India's IT ecosystem employs over 6 million people: Govt
Global rankings such as Stanford AI rankings place India among the top countries in AI skills, capabilities, and policies to use AI. India is also the second-largest contributor to GitHub AI projects, showcasing its vibrant developer community, Minister of State for Electronics and IT Jitin Prasada said in a written reply in Lok Sabha.
He pointed out that India's AI strategy is based on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision to democratise the use of technology. It aims to address India-centric challenges, create economic and employment opportunities for all Indians.
India's AI strategy aims to position India as a global leader in artificial intelligence.
The government launched the
IndiaAI mission
in March 2024. It is a strategic initiative to establish a robust and inclusive AI ecosystem aligned with India's development goals.
The minister highlighted the seven-pillar strategy that the government is implementing under the IndiaAI Mission, which includes IndiaAI Compute Capacity aimed at providing high-end compute power (GPUs) to all, including MSMEs and startups, at an affordable cost.
IndiaAI Foundation Models project has also been launched to develop India's Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) trained on Indian datasets and languages. This is to ensure sovereign capability and global competitiveness in generative AI.
To develop large datasets for training AI models, AIKosh has been developed as a unified data platform integrating datasets from government and non-government sources.
IndiaAI Application Development Initiative has also been launched to develop AI applications for India-specific challenges in sectors such as climate change and disaster management, healthcare, agriculture, governance, and assistive technologies for learning disabilities.
IndiaAIFutureSkills project has been rolled out to develop AI-skilled professionals in India by increasing the number of graduates, post-graduates and PhDs in the AI domain. It also envisions setting up Data and AI Labs in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities across India.
IndiaAI Startup Financing has been set up to provide financial assistance to AI start-ups. Besides, the Government is laying emphasis on safe and trusted AI to balance innovation with strong governance frameworks to ensure responsible AI adoption, the minister added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Don't make it another India': Indian in Ireland urges cultural fit amid racism worries
A post by a Reddit user claiming to be an Indian expat in Ireland has sparked heated conversations around the recent instances of racist attacks. The individual in a cryptic post claimed that Indians relocating to Ireland should adjust to local Irish culture instead of trying to turn the Western country into 'another India.' An Indian's open letter to immigrants in Ireland has ignited mixed reactions on Reddit. (Representational image). (Unspalash/annamariechurch) 'Shouldn't we as migrants adjust to the culture of the country we are living in I have seen a lot of Indians trying to make the country they are living in India when they in fact left India for a reason I am not saying you should leave your culture but we should respect the culture of the country we are living in and not make it an another India,' reads a part of the post. The Reddit user also shared a picture of an Indian passport, claiming that it shows they were born in India. The post was published by an unverified user. has not independently verified the claims. How did social media react? An individual posted, 'From what I have seen, I think there are two types of Indian migrants. One who understands this and acts accordingly, and the other who knows it but doesn't care and continues to do things his/her way. By that, I mean I have seen people littering on beaches, playing loud music on public transport, etc. I have never seen a well-educated foreign national do it. That's the sad part. And the latter will, of course, irritate the natives, which in turn affects the former as well.' Another added, 'Indian people who make their home in Ireland should absolutely bring their culture with them, but you should also work to integrate with Irish society. Your kids should learn Irish in school. They should play hurling/camogie as well as cricket. Indian food producers should take stalls at Irish farmers' markets. Indian festivals should feature Irish artists as well. Don't shut yourselves off, integrate and help improve this place we call home.' A third expressed, 'I am not Indian, but I am curious about what you mean by this? I have worked with lots of Indians for 16 years in Ireland, and I haven't met a single one who 'tried to make Ireland to be like India'. If any, I have seen the opposite: Indians enjoying the different opportunities and cultural exposure they get in Ireland.' A fourth wrote, 'For context, I'm Irish. That being said, this is pretty much expected for any immigrant in a nation, but even then, it wouldn't really change anything. Racists will still attack people. Harassment will still happen. As far as I know, most immigrants adjust pretty well to Irish culture, a lot of people on the far right just associate cultural assimilation as complete abandonment of your culture, which is obviously idiotic.'
