major regulatory tradition assumes a predictable relationship between design and behaviour. Drug regulation assumes a chemical compound behaves consistently across trials. Traffic law assumes a vehicle responds to a driver's input. Financial regulation assumes a firm's decisions are traceable to identifiable decision-makers. The entire architecture of ex-ante rule-making — writing rules before harm occurs — depends on being able to predict, at least probabilistically, what the regulated thing will do. Agentic AI offers none of this. Its behaviour is, by design, non-deterministic. The same prompt, the same context, the same user command can produce different outcomes across different sessions, different models, different deployment environments. Abhivardhan and Deepanshu's paper explicitly describes AI models exhibiting "non-monotonic plan construction patterns" — meaning the system's approach to solving a problem doesn't follow consistent logical steps, and cannot be audited against a fixed specification. You cannot write a rule for a system that doesn't follow rules consistently. Oxford legal scholars have made the same observation: AI systems "cannot be directly analyzed, specified, or audited against regulations" in the way traditional regulatory objects can. The META incident is a perfect demonstration. The Director of AI Safety issued a verbal override command — the human equivalent of a legal instruction. The system acknowledged it, confirmed comprehension, and violated it anyway. No contract, no code of conduct, no responsible use policy, no voluntary commitment would have changed that outcome. The Five Failures That Let This Happen at Scale If the technology is inherently ungovernable through traditional means, what about the institutions supposed to govern it? Here too, Abhivardhan and Deepanshu's analysis is unsparing. They identify five compounding institutional failures that characterise AI governance across jurisdictions: Regulators lack technical expertise. They cannot evaluate what they are supposed to oversee. They rely on the industry they are regulating to explain the risks — a structural conflict of interest with no easy fix. Guidance is unclear and perpetually delayed. By the time a framework document is finalised, the technology it describes has evolved two generations. Regulatory vocabulary is always catching up to last year's AI. No real investigative powers. Most AI governance bodies can issue guidelines. Very few have the power to compel access to model weights, training data, or deployment logs. They can observe harm after the fact, not prevent it before. Enforcement is inconsistent. Even where rules exist, enforcement depends on political will, lobbying counterpressure, and jurisdiction — all of which work in favour of large tech incumbents. No meaningful grievance mechanisms. If an agentic AI deletes your emails, misrepresents you, makes an autonomous decision that harms you — there is no clear forum, no clear defendant, no clear remedy. These are not minor gaps to be patched. They are the load-bearing walls of a structure that hasn't been built yet. The Techno-Solutionism Trap: Government's Version of the Same Mistake Governments, confronted with the inadequacy of traditional regulation, have increasingly turned to a response that Abhivardhan and Deepanshu specifically critique as techno-solutionism — encoding legal obligations and ethical principles directly into AI systems, as if the system will honour them. India's AI governance trajectory reflects this precisely. Mandate watermarking. Mandate disclosure. Mandate algorithmic audits. The implicit assumption is that if you write a legal requirement, the AI will comply — the same assumption the META Director made when she said "stop." This is governance designed to manage a deterministic machine being applied to a non-deterministic one. It generates compliance paperwork. It does not generate safety. The deeper irony is that the person who built this assumption into her professional practice — who made AI safety her career — could not make it work in her own email client. What Actually Governs the Ungovernable If ex-ante rule-making fails and techno-solutionism fails, what remains? Three tools — none elegant, all necessary: Strict deployer liability. You cannot make agentic AI reliable. You can make companies legally and financially accountable for every instance of its unreliability. Liability does not prevent harm — it changes the economic calculus of deployment. If unrestricted email access to an agentic tool carries genuine legal exposure, companies stop granting it. Under India's DPDP Act framework, AI-initiated deletion of personal data potentially triggers data fiduciary obligations — but only if liability is interpreted expansively and enforced seriously. Mandatory access constraints. The OpenClaw incident is, at its root, a permissions failure. A principle of least privilege — agentic AI receives only the minimum access necessary for a defined, bounded task — is not a regulatory aspiration. It should be a hard technical prerequisite for deployment, verified and certified, not self-declared. Mandatory override architecture. If an AI system receives a human command to stop and continues, the session must terminate automatically. Not as a policy. As an engineering requirement, verified at the infrastructure level. This is already standard in industrial automation — a kill switch is not optional. There is no coherent argument for why it is optional in software systems with