‘To emerge as a true global power, India must secure technological sovereignty'
Mr. Sood, who delivered the convocation address of the Visvesvaraya Technological Univesity on Friday, said, 'It is a force that will not only shape your personal and professional paths, but also play a crucial role in building a stronger India. As both a catalyst and a cornerstone of national progress, technology transforms how we live, work, and connect. It fuels economic growth through innovation, enhances productivity in vital sectors like agriculture and healthcare, and bridges critical gaps in education and public service delivery,'' he said.
'To emerge as a true global power, India must secure technological sovereignty — the ability to design, develop, and deploy critical technologies independently, especially in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). And this is especially crucial today, in an era where AI is redefining how the world thinks, works, and competes.
'Across the globe, AI models like OpenAI's GPT, Google's Gemini, and China's DeepSeek have already shown us the extraordinary influence of foundational technologies. They're not just tools but breakthroughs that are shaping economies, steering geopolitics, and influencing culture and national security.
'DeepSeek, in particular, disrupted the global AI landscape by delivering a powerful language model at a fraction of the cost of its Western counterparts proving that world-class innovation is no longer limited to tech giants.
'This transformation signals a clear message: India must act now. Not only to reduce dependency, but to ensure that our languages, cultures, and ethical values are embedded in the digital systems of tomorrow. This isn't just about catching up. It's about leading,' he said.
In response to this challenge, the Government of India had launched the IndiaAI Mission, which was a bold initiative to build indigenous AI models tailored for India's needs. Under this mission, four pioneering start-ups — Soket AI, Sarvam AI, Gnani.ai, and Gan.ai — were developing multilingual, emotion-aware AI systems that reflected the richness of our 22 official languages and countless regional dialects. These models were being trained on Indian datasets, with applications across defence, agriculture, education, and healthcare, he said.
The Department of Higher Education had taken a forward-looking step by establishing four Centres of Excellence (CoEs), each dedicated to building capacity in cutting-edge technologies. These centres focused on areas like AI in healthcare, agriculture, and sustainable cities. By aligning academic learning with real-world challenges, these CoEs are not only preparing our students and researchers for tomorrow but also aimed for actively shaping the vision of Viksit Bharat,' he said.
Governor's call
Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot, in his address, called upon young engineering graduates to use their innovative and creative spirit to create new industries and join hands in nation building.
He said that they should create industries and provide employment. He also said that today's graduates should pay attention to environmental protection and engage in research and development that helped society.
The university presented honorary doctorates to V. Narayanan, Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation, Prashant Prakash, founder, Excel India, and C.S. Sunder Raju, Chancellor, Atria University, Bengaluru.
Vice-Chancellor S. Vidyashankar was present.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
A fractured G7 and India's strategic turn
While the G7 grappled with internal discord and diminishing purpose, PM Modi's emphasis on inclusive development, Global South priorities, and equitable energy transitions gave the Kananaskis summit a broader relevance read more 'In an uncertain world, partnership is our strength and cooperation our compass.' Prime Minister Narendra Modi's words at the 2025 G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, did not merely reflect India's aspirations; they underlined the strategic paradox at the heart of the gathering—a summit that showcased a world short on coordination, conviction, and coherence. It seemed to reflect that those powers that matter are transfixed by the geopolitical gyrations—especially of the last six months—into relative inaction. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What should have been a moment of democratic resolve against converging crises—war, climate, poverty, debt, terror, and technological disruption—instead revealed a G7 priding itself on being the directorate of the world and flag-bearer of the Western liberal order, grappling with internal dissonance and shrinking geopolitical heft and strategic will for development cooperation with the Global South. The absence of a joint communiqué—the first since 2018—was no procedural glitch but a symptom of deeper dysfunction. The contrast with 2024 was stark. That year's summit in Italy had produced real global public good outcomes: a $70 billion World Bank financing commitment, forward momentum on IMF quota reform, and concrete pledges on climate finance and debt relief. In Kananaskis, however, the grand table remained undecorated by such policy fruit. Despite the physical presence of the heads of the IMF, the World Bank, and the UN, there was no progress on Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)-related support, debt relief for developing countries' unsustainable $29 trillion public debt, climate finance, and technology. The only watered-down reference to global solidarity on these issues was a discussion the G7 had on the importance of building coalitions of partners—including the private sector, development finance institutions, and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)—to drive inclusive economic growth and sustainable development. There was no reference to the SDGs themselves or to developing countries, no fresh financial pledges for energy transition, no reaffirmation of the $100 billion climate finance goal, no follow-up on the Bridgetown Initiative on debt relief, and no joint plan on green tech partnerships with the Global South. The silence reflected the uncomfortable reality of the US—having withdrawn from the Paris Climate Treaty, cut aid, and even resisted sustainable development language in UN forums. With Europe distracted by inflation and war-related instability, the tariff battles and 'bilateral deals' eroding the WTO-led multilateral trading system, and Japan caught in alliance dilemmas, the G7's normative project on the Western liberal order—on climate, equity, and solidarity with the Global South—is visibly fraying. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, the ongoing UN Financing for Development Summit in Seville—also referenced in the G7 Summit—spotlighted a US-led funding and aid retreat by the West, including the stunning cutoff of US contributions to the UN budget—a consequential 25 per cent share. The widening SDGs financing gap of $4 trillion per year threatens the entire sustainable development project for humanity. In sidelining these issues, the G7 not only ignored a majority of the world's population—it neglected the very engines of future growth and resilience. When those most vulnerable to climate shocks, food crises, and debt spirals are excluded, talk of global leadership rings hollow. Multilateralism, once the G7's shared project, is losing its breath. It wasn't just the chequebook that was missing—it was vision. The G7, once seen as the self-styled conductor and animator of the multilateral system anchored in the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO, increasingly resembles an orchestra rehearsing without a score: the institutions remain, the instruments are not tuned, and harmony is absent. This does not bode well for the G20—a counterpart that includes the 10 strongest developing economies—especially after the high of India's historic presidency. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Divergences appeared on Russia. In 2024, the G7 had presented a unified front—reinforcing sanctions, vowing long-term support to Ukraine to fight on 'as long as it takes,' and positioning Russia as the primary threat to peace and security in Europe and a disruptor of international order. This year, however, US President Donald Trump's assertion that Russia's expulsion in 2014 had been a 'mistake' signalled a change of tack. The Chair's Summary supported Trump's efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, noted Ukraine's willingness for a ceasefire, and called on Russia to do the same—possibly reflecting a pragmatic softening of position among European powers towards ending the war. The only concession was that sanctions against Russia should be used to bring it to the negotiating table. But the US narrative, now coloured by President Trump's America First predilections and a focus on transactional diplomacy, underscored the deepening trust deficit in the Western alliance, as the subsequent NATO summit also indicated. President Trump's abrupt and premature departure from the summit—to address the Iran–Israel escalation without consulting allies—was a symptom. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In all of this, China—the authoritarian challenger to the G7 and its Western liberal order—emerged as the antipodal geopolitical and economic gainer. In contrast to the 2024 G7 Communiqué, which contained 28 direct and indirect 'frenemical' references to China—accusing it of economic coercion, cyber aggression, support to Russia's war machine, and human rights violations in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong, including explicit legal invocations of the South China Sea and the Indo-Pacific—the 2025 summit retreated into euphemism and strategic ambiguity. Combatting China's weaponisation of economic interdependence, its export controls, forced tech transfers, and cyber-enabled interference was now couched as a clarion call for Western collective capacity-building defensive frameworks—signalling concern without escalation. Also, the seeming retreat from global development cooperation and multilateralism seemed to vacate the space for China to occupy. In 2025, the Chair's Summary reaffirmed commitment to a 'free, open, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific' and explicitly named China for destabilising actions in the East and South China Seas and stressed the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Yet, without a full communiqué, the framing was more symbolic than strategic, reflecting continuity in posture but caution in pressure. The competition-cum-threat perception about China was specifically evident in three of the six most action-oriented, G7 leaders' joint statements—on the Critical Minerals Action Plan, Transnational Repression, and the Kananaskis Common Vision for the Future of Quantum Technologies. The first signalled G7 action beyond rhetoric, in response to China's near-monopoly on rare earth elements and its recent export curbs causing price spikes and global supply chain disruptions. India formally endorsed the Action Plan, along with Australia and South Korea, positioning itself not merely as a stakeholder but as a co-author of the emerging mineral security order, opening avenues for standard-setting, technology sharing, and investment partnerships. The Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Prosperity joint statement reaffirmed the G7's commitment to human-centric, secure, and trustworthy AI, introducing initiatives like the G7 GovAI Grand Challenge, the GAIN network, and a comprehensive AI Adoption Roadmap—including measures to accelerate AI adoption in the public sector and among SMEs. However, the omission of any framework for frontier AI regulation or safety standards was conspicuous—especially given the G7's own Hiroshima AI Process. The pivot appears to be from shared global governance—which the AI Action Summit in Paris in February 2025 had set out in a Declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI—to a laissez-faire approach favoured by the US and UK. India, with its robust AI programs and ambitious plans, will no doubt continue to engage with these initiatives. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD On quantum technologies, the G7 called for a 'trusted ecosystem' for open and secure innovation—a framing that subtly reflects awareness of China's accelerating capabilities in the field. While not explicitly exclusionary, the repeated emphasis on collaboration among like-minded partners and protection of sensitive technologies signalled a preference for tighter convergence within existing alliances—which India could join. The 2025 G7 Leaders' Statement on Transnational Repression marks a significant shift—outlining concrete tactics like spyware-enabled surveillance, forced returns, and diaspora intimidation, and signalling a coordinated pushback against authoritarian overreach. It builds on the 2024 framing, where the G7 had grouped transnational repression under Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI)—alongside 'malicious cyber activities'—with 'indirect but unmistakable references to China, including mentions of economic coercion and support to Russia's war effort'. This year, however, no country is named. The language is more operational but also more cautious—retreating from last year's sharper references. Still, the behaviours described remain clearly recognisable, and the targets evident. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The G7 Leaders' Statement on Countering Migrant Smuggling, vowing to 'dismantle transnational organised crime networks,' reflected growing hardline anti-immigration policies aggressively espoused by the US and now echoed in parts of Europe. These will have implications for Indians emigrating to these countries. Amidst these fractures, India's participation as a 'guest' became a means to thaw its relations with Canada and share its perspectives. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called India 'an essential actor in global governance and sustainable development', positioning it not just as an emerging partner but as a systemic player. India used this strategic space with finesse. Its support for traceable, ethical critical mineral supply chains, responsible AI governance, and Global South development priorities marked a shift from transactional engagement to agenda-setting. In many ways, India stepped into the leadership void—not by dominating, but by convincingly articulating. India also recalibrated the security discourse. In the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, PM Modi advanced a broader framing: cross-border terrorism as part of a hybrid threat ecosystem, alongside cyberwarfare, spyware, and foreign information manipulation—which was also on the radar of the G7. While the G7's declarations avoided specifically focusing on terrorism, the threat's scope—from the US to Europe—made this omission glaring. India's choice of strategic multi-alignment and its agility to interact with and within organisations like the G7, G20, and Brics—while engaging bilaterally with strategic partners in the G7—must remain central. We must continue to engage with G7 initiatives, which may become important platforms to build on our path towards Viksit Bharat. This, of course, must be done while engaging and cooperating wherever and whenever it serves our interest and advances our security and development objectives. India's presence at Kananaskis offered a rare note of strategic clarity. While the G7 grappled with internal discord and diminishing purpose, PM Modi's emphasis on inclusive development, Global South priorities, and equitable energy transitions gave the summit a broader relevance. In a gathering that risked becoming a ritual without resonance, India's conduct lent meaning to the very cooperation others invoked rhetorically. As the multilateral and plurilateral grammar of international institutions evolves, India is not merely navigating the space between blocs—it is helping to reshape the script. Whether the G7 chooses to follow remains uncertain. The author is a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations and Deputy Executive Director of UN Women and a former Ambassador of India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Character.AI introduces TalkingMachines, a new AI model that can generate interactive videos
the popular platform that allows users to create and interact with AI chatbots has introduced a new diffusion model called TalkingMachines. The Google-owned startup says its newest AI model enables 'real-time, audio-driven, FaceTime-style video generation.' In a blog post, said that users said the new model can help generate an interactive, real-time video of characters with different styles, genres and identities using just an image and a voice signal. new feature is powered by a Diffusion Transformer (DiT), which utilises a technique called asymmetric knowledge distillation that enables the conversion of a 'high-quality, bidirectional video model into a blazing-fast, real-time generator.' The company says its new model listens to audio and then animates parts of the character like mouth, head and eyes, all in sync with every word, pause and intonation without compromising on things like consistency, image quality, style and expressiveness. For audio, is using a custom-built 1.2B parameter audio