In February 2026, India hosted AI policymakers from around the world at the AI Impact Summit, positioning itself as the Global South’s answer to Western AI dominance – a nation building a sovereign digital infrastructure on its own terms. Under the slogan “Democratizing AI and Bridging the AI Divide,” India sought to speak on behalf of countries excluded from an AI order created in Washington and Beijing.
The report outlined the stark disconnect between India’s official AI rhetoric and the reality of AI-related discrimination, oppression and violence against marginalized communities in the country.
But days before the summit began, a Civil society report The book, published by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate (CSOH) and the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), painted a very different picture. The report outlined the stark disconnect between India’s official AI rhetoric and the reality of AI drives Discrimination, oppression and violence against marginalized communities in the country. The very hierarchies that India claims to want to dismantle are being replicated domestically, drawing on the same extractive logic of algorithmic colonization, but now being produced natively.
Surveillance as politics
The report describes how generative AI tools are being used by Narendra Modi’s right-wing ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to survey, monitor and then demonize Muslim communities across the country. It outlines a worrying pattern of AI-powered mass surveillance, targeted exclusion from welfare systems and the removal of minority voters from electoral rolls.
In addition, law enforcement agencies have begun operations Predictive policing algorithms and facial recognition technology in several states without legal authorization. In addition, the use was also discussed AI tools to identify suspected “illegal” immigrants from Bangladesh based on their speech patterns, tone of voice and language. This comes amid reports of Muslim citizens are forcibly deported to Bangladesh on suspicion of illegal immigration, without due process.
Communal polarization has long been at the heart of the ruling party’s strategy. Generative AI will industrialize it, making such targeting more cost-effective and enabling personalization at scale.
None of this is incidental to the method. Communal polarization has long been at the heart of the ruling party’s strategy. Generative AI will industrialize it, making such targeting more cost-effective and enabling personalization at scale. AI-generated content is regularly shared by official social media accountsby promoting divisive anti-minority messages and portraying violence against Muslims.
The colonial legacy
Traditionally, the colonial power sought control of the political, economic and social spheres through direct military conquest and resource extraction. However, this later developed into a consolidation of power through the spread of ideologies through media, education and popular culture. Algorithmic colonialism, as has been well documented, is the latest variant of this and operates with invisible structures of data, code and surveillance.
India is not just a subject of algorithmic colonialism, absorbing systems designed by its colonizers; At the same time, it builds and implements the same architecture among its own citizens.
In India, this is happening with a paradox at its core. India is not just a subject of algorithmic colonialism, absorbing systems designed by its colonizers; At the same time, it is building the same architecture and applying it to its own citizens, often along the fault lines of caste and religion that the colonial administration itself once exploited to govern the country.
While algorithmic colonization in Western contexts occurs primarily through profit incentives and market-driven domination, Eastern models reflect a state-centered authoritarian approach. Despite these differences, both systems are based on similar extractive logics, and both threaten epistemic autonomy and hinder efforts at digital sovereignty.
India lies at the intersection of both. India operates a state-centric control model but leaves the commercial market largely open and often uses foreign or commercial instruments to carry out the state’s work. The result is market-driven data extraction driven by the exclusionary intent of a majority governing party. Instead of breaking with either model, India has consolidated the extractive core of both models.
The result is market-driven data extraction driven by the exclusionary intent of a majority governing party. Instead of breaking with either model, India has consolidated the extractive core of both models.
India is now presenting itself as a role model, the country that will show smaller and poorer nations how to build AI capabilities without bowing to American or Chinese terms. But the summit never answered the question posed by the country’s civil society outside the halls: capacity for what and for whom. Building sovereign AI models that serve as levers in systems of oppression against their own citizens does not create independence from algorithmic colonialism, but merely shifts ownership of it.
India’s AI governance framework
At the heart of these issues is India’s policy approach to AI governance. The AI governance guidelinespublished in November 2025, favor voluntary self-regulation over mandatory accountability mechanisms and explicitly state: “All other things being equal, responsible innovation should take precedence over precautionary restraint.”
The guidelines are based on Western templates and transmit the concept of an abstract citizen who has no caste or creed and offers no protections for the vulnerable communities that exist within India’s complex communal hierarchies. There is no regulation to address citizens who are oppressed based on their caste, religion, sexuality and gender – the very people who are oppressed require the strongest legal protection.
It is imperative that the government looks beyond the voluntary commitments of technology companies and urgently recognizes the need for strong regulation to mitigate the negative consequences of the design, development and deployment of AI systems.
CSOH and IFF, the organizations behind the report, call on global leaders to demand and commit to rights-based regulations with clear commitments across the entire AI value chain to ban the use of AI for mass surveillance and predictive policing, demand transparency and independent oversight for all AI deployments in the public sector, and prioritize the voices of affected communities in discussions on AI governance.
It is imperative that the state look beyond the voluntary commitments of technology companies and urgently recognize the need for strong regulation to mitigate the negative consequences of the design, development and deployment of AI systems, particularly on marginalized communities in India.
Abirami holds a Masters in Development Studies from IIT Madras and is currently working in the field of public policy, driven by the pursuit of a more inclusive and equitable world. She views her work as a continuous process of learning and unlearning, based on the belief that meaningful change begins with asking the right questions.