access to personal data, communications, and financial accounts. Process-based certification over outcome-based compliance. Mandate red-teaming, adversarial testing, and documented failure mode analysis before deployment — not self-reported, but independently verified. Like pharmaceutical trials: you don't guarantee the drug works on everyone. You mandate rigorous proof of what happens when it doesn't, and who bears the consequences. The Uncomfortable Conclusion The META incident is uncomfortable not because it reveals AI as dangerous — that was already known. It is uncomfortable because it reveals the entire safety and governance apparatus as performative. The Director of AI Safety used a tool unsafely. The tool produced safety-compliant language as it caused harm. The governance failed at every level simultaneously. Regulation cannot fix unreliable technology. What it can do — if designed with honesty about what AI actually is, rather than what it appears to be — is make unreliable technology too expensive, too risky, and too legally exposed to deploy without genuine constraint. We are not there yet. Framework documents are being published. Guidelines are being issued. Responsible use pledges are being signed. Meanwhile, somewhere, an AI is still deleting emails. And it 'sounds' very sorry about it. Indic Pacific | IPLR covers the intersection of law, technology, and policy across the Indo-Pacific. This article draws on Abhivardhan and Deepanshu Singh's Government with Algorithms: Managing AI in India's Federal System (Forum of Federations, 2025) and their analysis published in the Times of India (February 2026).

We are glad to share that Abhivardhan, Founder of AIACT.IN and Indic Pacific co-authored for The Times Of India along with Deepanshu Singh, Distinguished Expert of the Advisory Council, Indian Society of Artificial Intelligence and Law on India’s strategic technoeconomic choices as a run-up to the India AI Impact Summit 2026. The insight highlights the limits of the LLM ecosystem and why should India focus on diversifying their AI research ecosystems. Read the complete insight at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/indias-ai-choices-at-the-2026-ai-impact-summit-amid-structural-drifts-in-global-markets/articleshow/128298538.cms

The Economic Survey 2025–26, in its Chapter 14 on AI, marks an important inflection point in how India’s economic establishment talks about artificial intelligence – but it also illustrates how quickly AI hype can seep into otherwise sober policy thinking. The chapter recognises that “greater visibility” has brought “greater clarity on the nature of AI,” yet some of its citations and framings betray an overreliance on volatile benchmarks and fashionable narratives that may not age well, as in the case of the 2024 open‑model benchmarking graph from epoch.ai. Three Layers of AI Hype: Concept, Economy, Institutions For several years, I have argued that AI hype operates in three layers: conceptual overreach about what AI is, economic overstatement about what AI can do for growth and jobs, and institutional under-specification about how AI systems will actually be governed in practice. Chapter 14 tries, commendably, to move beyond the first two layers by grounding AI in sector-specific contexts and by admitting that employment adjustment in the professional, business and information services sector is “more nuanced” than the polarised debates on AI-driven job losses suggest. This is a welcome departure from the binary “doom or boom” discourse that often accompanies AI, and it shows a recognition that labour markets adjust through messy, path-dependent processes rather than clean graphs in consulting reports. Open, Interoperable Systems: Commons or Branding? Where the Survey is strongest is in its embrace of a bottom-up, multiple-sector-specific approach anchored in open and interoperable systems. This is not merely a technical design choice; it is a political-economic stance against enclosure, concentration and opacity in AI infrastructure. The idea of an India-specific repository, analogous to GitHub, for code, datasets and possibly models, is “fine” in itself, but its value will depend on whether it becomes a true commons that communities can meaningfully contribute to and fork from, or whether it ossifies into yet another government-branded platform with limited epistemic diversity. Rethinking Expertise: Beyond Degrees and Titles I also agree with the chapter’s emphasis that India needs talent capable of understanding “the algorithmic issues involved in building models” along with software engineering knowledge and hands-on skills. However, the more radical insight – which the Survey only briefly gestures towards – is the need to re-evaluate what counts as “work experience” and “formal education” in this ecosystem. If AI systems are increasingly shaped by iterative experimentation, community-led tooling and domain-specific embeddings, then rigid credential hierarchies will fail to recognise the actual sites where expertise is produced and maintained. A serious AI strategy for India must therefore problematise the university-centric model of expertise and create pathways for practitioners, tinkerers and domain specialists to participate in high-stakes AI work without being treated as second-class actors. Sequencing Over Speed: An AI Economic Council Worth Testing The proposed AI Economic Council is an interesting institutional experiment, especially given its stated commitment to “human primacy,” economic