Panel Discussion Data Sovereignty India AI Impact Summit

20 Feb 2026 16:00h - 17:00h

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion focused on the concept of data sovereignty in the age of AI, examining what it means for countries to maintain control over their digital infrastructure while remaining globally connected. The panel explored whether nations can be “sovereign yet connected,” with participants agreeing that complete isolation is neither realistic nor desirable given the interconnected nature of AI technology development.

Sunil Gupta emphasized that sovereignty doesn’t mean doing everything independently, but rather maintaining control over critical infrastructure like compute and data storage within national borders. He argued that countries need local infrastructure to serve their unique needs, such as India’s requirement for AI systems that work in multiple native languages and dialects. Gupta shared practical examples from Yotta, including migrating India’s AI language platform Bhashini from hyperscale cloud operators to local infrastructure while still leveraging global technologies like NVIDIA’s tools within controlled environments.

Nasubo Ongoma highlighted Africa’s perspective, noting that while the continent may lack compute capacity, it possesses valuable data and unique use cases. She emphasized the importance of building AI solutions for local contexts, citing examples like breast cancer detection systems designed specifically for African women’s physiology. Ongoma stressed the need for offline-capable AI solutions given Africa’s connectivity challenges.

Seema Ambastha provided a framework for understanding sovereignty through strategic control, operational efficiency, and supply chain trust. She advocated for treating digital infrastructure as critical national assets while maintaining transparency and traceability in design. The discussion concluded that effective data sovereignty requires partnership between governments, industry, and society, with the ultimate goal of serving real people’s needs while maintaining national control over critical digital infrastructure.

Keypoints

Major Discussion Points:

– Definition and Balance of Sovereignty vs. Connectivity: The panel explored whether countries can be “sovereign yet connected,” concluding that sovereignty doesn’t mean isolation but rather strategic control over critical infrastructure while maintaining global partnerships and avoiding dependence on single entities or countries.

– Infrastructure and Compute Sovereignty: Discussion centered on the necessity of having local compute infrastructure and data storage within national borders, with examples of migrating critical systems like India’s AI language platform from hyperscale cloud operators to local, controlled environments.

– Local Use Cases and Design for Specific Needs: Panelists emphasized the importance of building AI solutions for local contexts and problems, such as voice-based AI in native languages for India or healthcare solutions designed for African populations, arguing that only local stakeholders can effectively address local challenges.

– Trust and Supply Chain Management: The conversation highlighted that sovereignty requires engineered trust rather than paper-based agreements, focusing on transparent, traceable, and observable systems while managing global technology partnerships responsibly.

– Public-Private Partnership Models: Discussion of how governments and industry must collaborate, with governments providing guardrails and policy stability while private sector focuses on innovation and scale, treating digital infrastructure as critical national assets similar to power grids or telecommunications.

Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to move beyond theoretical concepts of data sovereignty to practical implementation strategies, exploring how countries can maintain control over their digital destiny while leveraging global technologies and partnerships to serve their citizens effectively.

Overall Tone:

The tone was collaborative and pragmatic throughout, with panelists sharing real-world experiences and solutions rather than engaging in abstract debate. The conversation maintained a constructive, solution-oriented approach, emphasizing partnership over isolation and ending on an inspirational note about serving the most vulnerable populations through responsible AI development.

Speakers

– Arghya Sengupta: Moderator/Host of the panel discussion on sovereignty and AI

– Sunil Gupta: Running large data centers in India, associated with Yotta (data center company), expertise in compute infrastructure and sovereign AI implementation

– Nasubo Ongoma: Associated with Kala, working on AI solutions in Africa (particularly Southern Africa), expertise in building AI innovations for African contexts and use cases

– Seema Ambastha: Building large data centers in India and globally, expertise in critical infrastructure, sovereign AI compute infrastructure, and public-private partnerships

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

Full session report

This panel discussion examined the practical implementation of data sovereignty in the age of artificial intelligence, bringing together perspectives from Sunil Gupta from Yotta (data center company), Nasubo Ongoma from Kala, and Seema Ambastha, with moderation by Arghya Sengupta. The conversation moved beyond theoretical concepts to explore real-world strategies for maintaining national control over digital infrastructure while remaining globally connected.

Redefining Sovereignty: Strategic Control Over Isolation

The discussion began by challenging conventional notions of sovereignty, with moderator Arghya Sengupta framing the central question as “who gets to make the rules” rather than simply where data is stored. Sunil Gupta fundamentally reframed the sovereignty debate by arguing that “sovereignty for sure does not mean we become isolated and just try to do everything ourselves. It is a matter of what is the thing we need to control and what is the thing where we need to collaborate.”