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
80 years since Hiroshima, in the wake of Operation Sindoor, the nuclear conversation
Lost in the thrust and parry of the parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor were PM Narendra Modi's several references to Pakistan's 'nuclear threats' and 'nuclear blackmail'. They reflected a deliberate articulation of India's more assertive security doctrine, representing a calculated move to redefine the deterrence equation in South Asia. That India is prepared to act against terrorism regardless of Pakistan's 'nuclear bluff' is ostensibly intended to enhance India's deterrent credibility. The three-way China-India-Pakistan nuclear relationship has created a complex web of interlocking deterrence. All three countries are modernising and expanding their nuclear arsenals and delivery systems. Given the lack of transparency regarding nuclear arsenals and doctrines, and a marked reluctance to engage in a dialogue on measures to mitigate nuclear risk, the ongoing arms race can further destabilise the region, especially in a crisis such as Pahalgam. August 6, the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, was a reminder of the horrors of a nuclear holocaust. We need to focus on the management of this complex dynamic and on the prevention of accidental or intentional escalation. China, while officially maintaining principles of both 'credible minimum deterrence' and 'no first use' (NFU), is engaged in rapid expansion of its nuclear arsenal — predicted to reach 1,000 warheads by 2030. At the same time, the PLA's Rocket Force (PLARF) is fielding increasingly sophisticated missile systems, such as the 12,000-15,000 km range DF-41 and the hypersonic DF-17. PLARF's inventory consists of both conventionally armed and nuclear-tipped missiles, raising a question about China's posture: Is this 'dual-capability' a deliberate strategic choice or merely an organisational detail? Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is aimed exclusively at India, and apart from reserving the right to 'first use', it has refrained from declaring an official nuclear doctrine. Pakistan's transition from 'minimum credible deterrence' to 'full spectrum deterrence' (FSD), which envisages the deployment of low-yield or tactical nuclear weapons, has been rationalised as a measure to counter the Indian army's 'Cold Start' doctrine. The latter, it may be recalled, was a conceptual remedy for India's slow general mobilisation during the 2001-2002 Operation Parakram. However, it is only now that this concept of integrated battle groups is seeing daylight in the form of recently announced 'Rudra' brigades. India's political leadership has stood by its two long-held beliefs: (a) that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack, by holding out a threat of 'massive retaliation' and (b) nuclear weapons were political instruments rather than military warfighting tools. As a status quo power, India's declarations of NFU and its intention of maintaining a 'credible minimum deterrent' made eminent sense. But much has changed since this doctrine was promulgated in 2003. Moreover, emerging technologies have added to the complexity of existing nuclear conundrums. The 'dual-use' potential of technologies such as AI, advanced computing, and hypersonic delivery systems could blur the traditional distinction between conventional and nuclear. For example, a precise surface-to-surface missile could carry either a conventional or a nuclear warhead, making it difficult to ascertain the nature of an incoming attack and decide an appropriate response. The development of smaller, 'dial a yield' nuclear warheads permits calibration of a single warhead to be detonated with a range of explosive effects, varying from sub-kiloton to hundreds of kilotons. The availability of such options could make their use more thinkable in a conventional conflict scenario, potentially lowering the nuclear threshold. Since 1998, the Subcontinent has seen a few sporadic attempts at evolving confidence-building measures and nuclear risk reduction measures (NRRMs), including the 1999 Lahore MoU on measures to prevent accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons, the 2005 Agreement on Pre-Notification of Missile Tests, and the 2007 Agreement to Reduce Nuclear Risks. But these are not enough, and a sustained dialogue is essential. In the context of NRRMs, serious note needs to be taken of media reports citing open-source intelligence that during Operation Sindoor, some of the Indian missiles that targeted Mushaf air base in Pakistan's Sargodha region and the Nur Khan air base near Rawalpindi had impacted in the close vicinity of either nuclear warhead storages or Pakistan's nuclear command and control nodes. While the IAF's DG Air Operations firmly denied the targeting of any of Pakistan's nuclear installations, mischievous speculation has persisted about India's 'warning strike', implying that it was a demonstration of capability rather than an attempt to destroy the underground facilities. The planners and custodians of nuclear weapons must note that targeting an adversary's nuclear assets, even inadvertently, with conventional weapons, can be misinterpreted as a 'counter-force' strategy, which is fraught with