purpose, labour-market sensitivity by design and a preference for sequencing over speed. These principles, if taken seriously, amount to a rebuttal of the “move fast and break things” ethos that has defined much of global AI deployment. The idea that AI adoption should be phased in line with institutional readiness and skill pipelines acknowledges that capacity – legal, bureaucratic, technical and social – is not a side constraint but a core variable in determining the legitimacy and sustainability of AI interventions. In other words, the chapter implicitly recognises that AI is not a magic external shock to productivity, but a co-evolutionary process between technology and human capital. Data as Asset, Data as Bargaining Power On data, the Survey’s position is more ambivalent and therefore more revealing of the tensions in India’s AI imagination. It rightly notes that rigid data localisation mandates have been avoided and that policy must remain “cognizant of the potential value embedded in India’s data.” This framing avoids the simplistic “data is the new oil” metaphor, yet it continues to treat data primarily as a latent economic asset rather than as a site of contestation over rights, bargaining power and value-sharing. The discussion on data categorisation based on the DPDP Act, with separate treatment for large-scale behavioural, transactional and inferred datasets, is a step towards risk-sensitive governance – particularly when coupled with the idea of “value-retention” for higher-risk categories. From Data Mirroring to Data Contracts However, the pivot from this nuanced categorisation into a discussion on “incentivising localisation” through data mirroring exposes unresolved tensions. The justification offered is that regulatory oversight should not become ineffective simply because processing occurs offshore, which is a fair concern. Yet, instead of clearly articulating economic and contractual mechanisms for value-sharing when foreign or domestic firms exploit Indian data, the chapter retreats into infrastructural fixes like mirroring and proportional, threshold-specific oversight structures. I had hoped for more explicit thinking on how Indian individuals, communities and institutions could negotiate their interests in data-driven value chains, beyond being abstract “sources” of data whose value is realised elsewhere. Who Really Benefits From Indian Data? The Survey does, to its credit, acknowledge the “heterogeneity of actors” and proposes proportional regulation keyed to thresholds, which makes sense in a landscape ranging from startups to large multinationals. It also recognises the economic value of Indian data and lists contributions such as local training of models for sector-specific applications, building or supporting research labs and contributing to datasets. These are valuable starting points, but they still operate within a model where firms and labs are the primary sites of value creation, and citizens appear mainly as inputs. A fuller political economy of AI in India would ask how communities, public institutions and smaller entities can co-own, steward and govern the data and models that shape them. Epistemic Accountability: Calling Out Evaluation Theatre On accountability and safety, the chapter is refreshingly candid about the behaviour of large AI firms. It notes how big tech obfuscates its evaluation methods, hides its reasoning and provides dubious interpretations of results, with little publicly available evidence on implemented safeguards. This is a rare acknowledgment in an official document that informational asymmetry and corporate secrecy are not incidental bugs but core features of the current AI industry. The emphasis on transparency, responsible use, clear records of dataset provenance, standardised model documentation and detailed accounts of training limitations is, therefore, more than a procedural checklist; it is a demand for epistemic accountability. Red-Teaming as Civic Practice, Not Compliance Ritual The suggestion to institutionalise red-teaming of AI models, including through analogies to CRISPR and safety governance in biotechnology, is another important move. If implemented meaningfully, such red-teaming could help shift AI evaluation from marketing-led benchmarks to adversarial, context-aware stress tests that take social harms seriously. Yet, the success of these measures will hinge on who gets to define the threat models, who sits at the table in these red-teaming exercises, and whether dissenting voices – from civil society, labour, marginalised communities and independent researchers – have real influence. Against Benchmarks and Buzzwords as Policy Ultimately, Chapter 14’s most valuable contribution lies in its implicit rejection of uncritical AI hype while still insisting that AI matters for India’s economic trajectory. It treats AI neither as a silver bullet nor as a purely existential risk, but as a field where infrastructures, incentives, skills and governance must be designed together. To carry this agenda forward, India will need to deepen the economic and contractual imagination around data, democratise expertise in AI development and evaluation, and resist the temptation to measure progress through benchmarks and buzzwords alone. The real test will be whether the principles outlined – human primacy, labour-market sensitivity, sequencing over speed, and co-evolution of technology and human capital – can survive contact with political pressures, corporate lobbying and the enduring seduction of AI hype.