This understanding recognizes the interconnectedness of AI technology development, where different countries and companies excel in various components. Gupta emphasized that true sovereignty means ensuring “as a country, we do not allow a single country or a single company to define our digital destiny for future,” establishing the principle of strategic control rather than complete self-reliance.

Infrastructure Control and Local Use Cases

The panelists converged on the critical importance of maintaining sovereign control over compute infrastructure. Gupta argued that “compute infrastructure, I strongly believe, has to be within your country, has to be within your control. That is where your data is getting processed, that is where data is getting stored, that is where your models are being made.”

He illustrated this with India’s specific needs for voice-based AI systems processing multiple native languages and dialects – requirements that global frontier models may not prioritize. Gupta noted that “for India use cases, possibly I need the focus to go on my use cases which can benefit masses at a larger scale,” suggesting that 95% of India’s AI requirements could be met with models containing 20 billion to 100 billion parameters rather than trillion-parameter frontier models.

Seema Ambastha reinforced this by advocating for treating digital infrastructure “like any other precious asset” comparable to “power grid port or telecom.” She distinguished between ownership and control, emphasizing the need for “visibility into ownership structures” and policies ensuring digital assets are not compromised externally.

African Innovation and Resource Constraints

Nasubo Ongoma provided a compelling perspective on how resource constraints can drive innovation. Acknowledging that Africa possesses only 1% of global computing capacity, she reframed this by emphasizing the continent’s unique assets: “we have data, we have use cases.” Her approach challenged deficit-based thinking by asserting that “we can define the rules by building the tools that actually work for the people in our context.”

Ongoma’s examples demonstrated the importance of local context in AI development, citing breast cancer detection systems designed specifically for African women, noting that “when you look at the composition of the breast tissue for African women, it’s different.” She also highlighted the need for AI systems capable of offline operation, given that digital connectivity reaches only 50% of Africa’s population.

Engineered Trust and Partnership Models

A crucial theme was the distinction between trust based on agreements and trust built into technical systems. Ambastha emphasized that “Trust is not paper-based. Trust can only be engineered, and it needs to be verified.”

Gupta illustrated this through Yotta’s experience migrating India’s AI language platform Bhashini from hyperscale cloud operators to sovereign infrastructure. When they discovered that NVIDIA’s NVCF software tool was still running on NVIDIA’s US-based platform, they successfully negotiated for NVIDIA to open-source that component and bring it within their controlled environment.

This example demonstrates what Gupta termed “partnership not dependence” – utilizing “the best of foreign technologies” including NVIDIA GPUs, Microsoft Azure tools, and Amazon technologies, but “not using these technologies in the public cloud.” Instead, these technologies operate “within my ring-fenced walls, within my GPU and CPU compute infrastructure” where “the access control of these technologies firmly lies with me.”

Government-Industry Collaboration

The discussion revealed the need for sophisticated collaboration between government and industry. Ambastha emphasized that achieving sovereignty represents “core accountability for every country” requiring government to establish sovereign guardrails, provide long-term policy stability, and offer commitment that gives private enterprises confidence to build substantial capacity.

However, she noted that “policies need to evolve along with the infrastructure” and are currently not developing at the same pace. She advocated for moving “security and regulatory, not at point-in-time checks, but move it to a continuous verification process.”

The panelists emphasized treating digital infrastructure as a national asset while avoiding nationalization. As Ambastha explained, “the goal is not to nationalise. I think the goal is assurance.”

Practical Implementation Strategies

The panelists shared concrete examples of sovereignty implementation. Gupta’s Bhashini migration demonstrated how critical national digital infrastructure could be moved from dependency on hyperscale operators to sovereign control while maintaining technological sophistication.

Ongoma described Kala’s approach of providing compute resources to African innovators while engaging with governments to ensure local use cases inform sovereignty policies. She noted that Kala works “with global partners to give us compute, but at the same time we also want to buy compute for ourselves” because understanding technical realities is essential for meaningful policy engagement.

Addressing Connectivity Challenges

Ongoma’s emphasis on developing AI systems that function without constant internet connectivity addresses a fundamental challenge in achieving inclusive AI deployment. This requirement, driven by Africa’s connectivity constraints, represents an innovation opportunity that could benefit other regions facing similar challenges.

Conclusion

The panel concluded with the moderator referencing Gandhi’s principle of thinking about those at the end of the queue, positioning sovereignty not as an abstract concept but as a practical requirement for ensuring AI serves all populations effectively. The discussion demonstrated that practical sovereignty is achievable through strategic partnerships, local capacity building, and government-industry collaboration, requiring sophisticated approaches that balance control with connectivity and local needs with global capabilities.

