The Delhi AI Impact Summit was supposed to be India’s grand stage to assert technological sovereignty. Instead, it became a theatre of silence. When Sriram Krishnan, Senior White House Policy Advisor on AI, declared that allies like India should adopt American AI infrastructure, the Prime Minister offered no rebuttal. Congress leader Pawan Khera pounced, quipping: “American AI infrastructure, Indian data. And all we get is Galgotia.” The satire stings because it captures the absurdity of a government that boasts of “Digital India” yet remains mute when America openly positions India as a client state in the AI ecosystem.

Krishnan’s words were not diplomatic niceties; they were a blueprint of dominance. “We want the world to use the American AI stack…We want all our allies, including India, to leverage our AI infrastructure.” Translation: India supplies the raw data, America supplies the algorithms, and sovereignty evaporates in the process. Rahul Gandhi’s warning of India becoming a “data colony” suddenly looks prophetic. Once upon a time, colonial powers extracted cotton and spices; today, they extract data. The silence of the Prime Minister is not just puzzling—it is perilous.

The contradiction is glaring. India proclaims itself a Vishwaguru, yet it still imports scooter engines, railway signaling systems, mobile parts, and drones. We boast of sending satellites to Mars at ₹7 per kilometer, but cannot produce indigenous chips. We announce quantum breakthroughs while labs scramble for funding. We inaugurate 5G before towers are ready. Is this leadership—or theatre? Can a nation that imports the engines of its everyday life credibly claim to lead the world in AI?

Congress’s attack resonates because it exposes the hollowness of slogans. By failing to respond to Krishnan’s remarks, the government appears willing to let India’s digital wealth fuel American AI dominance. This is not about technology alone; it is about sovereignty. Data is the new oil, and surrendering it without negotiation is akin to surrendering national interest. Silence here is not strategy—it is submission.

The irony deepens when the government parades names like Sunil Galgotia, decorated with 27 awards, and Prof. Neha Singh, a commerce professor leading AI campaigns, as proof of innovation. These are symbolic gestures, not substantive capacity. They do not answer the fundamental question: where is India’s indigenous AI stack? Where is the infrastructure that ensures our data serves our people first, not foreign corporations?

So the satire writes itself. We are told India will lead the world in AI, yet our railway signals depend on Siemens, our mobile parts on China, our drones on imports. We are promised sovereignty, yet the White House openly positions us as a puppet. And through it all, the Prime Minister remains silent, as if silence itself were policy.

The danger is clear. If India fails to assert itself now, it risks locking into a subordinate role in the global AI ecosystem. Once data pipelines and infrastructure are controlled externally, sovereignty cannot be reclaimed easily. The government’s silence today may cost generations tomorrow. The question is not whether India can lead in AI—it is whether India can even stand independently in the digital age.

India must decide: will it be a leader in AI, or merely a colony in the age of algorithms? The summit has given us the answer so far—American AI, Indian silence. And silence, history reminds us, is the loudest form of surrender.