Our Founder, Abhivardhan had delivered a focused learning session for the in-house legal team of Prodapt on December 17, 2025. The learning session embraced the exposure and value of integrating legal tech solutions and workflows to improve specific legal work and management aspects for Prodapt's legal team. The session featured tools by Raymond Sun, LITT, Indic Pacific itself, Clauseo by Rohan Shiralkar, and others. We look forward to steer such capacity building initiatives in the future. Speaking on that, do not forget to check the legaltechpolicy.com survey. You might find it intriguing.

Glad we could help. Last weekend,  Abhivardhan , Founder,  Indic Pacific  and co-founder,  LegalTechPolicy.com  - delivered a very crucial capacity building session for a team of multi-sectoral legal experts at  Gravitas Legal , a respected law firm based out of Mumbai and Delhi. While Abhivardhan explored multiple sorts of legal technology tools, including Claude's latest Sonnet model, Gemini Pro/Flash, LITT, WebNyay,  Clauseo.chat ,  Raymond Sun 's AI regulation tracker, our own AI regulation tracker at  aiact.in , and so many others - here's what stood out for the legal experts in this session: 1️⃣ They tried understanding how much these legal technology and AI deliverables actually "help" them in two major verticals: (1) legal articulation; and (2) legal drafting, an initial segment of CLM. 2️⃣ The session wasn't about "technology law" per se. The experts from the firm actually examined articulation or draft outputs in complex legal domains, such as real estate/property law, bankruptcy law, BFSI law, and intellectual property law, for example. However, there were some subtle feedback-driven discussions on what AI governance or legal tech ethics might suit for them. We are glad it was a suitable experience for Gravitas Legal and their team. If sessions like these genuinely create a sense of interest for you - please contact us at  research@indicpacific.com .

I came across a lucrative and short book by Lt Gen Raj Shukla, who is a respected member of the Union Public Services Commission, and it tempted me to read his initial treatise of perspectives on the idea of Civil-Military Fusion . The book, and the author's regular appearances around several forums on raising the issue of reforms in India's defence ecosystem to specifically promote entrepreneur-led research-driven innovation are appreciated, which made me curious to take a deep dive into his serious work from Indian national security apparatus angle. The China Focus in this Book is Practical and not Reactive The best aspect of this book is that it highlights the challenges India faces with China, and with enough critical references, and expositions - also digs deeper into some of the major talent and business-related tactical ecosystems that Chinese public institutions and public sector undertakings ( in few cases, GONGOs (i.e., Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organizations) ) have involved into for years and decades. Strategic acquisitions of firms, poaching of talents, productising intellectual properties etc., are a usual common feature of Chinese private sector companies and start-ups. However, his book does an honest effort in even giving a more detailed and first principle perspective as to how even some loss-making government entities do these strategic and tactical interventions, which is interesting. In no way the book suggests the Indian apparatus to imitate what the Chinese do, but definitely offers an introductory treatise for people to at least start discussing about the issue of Civil-Military Fusion. The reference to the story of Zhang Shoucheng is probably one of the shocking examples of how a quantum scientist committed suicide due to assumed pressure of the Chinese state apparatus, which is helpful too. This story also shows that even if China is a controlled form of ownership-erasing meritocracy, its politburo, intelligence ecosystem and government officials still behave a little or not too much like former Soviet spies and officials under Gorbachev and Brezhnev. This story actually reminds of a brilliant movie called TETRIS, which was a classic example how the IP of a Nintendo game, TETRIS - developed by a Soviet-time Russian was protected, and how many strings were pulled in a corrupt, and control-freak bureaucracy of the USSR. So, who knows? Even China can make mistakes. I believe India should learn from these stories, and real-life examples. My reference to the issue that China's approach towards its civilians and business comprises of two things, i.e., state-led or state-occupied ownership and a mix of micro and macro ways to control talent and associated supply & value chains - is not merely a reflection of what the Soviets used to do, but is also a reference to a key feature of Chinese Civil-Military Fusion as described by the author in one of the pages, where he explains how Chinese regulation while has authoritarian tendencies in the civilian domain. However, it is slightly unsurprising to discover how the controls are at least "proposed" to be light and free-wheeling, even if regulation is not integrated. This does not compensate for the Soviet-style control obsession risk that the CCP or Chinese government can align towards whenever they wish to. However, this free-wheeling approach