Session transcript

Arghya Sengupta

been used almost as much as AI in this session, the last three days, it’s been sovereignty. So I think it’s good that we get 24 minutes and 47 seconds to discuss what sovereignty is about. So I’ll jump straight in. We’ve got a great panel. And I think the key question of sovereignty is a question of who gets to make the rules. And the way in which sovereignty has been discussed is in terms of where data is stored. So we have a variety of viewpoints here, and I look to get some opening remarks from each of you. So Sunil, I’ll start with you. You’re running some very large and very impressive data centers in India. One term that we’ve often heard is sovereign yet connected.

So we want to be sovereign but connected. Is that realistic?

Sunil Gupta

No, as you said, there are different ideas, different theories, different narratives going on in sovereign. Everybody has their own take on sovereignty. And so many times, sovereignty is also confused with we will do everything ourselves. We’ll start looking inwards, we’ll isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and everything is done by us also. I think let’s understand any and every technology stack, AI is now the latest one, you will always have interconnectedness, interdependencies across the world. Somebody will be good at making chips, somebody will be making raw material for the chips like gases and maybe rare earths, somebody will be making models, somebody will have great data sets, somebody will be very good in making applications, agentic AI.

You will have, and of course capital flows, somebody will have lots of capital and somebody will be waiting for that capital and somebody will have talent. We all know where India is good at and where any other country is good at. So, sovereignty for sure does not mean we become isolated and just try to do everything ourselves. It is a matter of what is the thing we need to control and what is the thing where we need to collaborate. For sure, it definitely means that as a country, we do not allow a single country or a single company to define our digital destiny for future. Answering your second question, there are certain things which are fundamental.

Compute infrastructure, I strongly believe, has to be within your country, has to be within your control. That is where your data is getting processed, that is where data is getting stored, that is where your models are being made. Your needs as a country, forget control, your needs as a country are unique. You want to create a voice -based AI because majority of population may not be comfortable speaking in English or writing in English, but they’ll be very, very comfortable talking in their own native language. We all are very comfortable talking in native language. We have a mix of Hindi, English, Malayalam, Kannada, whatever native languages, and we mix up with English. So if we are able to talk to a device in my own native language with my own slang, and the device does all the processing and gives me my answer in real time in my own language, my slang, that is where the real benefit, that is where population scale benefits comes in.

Maybe the model builders of any other country may have a different viewpoint of how they want to adopt AI at a global level. So frontier models are good for those use cases, but for India use cases, possibly I need the focus to go on my use cases which can benefit masses at a larger scale. So both from control point of view that nobody else should tomorrow just switch off my access to digital infrastructure, also from the point of view that my priorities for my citizens can be different, I would rather like to have sovereign compute, right? And some of the models which are taken care of, let’s say, as Minister I think said in the last three, four days, in Devas also, that 95 % of the use cases which India requires can possibly be handled.

So I think that’s the goal. by having models which are 20 billion to let’s say 100 billion parameters. You don’t need to necessarily go for frontier models, trillions of parameters. So we build our compute here. We store our data here. We allow controlled data flow outside. We build the models which are satisfying 95 % of my need. That is what I need to do. But what we can do, and I give you our own example as Yotta. While on one side I’m building…

Arghya Sengupta

So Sunil, we’ll just come back to that. We’ll just get everybody else in and then we’ll speak about your examples. I’m just mindful of time. So I think the takeaway is that as far as the infrastructure layer is concerned, as in sovereignty in compute is not only desirable but perhaps possible. And as far as control is concerned, and we should try to have control, but I’ll take that to you, Nasubo. Let’s look at the design layer. I mean, Sunil gave what the infrastructure is about. Sovereignty is also about who makes the rules in terms of how things are designed. And what Sunil said, we work for a very large country like India where there are lots of buildings.

There are lots of builders. But how does it translate to the rest of the world? Maybe some experiences from Kala as well.

Nasubo Ongoma

Excellent, thank you very much for this when you look at or when you think about let’s say Africa sometimes it’s we are disadvantaged in that we don’t have compute when you look at the computing capacity it’s like at 1 % so already we are at disadvantage before we even leap forward and get ahead but the one thing we have is we have data, we have use cases so when it comes to use cases how are we able to design for our lived realities because we as he said that the language the different things that we are looking at for example when you look at when you look at the local needs, what are the things that we want that we can adopt for example if I look at the use case of health if you look at the at how People in other sectors have been looking at health, for example.

