IndiaAI and the New Geography of Power
Business
Ajith Nayar is Co-founder and CEO of CamCom, an artificial intelligence company building world-model systems for safety, quality and infrastructure across India, West Asia and Europe.
For most of modern history, geopolitical power followed a familiar sequence: land, industry, finance and then information. Artificial intelligence is ending that progression. Power is migrating again-this time into intelligence itself.
The significance of the IndiaAI moment lies in a simple but unsettling implication: the future architecture of intelligence may not remain confined to a small group of technologically dominant nations. It may instead be shaped by societies that understand scale, constraint and human consequence in ways theory alone cannot teach.
India is one of those societies.
Three competing AI futures are emerging globally.
The American model is driven by private capital, rapid innovation and platform dominance. Its strength is speed; its risk is extreme concentration of compute, data and decision-making inside a handful of corporations.
The Chinese model is state-directed, infrastructure-heavy and surveillance-capable. Its strength is coordination at scale; its risk is that efficiency may outrun liberty.
A third model-still incomplete and uneven-treats AI as public infrastructure aligned to development, inclusion and safety. This is where India enters the frame, shaped by democracy at scale, scarcity under constraint and diversity beyond easy standardisation. Conditions once seen as weaknesses may become decisive strengths in the AI century.
As regulatory regimes harden across Europe and safety debates intensify in the United States, the question is no longer whether AI will be governed, but whose values will define that governance.
Across Africa, West Asia, Latin America and parts of Southeast Asia, nations increasingly recognise that importing AI exclusively from great-power blocs risks a new form of dependency-not territorial, but cognitive. The search is therefore for AI that is affordable, adaptable and aligned to public purpose. India is uniquely positioned to help supply it through lived experience of building technology under real-world constraints. At stake is not only access to AI, but whether intelligence itself remains locked inside private systems or becomes part of shared public infrastructure.
A further shift is unfolding in West Asia, where capital-rich but demographically small states are moving with unusual speed. Early institutional focus on artificial intelligence, sovereign investments in advanced compute and the rapid emergence of national AI platforms signal a distinct pathway to technological power-one built on capital concentration, institutional agility and strategic alignment with global technology ecosystems. Over the next decade, the durability of this surge will depend on whether financial momentum can translate into indigenous data, research depth and knowledge ecosystems. Resources can accelerate capability; only lived data can sustain it.
Public debate remains focused on language models and generative media. The deeper frontier is AI that understands physical reality: infrastructure fatigue, material failure, crop stress, urban flooding and industrial risk. When intelligence begins to model the world itself, it moves from convenience to civilisational safety. India’s development trajectory compels it to solve this at scale-helping define the shift from conversational to consequential intelligence embedded in the physical economy.
Artificial intelligence has also ended the illusion that geography no longer matters. Data centres demand land and energy. Semiconductors rely on fragile supply chains. Advanced compute is shaped by export controls and alliances. Technological capability is once again inseparable from state power. India’s investments in compute, semiconductors and long-horizon research-including quantum technologies-reflect geopolitical preparation, not merely industrial ambition.
The real disruption of AI will be social before it is technological, testing whether nations can retrain workers faster than they can alarm them.
By the mid-2030s, a multipolar intelligence order may emerge. AI could be embedded invisibly across public infrastructure in the Global South. Sovereign compute may shape diplomacy as deeply as energy once did. World-model systems could redefine safety, quality and resilience in the physical economy. A new category of geopolitical influence may take shape: the export of trusted intelligence.
Yet the ultimate question raised by artificial intelligence is not geopolitical but human. History offers little evidence that new technologies make societies kinder; power has more often outpaced wisdom. AI is unlikely to be different. But by forcing humanity to confront intelligence greater than its own creation, it may also mark the beginning of a deeper evolution-one in which survival depends not on dominance, but on responsibility. The real test of the AI century, therefore, will not be which nation leads in capability, but whether human consciousness matures fast enough to govern what it has built.