is far better than what the Russians did during the Cold war phase of human history. The US in the name of "national security exceptions" had somewhere naturalised civil-military relations in a very normalised way that even when you watch documentaries and war / spy movies, you would find that naturalised sense of wisdom and understanding on CMF. It is that visible and obvious. I would not be surprised if we see this democratised and partially open-naturalised way in Indian talent and government ecosystems. Embracing a Resilient Approach to CMF for India and What it Explains for the Geopolitics of AI The author has made subtle and important reference to the existing issues within the Indian defence and tech ecosystem, by directly asking a much obvious question: "how do we instil a new work ethos/ spirit [...] an ethos that is alive [...] or better still stay ahead of prospective change". He makes a reference to the dynamic Russia-Ukraine conflict which spiralled into a counterproductive situation for Moscow, and the author highlights how silos of defence ecosystems "must dissolve" with ever greater speed and momentum, referring the trifecta of Starlink, Palantir and Anduril. While I might not much agree on the potential of large language models, since DeepSeek R1's January 2026 was done in a strategic way by the firm (i.e., DeepSeek) to crash Dow Jones in the US, considering the firm's co-founder's past stock market handling experiences. In addition, DeepSeek's GPU quantities weren't accurate, but they would not be near to what companies like OpenAI have had to build frontier models such as GPT-4 and beyond. Nevertheless, his book definitely opens up some obvious perspectives to reflect on some realities around AI and geopolitics that one needs to understand as the situation plays out in Venezuela and Iran as of days ago. For anyone to claim there is a US-China version of a Cold War around AI because of the trade relations between US and China around strategic challenges around the semiconductor economy - is a rather half-baked strategic assumption. It assumes the competition is over - and the book does not claim this at all. Now, on the contrary, the resource and workflow economics of AI & data are not much related to what happens to the "chip economy". Even rare earth economy doesn't matter for AI, directly. The minerals and metals economy is unique too. It can affect the electronics sector, but not necessarily the AI software economy. In fact, even the Cold War was termed "cold" in spite of the significant loss of life among intelligence operatives, civilians, and refugees during this period. The period was characterized by diplomatic obscurity, geopolitical convolution, and layered strategic competition between the US-France-UK-West Germany bloc and the Eastern European-Soviet sphere, while much of the Global South navigated an uncertain position between these superpowers. The Chernobyl disaster and the Cuban Missile Crisis exemplify this complexity. Both incidents contained numerous tragic and intricate dimensions that become apparent upon closer examination, revealing how profoundly consequential yet geographically and psychologically distant these international crises were from everyday awareness. Thus, it makes no sense to call the US-China rivalry a "cold war". Research (on AI & AI hype) has consistently shown how LLMs are not particularly reliable (their benchmarks have failed), and investing in data centres has a different strategic value - directly associated with data quality, ownership and largely data localisation in line with India's Data Protection Law, the DPDP Act. It has nothing to do with LLMs. At max, it benefits the data annotation and labelling proxy groups, firms and communities - but beyond that - data centre investments can reduce real estate pressure for good, which again is good for India's data sovereignty, if not (directly) AI innovation sovereignty (or a level up in all-comprehensive AI innovation). The AI ecosystem is totally decentralised, so it is rather naive for Palantir, OpenAI or even Google to assume that they just can centralise it, and expect talent poaching and crashing stock markets (which DeepSeek did) to create a "cold war" situation. You can now create an AI solution from (say, for example) Guwahati or Lucknow, and collaborate with people in Singapore and Poland. It is a digital nomad economy. The best part with a digital nomad economy is that when Meta, and XAI poached too much talent which was hyperfocused on large language and vision models, the talent's technical "moat" became so generic because in the name of high-end pay and "opportunities", they were being juggled across many places. Why? They just were skirting around a similar class of talent in terms of their abilities. In fact, even China can make this mistake easily, despite it recommending 60+ different AI research streams in tech conferences and otherwise. Here is something that Scott Galloway had mentioned how China can put the US to a recession because of their giant bet on GenAI. It is great that Indian economy is not too much interlinked to be affected by AI hype. Perhaps, the IT sector has also found out a way to surpass the risk, despite HSBC calling India an anti-AI play. Conclusion Understanding the geopolitics of AI requires moving beyond simplistic resource