We’ve done a lot of work on designing for our needs in terms of breast cancer. We were able to get data sets from our lived context, knowing that when you look at the composition of the breast tissue for African women, it’s different. So those are the use cases that we need to look at. Because we can be confident and say that, yes, we don’t have compute, but we have the use cases, and that’s the important bit that we need to put into place. That in as much as we are disadvantaged, we have use cases, we have the people who are able to build. That’s the one component that we never talk about. We always talk about, you know, we are getting the data there, someone else is defining the rules.

But we can define the rules by building the tools that actually work for the people in our context and being confident that, you know, once it works for our context, that people are going to use.

Arghya Sengupta

That’s right. I think that’s a really powerful statement. because at the end of the day, it’s only local people who have skin in the game who will build for local problems. And I think that’s where actually the opportunity also lies. So I think that’s a very critical intervention. And I’ll take that to you, Seema. So we’ve discussed the infrastructure layer, the design layer. And I think it would be good to get a holistic perspective as far as critical systems and sovereignty in critical systems is concerned, especially because, as Sunil was saying, that while we can certainly try to build, compute, and store it locally, locally, it’s, again, a pipe dream to think that any country can do everything itself.

So there are, of course, questions of supply chains, trusted supply chains, who’s supplying what, and how that control is going to be exercised. So maybe a little bit from your experiences as to what sovereignty means for you, building a large data center, many large data centers now in India, but the rest of the world as well.

Seema Ambastha

So first of all, thank you. I’ll just keep it. I’ve answered this in two parts, and real quickly. So. So. critical question at the critical moment I think it’s very important it’s like an important question for this decade what first question is can you be connected and sovereign yes, I don’t see a problem at all of being sovereign and connected I think over there what is important to understand is basically the strategic control that you need needs to be sovereign and it remains sovereign, I think that’s the definition more on sovereign so you don’t need to really build everything yourself so if you want me to just elaborate around the three what does really government look from its services, so it’s like public services, critical citizen data, financial networks AI systems, unlimited amount, so we’re not talking of outsourcing right over here what we’re talking of is basically critical national infrastructure, I think it’s very important to define not in general but in specific right, what it means so let’s look at three things one one is ownership.

Is ownership very important across all the components in the supply chain and in the critical infrastructure for government? Not really. Not really. I think we need to define the extent to which you want to have ownership. Second is visibility into ownership structures. And third, I think for most important for all countries, whatever, developed, underdeveloped, developing, whatever it might be. I think it’s important for all of us to treat like our digital assets like any other precious asset. And therefore, you have to have policies, guardrails that ensure whatever you have in a sovereign or semi -sovereign infrastructure is not compromised externally and you have a degree of assurance. Where you don’t have geopolitical leverage. I think that is important.

That defines sovereignty to a great extent. So what does it mean for industry? Industry, we have seen some some really good models come up, right? So there is like sovereign infrastructure model. I’ve seen some real good air -gapped, some kind of ring fence environments within the commercial infrastructure, which has been very interesting. And of course, the public -private, which still remains. What does it all mean? It means no national… We are not trying… The goal is not to nationalize. I think the goal is assurance, which is most important. That’s number one. That’s your strategic ownership question. The second is operational efficiency. I think over here, yes, degree of sovereignty does matter. It goes well beyond a few definitions of infrastructure that we have.

I think what is important here is to ensure the extent of operational control, look at efficiencies of operational control, the components within operational control that can be sovereign. And I think that’s what we’re trying to do. is to ensure the extent of operational control, and to operate So what does it mean for industry? We need to build things that are transparent, traceable, and also observable. I think that is the code to your design. That is sovereign design. Then you decide how you want to implement it. So the second thing, what does it mean? It means trust. So trust is not paper -based. Trust can only be engineered, and it needs to be verified, in my opinion.

Okay, I’m quickly coming to the third question. I think you had so many things. Supply chain trust, absolutely. Today, if you look at data sovereignty, it goes well beyond data, digital data. It goes into hardware, chipsets, network components, AI provenance, a whole lot of stuff. So in this case, I think industry needs to basically, you can’t isolate yourself. I do not believe in that. You need to forge very good technology global partnerships. It is important. Again, another degree of trust. The second thing is, of course, you can have some guardrails around it by the government, and you can govern that. I think what is most important in this case is to build some sovereign capacity.

