Parliamentary panel asks for a public tech strategy and a new coordination body

What did the parliamentary committee ask the Ministry of External Affairs to create and publish?

The committee wants the Ministry of External Affairs to prepare a public technology vision and strategy document. It would set India’s technology goals, priorities and institutional responsibilities. The panel said the current approach is fragmentary, piecemeal and ad hoc. It argued that individual successes cannot replace a national plan.

The MEA would prepare the document with MeitY and other departments. The process would include consultations with academia, research institutions and industry. The committee also recommended a separate technology diplomacy strategy for the MEA. Both documents should be publicly available and reviewed periodically.

The proposal aims to make technology policy more coherent and connected to foreign policy. The recommendations appear in the committee’s 17th report, adopted on September 22 and presented to the Lok Sabha Speaker on September 25. A formal inter-ministerial coordination body would support implementation.

What is a technology diplomacy strategy, and how would it connect technology policy with foreign policy?

A technology diplomacy strategy is a foreign-policy plan focused on technology. The article presents it as a separate document for the MEA. Its purpose would be to give India a clear framework for handling technology-related international relationships instead of relying on isolated, case-by-case decisions.

The strategy would connect technology policy with foreign policy by identifying India’s priorities and showing how ministries should work together abroad. For example, verified information about data-centre capacity could help guide international investments and technology partnerships. The MEA would need to coordinate with MeitY and other departments.

The committee wants this strategy to be public and reviewed periodically. It also recommended a formal coordination body chaired by the MEA. Together, the document and body could turn technology diplomacy from an ad hoc activity into a regular national process, while clarifying responsibilities across government.

Which ministries would participate in the proposed coordination body, and why does technology diplomacy require cooperation among them?

The proposed formal inter-ministerial body would be chaired by the MEA. It would include the IT, science, space and commerce ministries. The committee wants this structure to ensure regular coordination on technology diplomacy rather than decisions made separately or only when particular issues arise.

Each ministry brings a different responsibility. The IT ministry handles digital technology concerns, while science and space ministries contribute research and strategic capabilities. Commerce matters because technology partnerships involve international trade and investment. The MEA connects these areas to foreign policy and diplomatic engagement.

Cooperation matters because the committee wants one national direction, with clear goals and roles. It also recommended verified data on India’s data-centre capacity to guide international investments and technology partnerships. A standing body could share information, align positions and reduce fragmented policymaking across departments.

How large is India’s AI ecosystem compared with those of the United States and China, and how much might its data-centre capacity need to grow by 2030?

India has moved from seventh to third place globally on the Stanford Global AI Vibrancy Tool. That ranking reflects the strength of India’s national AI ecosystem. However, the committee warned that India remains well behind the United States and China. It described the gap as a difference of kind, not only of degree.

The article also highlights a major infrastructure challenge. Industry estimates cited by the committee suggest India’s data-centre capacity may need to increase from around 1.5 gigawatts in 2025 to 5–10 gigawatts by 2030. This expansion would support greater AI activity and technology partnerships.

The figures are not presented as a complete measure of AI capability. The committee said India still faces gaps in computing power, advanced chips, data-centre capacity and private investment in large AI models. It also questioned unverified claims about India’s share of global data and data-centre capacity.

What could change if India had a public technology strategy, verified data, and regular coordination between ministries?

A public technology strategy would give India a shared national direction. It could clarify goals, priorities and the roles of different ministries. That would address the committee’s concern that current technology efforts are fragmentary, piecemeal and ad hoc. Public review could also make progress easier to assess over time.

Verified data would improve the basis for decisions. The committee questioned claims that India holds about 20% of the world’s data but has only 3% of global data-centre capacity. MeitY said neither figure was officially verified. Reliable figures could guide international investments and technology partnerships more credibly.

Regular coordination could connect diplomacy with infrastructure, research, trade and digital policy. The proposed body would help ministries act together rather than case by case. Combined with a revised AI strategy, these steps could help India respond to computing, chip, data-centre and investment gaps, although the article does not predict specific outcomes.

Why does the committee say India’s existing AI strategy needs revision after the emergence of large language models?

The committee said India’s national AI strategy was drafted before the emergence of large language models. These newer systems changed the AI landscape and exposed the need for an updated policy framework. A strategy written earlier may not address current capabilities, risks, infrastructure needs or international technology questions.

The report therefore recommended that NITI Aayog and MeitY revise the strategy in consultation with the MEA. This would bring domestic AI policy closer to foreign-policy priorities. It would also help connect AI planning with India’s need for computing power, data-centre capacity, advanced chips and private investment in large AI models.

The revision comes as MeitY prepares an AI regulation consultation paper within a month. That paper will focus on safety, humanity, skilling, inclusivity and harm mitigation. Together, the revised strategy and regulatory consultation could update India’s response to a rapidly changing AI environment.

Why are computing power, advanced chips, data centres, data, and private investment essential for building advanced AI systems?

Computing power lets AI systems train on large amounts of information and run complex models. Data centres provide the electricity, servers, cooling and networking needed to store data and operate those systems at scale. Advanced chips perform the specialised calculations efficiently. Without these foundations, AI development can be slower, more expensive and less capable.

Data is the material AI systems learn from, while private investment supplies money for research, infrastructure and large model development. The article specifically notes gaps in computing power, data-centre capacity, access to advanced chips and private investment in large AI models. It also says claims about India’s data share and data-centre capacity remain unverified.

These needs explain why the committee linked AI strategy to technology diplomacy. India may require international investments and technology partnerships to expand capacity. It recommended collecting and publishing verified data, while industry estimates suggest data-centre capacity may need to rise from around 1.5 gigawatts in 2025 to 5–10 gigawatts by 2030.

Key Facts:

📌 The committee called India’s technology approach fragmentary, piecemeal and ad hoc.

📌 The MEA should prepare and publish a technology vision and strategy document.

📌 Both technology documents should be reviewed periodically.

📌 The committee recommended a separate technology diplomacy strategy for the MEA.

📌 The proposed strategy should be public and reviewed periodically.

📌 Technology diplomacy would replace a case-by-case coordination approach.

📌 The proposed body would be chaired by the MEA.