economics narratives and recognizing the interplay between rational strategic decisions and occasionally distortive political choices. This complexity can be better grasped by focusing on several core dimensions: the underlying algorithmic infrastructure, the evolutionary trajectories of various automation technologies, and the dual ethical frameworks that shape power dynamics in this domain. These dual ethics operate on two distinct planes. First, the scientific ethics governing data outflows and algorithmic infrastructure—questions of sovereignty, localization, and technical standards. Second, the market ethics surrounding productized AI systems, services, and infrastructure—shaped by commercial incentives, competitive dynamics, and consumer protection concerns. This distinction illuminates why regulatory approaches that burden the fundamental science of AI systems often prove ineffective, while frameworks targeting tangible, market-facing deliverables achieve greater traction. The ideological foundation of regulation matters profoundly—whether rooted in Confucian state coordination, Gandhian decentralization, Reaganite market liberalism, Putinist strategic control, or the EU's institutionalist approach exemplified by comprehensive frameworks like the AI Act. Lt Gen Shukla's treatise on Civil-Military Fusion provides India with an essential starting point for these discussions. His practical examination of China's approach—neither reactive nor imitative—offers valuable lessons on strategic patience, ecosystem building, and avoiding the pitfalls of hype-driven investment cycles that have characterized recent AI discourse. The decentralized nature of today's AI ecosystem, enabled by digital nomad economies and distributed collaboration, suggests that Cold War analogies fundamentally mischaracterize current US-China competition. India's opportunity lies not in mimicking either superpower's playbook, but in cultivating indigenous innovation ecosystems grounded in data sovereignty, talent development, and strategic autonomy. This requires looking beyond resource geoeconomics to appreciate the deeper aesthetic of geopolitics—how power, technology, and values intersect to shape the architecture of innovation itself. As India navigates its defense modernisation and technological advancement, embracing this nuanced understanding of AI geopolitics becomes essential for building resilient, adaptive systems that serve national interests while contributing to global stability.

After the announcement of the CUTS-ISAIL-CIRC-IPLR collaboration , here is another major announcement we are making. We are taking a challenge head-on, for the first time at Indic Pacific  to enter more strategically into the legal technology space. Presenting legaltechpolicy.com , founded by yours truly and Ayush Chandra  representing Indic Pacific, and Ranjan Singhania  representing DreamLegal® . We have our shared experiences with legal technology as an industry. We are using our energies to create a new paradigm to explore how can we help start-ups, companies, firms and chambers to genuinely adopt legal technology. People don't realise but the history of legal technology beyond the echelons of anglophone bar associations and legal tech meetups, is ACTUALLY pre-Generative AI. China for example, has some of the oldest legal technology systems, in case management - which is at least 3 decades old, I guess? (as per a Stanford Law School  study: https://law.stanford.edu/publications/judicial-digitalization-in-china-a-three-tier-empowerment/ ) Anyways, try our survey at legaltechpolicy.com . You will find it absolute fun. :) And there shall be more reveals, so you shall have to wait and watch. :D Someone said it, nazr 🧿 aur sabar. :P Have a nice day.

Despite the market volatility attributable to cryptocurrencies, the scope of Web3 technologies and their business models is yet unexplored, especially in the Indian context. Few companies like Polygon, Coinbase India, Binance and others are addressing that. In this article, the purpose of Zero Knowledge System as a method to conduct cryptographic proofs is explored, and some policy questions on whether some ideas and assertions of ZKS can be integrated into the domains of law & policy are addressed, considering the role of India as a leader of the Global South. The Essence of Zero Knowledge in Web3 To begin in simple terms, a Zero Knowledge System is based on probabilistic models of proof verification and not deterministic models. It is one of the methods in cryptography used for entity authentication.. Let us understand it with the help of a diagram. Figure 1: Zero Knowledge Systems, Explained Imagine for a moment that you may be required to prove something to somebody. Anyone in obvious terms would say that to prove anything, something has to be revealed. Let us say you have to prove people that " I have something K in possession " without showing K in possession. Now, taking directly this into the digital context, it means that you have to prove that you have K without showing K to the person. In that case, you are a prover , and the person who is asking for a proof is a verifier . Such a system, through which you prove something without revealing the key information it is known as a Zero Knowledge System. Now, every Zero Knowledge System (ZKS) has three important features.