AI firms in India: For decades, global technology companies built their strategies around a single idea — scale. If models could be trained on vast datasets and deployed across multiple markets, profitability would follow. But the new reality, especially in India, is more complex. Scale alone no longer guarantees success. It must now coexist with three new imperatives —sovereign regulation, auditability, and trust.
When Anthropic, one of the world’s leading AI firms, announced its decision to expand to India and explore data-residency options for enterprise clients, it was not merely following opportunity; it was acknowledging necessity. The age of “train globally, deploy everywhere” is ending. India’s rapidly evolving data-protection regime has made it clear that artificial intelligence systems cannot operate without respecting jurisdictional boundaries, ensuring explainability, and being accountable to regulators and citizens alike.
READ | AI in elections: ECI may struggle to tackle synthetic campaigns
The age of sovereign AI
India’s digital economy is vast, fast, and deeply integrated with daily life. The country’s cloud market is projected to reach $21.4 billion by 2025 and more than $52 billion by 2030, fuelled by public-sector digitisation and the AI boom. But as data flows multiply, so does concern over where the data resides and who controls it.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023, and the upcoming rules under it have begun to reshape corporate behaviour. They establish that the Indian citizen is not a passive data point, but the sovereign owner of their digital identity. For global firms, this marks a fundamental shift: compliance cannot be an afterthought; it must be architected into the business model.
India’s approach stands between two extremes. The European Union’s AI Act represents a comprehensive regulatory model that classifies artificial intelligence systems by risk, while the United States still relies on voluntary, sector-specific guidance. India has chosen a middle path — pragmatic, business-friendly, but sovereignty-conscious. This balance allows innovation while demanding accountability, a philosophy that will increasingly define the world’s largest open digital market.
AI firms in India: From scale to sovereignty
The global artificial intelligence industry was built on frictionless data mobility. Datasets were stored, trained, and deployed across borders with little regard for geography. That assumption no longer holds. India’s data residency requirements — driven by both government procurement and enterprise risk management — have become a non-negotiable condition for doing business in sensitive sectors like finance, health, and defence.
When Anthropic signalled its intent to localise enterprise data using Indian data centres, it was responding to the same pressure that has already reshaped the strategies of AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft. Enterprises increasingly demand data localisation and jurisdictional clarity. Regulators expect AI models to produce audit trails, not black-box decisions. The market now rewards companies that can guarantee where data is stored, how it is processed, and whether it can be explained.
For global firms, this means a deep re-engineering of artificial intelligence architecture. It is not enough to move servers to Mumbai or Hyderabad. What must be built is a sovereign-aware AI stack — one that embeds data privacy, model explainability, and compliance protocols from the start. This requires not just technological adaptation but also cultural change: engineering teams must learn to design with regulation in mind, and compliance teams must evolve from gatekeepers to co-architects of innovation.
Auditability and the architecture of trust
In the age of sovereign artificial intelligence, trust is the most valuable currency. India’s enterprises and regulators now demand not only compliance certificates but proof of ethical behaviour by design. That involves three levels of assurance: the integrity of the data, the transparency of the model, and the traceability of its decisions.
Auditability is central to all three. AI models must record what data they were trained on, how they arrived at an outcome, and which version of the model was used. In the absence of such audit logs, accountability collapses. AI incident reporting frameworks must be embedded within sectoral laws like telecommunications, to ensure real-time oversight of high-impact AI systems. This is the next frontier for regulators —continuous supervision, not occasional inspection.
Building such trust infrastructure is not a burden; it is a business advantage. A 2024 survey found that 63 per cent of Indian IT leaders cite data privacy and auditability concerns as the biggest barriers to AI adoption. Firms that can reassure clients on these points will have a decisive edge. In this sense, trust becomes a market differentiator.
A global perspective, an Indian imperative
Global AI firms cannot afford to treat India as just another growth market. The country’s size, regulatory maturity, and digital infrastructure make it unique. In China, foreign cloud providers must operate through local partners under strict supervision. The European Union demands compliance with its AI Act and GDPR. The United States still privileges innovation over oversight. India’s approach, by contrast, combines regulatory discipline with innovation space — a model that other emerging economies may soon emulate.
Those who understand this nuance will thrive. Those who rely on legacy strategies may find themselves locked out of critical government and enterprise contracts. The era of uniform global architecture is over. The future belongs to adaptive models that can honour national regulation without compromising global efficiency.
What firms must do, What policymakers must enable
For multinational AI firms, the road ahead is clear. They must first conduct comprehensive governance audits, mapping every data flow, model version, and compliance dependency to India’s jurisdictional requirements. They must then embed local compliance early in the design process — not as a patch after deployment, but as a foundational feature. Building hybrid architectures that store data in India while retaining global inference capabilities can provide flexibility without violating sovereignty norms.
Equally important is local presence. Establishing research and operations centres in India — as Anthropic plans in Bengaluru — does more than meet compliance criteria; it builds trust with regulators and clients alike. Partnerships with Indian universities and public institutions can also deepen understanding of local priorities, from language diversity to ethical deployment in public services.
For policymakers, the task is to provide clarity without overreach. The forthcoming rules under the DPDP Act must ensure predictable, transparent compliance procedures. India’s artificial intelligence governance should avoid the temptation of bureaucratic micromanagement. Instead, it should prioritise risk-based regulation, open consultation, and interoperability — ensuring that firms can innovate responsibly while protecting citizens’ rights.
If regulation provides clarity and firms build compliance into design, India can emerge as a trusted hub for ethical, sovereign artificial intelligence. It can host not just data but also innovation — a convergence of accountability and ambition.
Artificial intelligence will define the next phase of global capitalism, but the nature of that capitalism will be contested — between the logic of efficiency and the demand for sovereignty. India, as both a democracy and a digital powerhouse, has chosen to anchor its progress in trust, transparency, and sovereignty.
For global artificial intelligence firms, this is not a constraint; it is a compass. The Indian market is vast, but it will reward only those who understand that in the new era of artificial intelligence, scale matters less than trust, and speed matters less than responsibility. The firms that re-engineer their strategies around these truths will not only comply — they will lead.