the risk of rapid escalation to nuclear war. The hazards and doctrinal confusion that would arise from such an action bear consideration. First, a conventional strike against a nuclear facility would be indistinguishable from a nuclear first strike. Given the extremely short timelines for decision-making in a nuclear crisis, the 'use them or lose them' syndrome may cut in, leading the targeted party to launch its nuclear arsenal before it is destroyed. Desperate options like 'launch on warning' or 'launch under attack' may be considered. Second, while it may not trigger a nuclear detonation, a conventional attack or 'near-miss' on a nuclear storage facility could cause a massive release of radioactive material, simulating a 'dirty bomb', with devastating humanitarian and environmental consequences. Finally, conventional attacks aimed at command-and-control nodes could render the adversary deaf and blind, depriving him of the ability to assess the situation accurately, communicate with his forces or issue rational orders. These are amongst some of the manifold reasons why there is an urgent need for initiation of a sustained nuclear dialogue between India and Pakistan, insulated from the vagaries of politics. Such an interaction, by reducing mutual suspicion and enhancing transparency, might slow down the nuclear arms race and the mindless build-up of arsenals. The writer is a former Indian Navy chief
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt says no debate on SIR due to rules
New Delhi: The government on Wednesday turned down the Opposition's demand for a discussion on the Election Commission's ongoing special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar and said in the Lok Sabha that matters pending before the judiciary cannot be discussed on the floor of the House. Opposition MPs create ruckus in Rajya Sabha during the Monsoon Session of the Parliament, in New Delhi on Wednesday. (ANI) Some Opposition leaders said that instead of SIR, they have proposed a debate on 'electoral reforms' as a way to end the deadlock in Parliament. However, government managers indicated the ruling side is unlikely to accede to any such debate. 'The government has been very open to taking up discussion on any matter... However, any discussion in the Parliament has to be in accordance with constitutional provisions and also in accordance with the rules as prescribed in the rules of procedure and conduct of business in the Lok Sabha,' parliamentary affairs minister Kiren Rijiju told the Lok Sabha. 'On the issue of intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar for which they (opposition members) are disturbing the House from first day of the session, we all know that the matter is under consideration of the Supreme Court and as such it is sub judice and a hence a discussion cannot be held on the subject,' he added. The minister also cited a 1988 ruling by then Lok Sabha Speaker Balram Jakhar that under the existing constitutional provisions, the House cannot comment upon the actions of the Election Commission. Jakhar, according to Rijiju, had said that he cannot break the rules by allowing a discussion on the functioning of EC. The Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the ongoing SIR exercise in Bihar. On Wednesday, the top court directed EC to file a reply by August 9 in response to allegations that over 6.5 million names were deleted from Bihar's draft rolls. Rijiju underlined that the issue relates to the functioning of EC, which is an autonomous body. The minister also urged the Opposition members to participate in the debates for the passage of key legislations. 'I urge the members not to disrupt the House. There are important bills to be taken up,' he added. Meanwhile, several opposition party leaders urged Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to refer two bills — the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2025 — to a joint committee of Parliament for further scrutiny. In a joint letter to the Speaker, the opposition leaders said there is a need for a broader consensus on the two significant bills, listed for consideration and passage in the House, considering their national importance. Proceedings in both houses have been disrupted by the Opposition, which has been creating uproar in Parliament on their demand for a discussion on SIR, which they allege is aimed at disenfranchising a large number of voters. Addressing a joint press conference of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge rejected the argument that the functioning of EC cannot be discussed in Parliament as it is an independent constitutional body. Kharge cited former Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar's July 21, 2023 ruling that the House is authorised to debate anything under the sun and under the planet. 'We have been urging the speaker, chairman and the government again and again that the voting rights of people should not be stolen... That is what is happening in the SIR exercise,' the Congress chief said. Alleging that government was manipulating the electoral system according to its own convenience, Kharge said that while a huge number of voters were added in the electoral list in Maharashtra, the names of voters are being deleted in assembly poll-bound Bihar.