By domestic, which is because in the age of AI, I strongly believe that the sovereign AI compute infrastructure has become a global leverage. So it is important, right? So these are my take. And basically, what I also believe in this is national digital infrastructure for any countries, like a national infrastructure, which could be like a power grid port. or a telecom. So you treat it with that level of whatever you need to do for it. Secondly, a very good guardrails from the government to safeguard sovereignty and govern it. Industry should focus on innovation and not worry too much, whatever you can, not try to own everything, because it slows down your transition and your aspiration of growth.

And this

Arghya Sengupta

That’s great. And I think one underlying point that you made across these three is of trust, because at the end of the day, you can’t build everything yourself. Sovereign nations don’t do things themselves, even in a non -AI analog world, so it’s not that you’re going to do everything yourself. But sovereignty is only partly what we say, but more importantly, I think is what we do. And so I want to take that to each of you in terms of what you are doing in your own domains, in your own companies, and where that line, that what am I going to do? myself, what am I going to do with somebody else and if so how will I ensure that this person is trusted and I have control.

So Sunil you were saying about Yotta and what you do briefly so that we can get the others in.

Sunil Gupta

Yeah sure. So I’ll just go by the actual example which we have sort of done in the last two years or so. Last week we inaugurated and made open to the world that India’s AI language platform which I think every government entity is using, Pashini, we actually migrated that from a hyperscale cloud operator to our cloud. It’s a combination of a whole lot of general compute services and AI and GPUs and all on which all those language models are working which are giving real -time translation services. Now their purpose considering that it is a digital public infrastructure they were very very clear that at no point of time we want to be dependent on the platform service of a hyperscale operator because that makes it make stickiness that you cannot come out of that platform.

Whether it is a hyperscale platform or for that matter Yotta’s platform they don’t want to remain dependent on only one entity. They want it to be independent. They wanted a choice. we ended up not only giving them the physical infrastructure which was obviously local in my data center but we ended up creating almost I can say 30 or 40 different technologies we developed put it on their virtual machines in their environment in my data center and brought them into their control they were not using PaaS anymore. At the last when everything was going live we suddenly realized there is one component NVCF which is a NVIDIA’s software tool which was still running on NVIDIA’s platform somewhere in US and it was not running in India and then they said even though it is all fine NVIDIA is my biggest technology supplier giving me GPU software, everything but they said no this cannot go this software component is very critical for this whole structure but it has to come within your control into my environment so what we have done after that after everything was done was also to and NVIDIA agreed to open source that part of the software brought the software into our environment and now it is available and it is running within my control this example is telling.

I’m just in same breath, I’m telling you same thing. I’m using the best of the foreign technologies. I’m using Nvidia’s technologies. I’m using, of course, open source technologies. I’m using Microsoft technology. We have great partnership with Azure. I’m using Amazon’s technologies. But I’m not using these technologies in the public cloud. I’m using their technology stack within my ring -fenced walls, within my GPU and CPU compute infrastructure. The access control of these technologies firmly lies with me. No third party is able to log into my system and control or dictate what will be running and what will not be running. And that, I think, is the real balance, that you use the best technologies. These guys have spent hundreds of years, put billions of dollars in creating great technologies.

We must benefit from that. But you use these technologies within your environment, within your control.

Arghya Sengupta

That’s right. So I think partnership and not dependence. What I’m interested in, Nasubo, and I’ll come to you on this, is what you’re doing at Kala. Because what Sunil is saying may work, say. In a setting like India, where… tell NVIDIA perhaps that some part can be stored on something locally. But I’m thinking of Malawi, I’m thinking of Lesotho or Eswatini, I’m thinking of smaller Southern African countries, which also will want to use AI for solving local problems. And so what does it look like from your perspective, having done so much work in Southern Africa?

Nasubo Ongoma

When you look at, let’s just first ground what Africa has, right? How are we going to use compute that also allows for offline? That is one of the use cases we are looking at, because in as much as digital connectivity is everywhere in Africa, it’s up to like 50%. So how do we also ensure that people are able to use? So one of the ways that we do this is, one, we are working with global partners to give us compute, but at the same time we also want to buy compute, for ourselves, because the… conversations that he’s talking about in the rules, creating the rules and the structure can only be done once you also understand what is happening.

So at Kala, we are also offering compute to different innovators. And if you go to our stand in Hall 14, you are able to interact with different African innovators from the AI village who are building AI innovations. And part of those innovations are innovations that allow for offline access. That is the one thing that we need to be cognizant of. We need to understand how we need to work practically. That’s something that Kala is actively building, actively championing for. So that when we’re having even conversations with government, we are going to them and saying, yes, compute is something that we may not have. But if you approach, let’s say, big tech and you’re talking about offering compute, offering us… being sovereign, this is what it means.