module that captures both speech and silence, with the company claiming that it can achieve 'infinite-length generation with no quality degradation over time.' The company goes on to say that its new AI model supports a variety of styles, like photorealistic humans to anime to 3D avatars and builds on the core infrastructure for role-playing, storytelling and interactive world-building. has been constantly adding new features like a new image-to-video generator called AvatarFX, Scenes and Streams. Following OpenAI's advanced voice mode, the startup even added a call feature that allows users to engage in voice conversations with the character of their choice to increase engagement. Last year, the Google-owned startup was sued by the mother of a 14-year-old kid in Florida who claimed that a chatbot encouraged her son to kill himself. Since then, the company has introduced new supervision tools to ensure the online safety of users under 18.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
What really fuels Putin's war: Not oil or weapons, but Russia's grip on global nuclear business
While the world has been focusing on the Iranian nuclear programme, another country has been flourishing in nuclear technology and the production of enriched uranium. read more While the world has been focusing on the Iranian nuclear programme, another country has been flourishing in nuclear technology and the production of enriched uranium. While the matters are still under control and the enriched uranium is far less explosive than the situation in Tehran, it still can be concerning for the global world order. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly used nuclear threats to try to deter Western support for Ukraine since the 2022 invasion, warning of dire consequences if Western countries intervene militarily. While many in the West consider it a bluff, Russia's nuclear capabilities paint a different story. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is pertinent to note that the civilian nuclear industry can be broadly divided into two main markets: 1) Building nuclear power stations or reactors. 2) The production and supply of enriched-uranium fuel. It is believed that whoever dominates these export markets gains not just geopolitical heft and economic and soft power, but also influence over the policing of nuclear proliferation and safety standards. According to the figures released by the World Nuclear Association, in both cases, it is Russia that is dominating the market. Rosatom, the country's state-owned nuclear firm, has about 65 per cent of the global export market for nuclear reactors in power stations. Meanwhile, Moscow controls 44 per cent of the world's uranium-enrichment capacity. Money comes from friends and foes alike According to a report published by The Economist, Rosatom, Russia's state nuclear corporation, is involved in the construction of about 20 reactors abroad. Out of these, 17 are built outside Russia, with active projects in countries like Turkey, Egypt, India, and Bangladesh. The buyers also include countries that are critical of Putin. For example, the continent of Europe continues to remain dependent on Russian technology and nuclear fuel, despite Western efforts to reduce reliance. Money also comes from foes like the United States of America. In 2023, the US bought roughly a quarter of its enriched uranium from Russia, while the Ukraine war was still ongoing. Russia's nuclear exports have become its key source of revenue and international influence. Nations tend to see Russia as an alternative to Western suppliers or China, which are much more limited and would take years to scale up. Amid sanctions, World Bank data suggested that in 2023, Russia earned about $2.7bn from exporting enriched uranium—mostly to America and the EU, and another $1.1bn from exporting reactors and components, such as the fuel assemblies that hold the enriched uranium. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Rosatom itself noted that its foreign operations generated revenue of more than $16bn in 2023, including more than $7bn from building new power plants, many of them funded by Russian state-backed loans. This figure has been rising since Russia invaded Ukraine. Why it matters Through customer reliance on Russian fuel or nuclear technology, Russia gains diplomatic leverage. For instance, in May, the European Commission pledged to release plans the following month to introduce taxes or levies on Russian enriched uranium. However, the plan received heavy resistance from Slovakia and Hungary, which both have Russian-designed reactors, as they complained that the European plan would lead to higher prices. Similarly, Turkey's 2010 deal with Rosatom to build and operate four nuclear reactors in the country deepened its ties to Russia. Many saw it as a reason why Ankara decided to buy S-400 aircraft missile batteries from Russia as well. Meanwhile, in Bangladesh, Rosatom is building two reactors that will add about 10 per cent to the country's generating capacity. This will put Bangladesh alongside the likes of Hungary and Slovakia, which are assessed to have a 'high' dependence on Russian-built or -operated nuclear power plants. In light of this, Western governments are taking a two-pronged strategy when it comes to dealing with Russian dominance. The first involves reducing their reliance on enriched uranium, fuel assemblies and other services provided by Rosatom. The second is to try more vigorously to compete with Russia in selling reactors. In 2023, the US, the UK, Canada, France and Japan formed the 'Sapporo Five' group to collaborate on at least $4.2bn-worth of investments in new enrichment. Hence, it will be interesting to see whether this group will be able to beat the Russian dominance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