So we are also having conversations with different African governments to talk about what we are learning, what people are building, and now having once they have their understanding now we can continue ensuring that our use cases are well represented. Because if we just take things that are dictated to us without having like a perspective it means that we are building for exclusion. And for us we want to ensure that all voices are well represented, including the people who are offline, who want to use AI for solving use cases in our sectors.

Arghya Sengupta

That’s right, and I think this is resonating greatly with the fact that you’re building for offline, because when we were doing Aadhaar in India and the legal framework for Aadhaar, which underlies all our DPIs, one of the key game changers was for moving from online authentication to offline verification, because we realized that that was a big need. So this is where the global south, I think, needs to learn from . each other because these problems are somewhere similar. Last word perhaps to you Seema on this in terms of your actual experiences in ensuring that you have control over whatever is within your ring fence but what’s outside is something that you trust and you think will further the goal of sovereignty and sovereign AI as you mentioned.

Something from your practical experiences.

Seema Ambastha

Let me just give you what most of us are doing and why it is pertinent and it’s important. We are building currently we are building for demand so it’s like a gigawatt AI factories huge amount of compute huge amount of data centers it has to be done responsibly in all ways and a lot of money. I think what’s important is how does this work between the government and the enterprise. I think that is the recipe for success. So there are three, four things which I have a take. One, of course, is basically the policies need to evolve along with the infrastructure. They are not based at the same. So that, I think, is important. The second thing is government must lay the sovereign guardrails.

It’s all spoken about, but you don’t have them. So it’s very difficult. Third, I think what is also important in every country to help the industry to build that capacity is also give, you know, not only have a long -term stability of your policy, but also look at commitment so that private enterprises, private industry is confident of building that huge capacity for you. I think that’s very, very key. And last but not the least is definitely look at security and regulatory, not at point -in -time checks, but move it to a continuous verification process. But this… This will ensure your sovereignty is implementable. You can also, you know, kind of enforce it. and get the best results out of it in terms of outcome.

My closing remarks. One, of course, I did speak about before in terms of how you treat this asset. You’ve got to treat it like any other national asset. Second is government needs to extend that hand in becoming an absolute sovereign partner or a public -private partner to the industry. And third is industry needs to really focus on innovation, innovation, scale, time to value, time to market. I think that’s where your soul energy should go. And last but not the least, this is a core accountability for every country. It can’t be one over the other, right? And that will ensure you safeguard your national interest and also do scale and progress without compromising your transformation times and things like that.

So you’re not left behind. See, AI is a journey where we don’t want any country to be left behind. One, lack of… resources, lack of definitions, security, sovereignty, access. I think we need to have that. I really like the theme. It says welfare for all and happiness of all and that should really be the case if it is so very transforming in nature.

Arghya Sengupta

That’s right and I think if we were to quickly wrap up with some takeaways because we see that the purpose of this session was that data sovereignty shouldn’t be just theoretical, a slogan. It has to work in practice and what I took away from the three of you who are actually walking the talk on data sovereignty is A, in terms of the role of the market is essentially to build sovereign AI in whichever country you may be in and build it yourself, store locally and ensure that you have trusted partners when you are partnering with someone because it’s obviously futile to try to even think about doing anything yourself. As far as governments are concerned, again, this is a, I like the word you used, co -accountability, this is a partnership.

And I think government has to build guardrails, but hand in hand with both the bazaar and the samaj, that’s the society and the market. And as far as the samaj is concerned, the society, and Kala mentioned that about, at the end of the day, we mustn’t forget that what we are trying to do is solve real problems for real people. So like she mentioned that the breast tissue in an African woman is different in somewhere else, that’s the person whom we are trying to serve. And I think that that is what is imperative for all of us to do. And I think it’s appropriate to end with what Gandhiji said, that we must think about the last person in the line.

And I think when we are talking about AI, just because we are in a kind of modern technocratic age, we shouldn’t forget that it’s that last person, the man or woman in the queue. The man. The most unfortunate who we must think about. because at the end of the day that is for whom AI is built and that is for whom we are talking about sovereignty so we leave it there thank you very much ladies and gentlemen and thank you to my panelists for a wonderful session thank you

Sunil Gupta

Speech speed

183 words per minute

Speech length

Trust, Partnerships, and Ring‑Fencing

Topics

Artificial intelligence | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Nasubo Ongoma

Speech speed

168 words per minute

Speech length

Trust, Partnerships, and Ring‑Fencing

Topics

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Artificial intelligence

Seema Ambastha

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

Governance, Policy, and Co‑Accountability

Topics

The enabling environment for digital development | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Arghya Sengupta

Speech speed

190 words per minute

Speech length

Trust, Partnerships, and Ring‑Fencing

Topics

Artificial intelligence | Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Agreements

Agreement points

Sovereignty does not mean complete isolation or doing everything yourself

Speakers

– Sunil Gupta
– Seema Ambastha

Arguments

Sovereignty doesn’t mean doing everything yourself but controlling what’s fundamental while collaborating on other aspects

Global technology partnerships are important but should maintain sovereign capacity and control

Summary

Both speakers agree that sovereignty should involve strategic partnerships and collaboration rather than complete self-reliance, emphasizing the importance of maintaining control over critical elements while leveraging global expertise

Topics

Data governance | The enabling environment for digital development

Trust must be engineered and verifiable, not just based on agreements

Speakers

– Sunil Gupta
– Seema Ambastha

Arguments

Partnership without dependence is key – using best foreign technologies within controlled, ring-fenced environments

Trust must be engineered and verified, not just paper-based, requiring transparent and traceable systems

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that trust in sovereign systems must be built into technical architecture and operational practices, requiring transparent, traceable, and verifiable systems rather than relying solely on contractual agreements

Topics

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Data governance

Local contexts and use cases require specialized solutions

Speakers

– Sunil Gupta
– Nasubo Ongoma
– Arghya Sengupta

Arguments

Countries need AI models focused on local languages, dialects, and cultural contexts rather than just frontier models

Africa has unique use cases like healthcare solutions designed for African contexts (breast cancer detection for African women)

Local people with skin in the game are best positioned to build solutions for local problems

Summary

All three speakers agree that global AI models and solutions may not adequately serve local populations, emphasizing the need for AI development that considers regional languages, cultural contexts, and specific local challenges

Topics

Artificial intelligence | Social and economic development | Closing all digital divides

Government-industry collaboration is essential for sovereignty

Speakers

– Seema Ambastha
– Arghya Sengupta

Arguments

Government must establish sovereign guardrails and provide long-term policy stability for private investment

This is a co-accountability between government and industry, requiring partnership rather than isolation

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that achieving data sovereignty requires collaborative efforts between government and private sector, with government providing policy frameworks and guardrails while industry focuses on innovation and implementation

Topics

The enabling environment for digital development | Financial mechanisms

Infrastructure sovereignty is fundamental for national control

Speakers

– Sunil Gupta
– Seema Ambastha

Arguments

Compute infrastructure must be within national control as it’s where data is processed, stored, and models are built

Critical national infrastructure should be treated like other precious national assets with appropriate policies and guardrails

Summary

Both speakers agree that compute infrastructure represents a critical component that must remain under national control, comparing it to other essential national infrastructure like power grids or telecommunications

Topics

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs | Data governance

Data governance | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Embracing global technology partnerships while maintaining sovereignty

Speakers

– Sunil Gupta
– Seema Ambastha
– Nasubo Ongoma

Arguments

Partnership without dependence is key – using best foreign technologies within controlled, ring-fenced environments

Global technology partnerships are important but should maintain sovereign capacity and control

Offering compute to local innovators and engaging with governments to represent use cases in sovereignty discussions

Explanation

Despite representing different regions and contexts (India’s large market, global enterprise perspective, and Africa’s resource constraints), all speakers converged on the idea that sovereignty can coexist with international partnerships. This consensus is unexpected given typical sovereignty discussions often emphasize isolation or complete self-reliance

Topics

Data governance | The enabling environment for digital development | Artificial intelligence

Focus on serving disadvantaged populations through sovereign AI

Speakers

– Nasubo Ongoma
– Arghya Sengupta

Arguments

Building for offline access is crucial in regions with limited digital connectivity

Focus should be on serving the most disadvantaged people, remembering that AI sovereignty ultimately serves real people with real problems

Explanation

The consensus on prioritizing offline capabilities and disadvantaged populations in sovereignty discussions is unexpected in a high-level policy discussion, as such conversations often focus on technical and geopolitical aspects rather than inclusive development

Topics

Closing all digital divides | Human rights and the ethical dimensions of the information society

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key principles of data sovereignty: the importance of strategic control over critical infrastructure, the need for local solutions to address specific contexts, the value of global partnerships without dependence, and the requirement for government-industry collaboration. They agreed that sovereignty should serve real people and solve local problems while maintaining global connectivity.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The implications suggest a mature understanding of sovereignty that balances national control with global collaboration, practical implementation with policy frameworks, and technological capabilities with social needs. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing practical sovereignty frameworks that can work across different contexts and development levels.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Scale and capacity requirements for sovereignty implementation

Speakers

– Sunil Gupta
– Nasubo Ongoma

Arguments

Compute infrastructure must be within national control as it’s where data is processed, stored, and models are built

Africa is disadvantaged with only 1% computing capacity but can leverage data and use cases for sovereignty

Summary

Gupta emphasizes the necessity of having compute infrastructure within national borders as fundamental to sovereignty, while Ongoma acknowledges Africa’s severe compute disadvantage (1% capacity) but argues that sovereignty can still be achieved by leveraging other assets like data and use cases

Topics

Infrastructure and Compute Sovereignty | Closing all digital divides

Approach to technology partnerships based on negotiating power

Speakers

– Sunil Gupta
– Nasubo Ongoma

Arguments

Partnership without dependence is key – using best foreign technologies within controlled, ring-fenced environments

Offering compute to local innovators and engaging with governments to represent use cases in sovereignty discussions

Summary

Gupta describes a model where countries can negotiate with major tech companies (like NVIDIA) to bring technologies under local control within ring-fenced environments, while Ongoma focuses on building local capacity and engaging governments to ensure African use cases are represented in sovereignty discussions, reflecting different levels of negotiating power

Topics

Trust and Partnership Models | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Policy evolution pace relative to infrastructure development

Speakers

– Seema Ambastha
– Sunil Gupta

Arguments

Policies need to evolve alongside infrastructure development

Moving critical systems like India’s AI language platform from hyperscale clouds to sovereign infrastructure while maintaining technology partnerships

Explanation

While both support sovereignty implementation, Ambastha emphasizes that policies are lagging behind infrastructure development and need to catch up, while Gupta demonstrates through practical examples that sovereignty can be implemented even within current policy frameworks. This suggests different views on whether policy or implementation should lead

Topics

The enabling environment for digital development | Data governance

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable consensus on the fundamental principles of data sovereignty – that it should involve strategic control rather than isolation, require partnerships rather than complete self-reliance, and serve local needs. The main disagreements center on implementation approaches based on different resource constraints and negotiating positions rather than philosophical differences

Disagreement level

Topics

Social and economic development | Artificial intelligence

Data governance | Capacity development

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Data sovereignty means controlling who makes the rules and maintaining strategic control, not isolating from global partnerships or doing everything domestically

Compute infrastructure must be within national control as it processes, stores data and builds models, but can use foreign technologies within ring-fenced, controlled environments

Local contexts and use cases are critical – countries need AI solutions for their languages, cultures, and specific problems rather than just adopting global frontier models

Trust must be engineered and verified through transparent, traceable systems rather than relying on paper-based agreements

Successful sovereignty requires government-industry partnership with governments providing guardrails and policy stability while industry focuses on innovation

The ultimate goal is serving real people with real problems, particularly the most disadvantaged populations

Resolutions and action items

Industry should build sovereign AI infrastructure locally while maintaining trusted global technology partnerships

Governments must establish sovereign guardrails and provide long-term policy stability to encourage private investment

Countries should treat digital infrastructure as national assets requiring appropriate policies and protection

Focus on building AI solutions for local languages, offline access, and region-specific use cases

Move from point-in-time security checks to continuous verification processes for sovereignty enforcement

Unresolved issues

How smaller countries with limited resources can practically implement sovereignty while competing with larger nations

Specific mechanisms for ensuring trusted supply chains and technology partnerships

How to balance the need for global AI advancement with national sovereignty requirements

Detailed frameworks for government-industry collaboration and co-accountability

Standards for what constitutes adequate sovereign guardrails and verification processes

Suggested compromises

Use best foreign technologies within controlled, ring-fenced national environments rather than complete isolation

Focus sovereignty efforts on 95% of national use cases using smaller models (20-100 billion parameters) rather than pursuing frontier models

Maintain strategic control over critical components while allowing collaboration on non-critical elements

This comment introduces a critical technical requirement that challenges conventional AI deployment models. By highlighting the need for offline capabilities, it forces a reconsideration of what sovereign AI means in contexts with limited connectivity. It demonstrates how local constraints can drive innovation rather than limit it.

Impact

This comment expanded the technical scope of the sovereignty discussion beyond data storage and compute location to include accessibility and resilience. It resonated with Arghya’s experience with Aadhaar’s offline verification, creating a connection between different global south experiences and establishing offline capability as a sovereignty requirement.

Overall assessment

Explanation

While Sunil provided an example with the Bhashini platform, the broader technical specifications and operational procedures for implementing such sovereign yet connected systems need further documentation and standardization.

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.