6 min readMar 2, 2026 07:05 AM IST
First published on: Mar 2, 2026 at 06:34 AM IST
Notwithstanding the “robodog” goof-up by Galgotias University at the AI Impact Summit or the “shirtless” demonstration by some misguided youths, the conference was successful in raising awareness of AI amongst young Indians. The fact that 91 countries and international organisations have endorsed the Delhi Declaration for the use of AI for the global good, sarvajana hitaya and sarvajana sukhaya (welfare for all and happiness for all), speaks to its success.
Three fundamental issues were discussed with much interest and concern: Will AI lead to faster growth? Will it create more jobs or take away jobs? Will its benefits be equally distributed?
The majority of answers to the first question were positive — there is no doubt that it will accelerate overall development. Many have said that humanity is likely to leapfrog in its evolution of knowledge, efficiency and growth. It is a moment in history with an inflection point, a hockey stick situation. Over the next decade, there is likely to be explosive growth in AI, which will disrupt the functioning of nearly all sectors. Call it the “process of creative destruction”, based on the work of Joseph Schumpeter (1942). Those who want to remain in the business-as-usual mode risk being left far behind. Very soon, AI will be used across the globe the way the internet is being used today, raising productivity and saving time.
But the biggest debate about AI is if the “process of creative destruction” will lead to massive job losses. Opinions are divided. IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva has highlighted the risk of job losses and likened the arrival of AI in the job market to a tsunami. She estimates that 40 per cent of jobs are likely to be hit in emerging economies, while this figure can touch 60 per cent in advanced economies. That’s scary. But Mukesh Ambani, chairman and managing director of Reliance Industries, has said that there will not be job losses in the Indian industry as a result of the induction of AI. My take on this is that similar fears were expressed in India when, in the late 1980s, the then prime minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, introduced computers. Employees in banks, railways, and many other sectors went on strike, fearing that they would lose their jobs, and they opposed and resisted the introduction of computers. It is hard to even think today of banks running without the use of computers. This is where Schumpeter’s “process of creative destruction” is salient. Every new technology demolishes the old one and creates massive disruption, but gives higher efficiency and growth. As a result, the size of the economy expands, creating new jobs that demand higher skills; these jobs also pay more. Most are better off as a result. There are always some losers, especially in the short term, who cannot ride the wave of new technology. Ways need to be found to upgrade their skills, or the state needs to minimise the pain of those who stand to lose out.
The next question is that of equity. Who will gain and who will lose? The early starters will gain first, and that may increase inequality in the short run. This could also be because only very few countries can afford the massive investments that are needed to develop AI as well as meet its energy requirements. But as with many other technologies, cheaper options are likely to be available soon, and their use will expand exponentially, benefitting most people in turn. India’s comparative advantage is in finding low-cost solutions that the Global South can afford and use at a mass scale. Be it the case of vaccines during the Covid pandemic,the innovative technology of UPI, or the landing of ISRO’s Chandrayaan-3 on the Moon’s South Pole, India has demonstrated an ability to derive the maximum out of technology. It can emerge as the third global power in AI, after the US and China, and use the technology for global good.
There is no doubt that the development of AI at scale requires massive investments, and top industrialists in India have promised to pitch in. My reading is that India is at least five years behind the US and China, which are already in the race to develop AI in humanoids. Will India catch up with them and co-lead this race? One cannot affirm that today. But the AI Impact Summit definitely aroused a lot of curiosity and thinking, and led to a re-chalking of investment plans. Now is the time to create a conducive policy environment. Regulatory issues, data ownership and equity are all important, but we need to ensure that India is not left behind to remain a mere user of Chinese or American AI. It must aim for its own models, its own apps, and only then can it claim to be “atmanirbhar” (self-reliant) in this brave new world of AI.
I must thank the CEO of the AI Summit, Abhishek Singh, for releasing the report “AI for All”, prepared by BCG and supported by Prosus under the stewardship of R Chandrashekhar. I had the privilege to co-chair the agriculture segment. It tried to engage with a critical question: What will Indian farmers and the country’s agriculture gain from AI? Since agriculture employs 46 per cent of India’s workforce, there is always a concern that AI applications will displace a lot of labour. Let me say very briefly that AI will be used in India’s agri-food system, not just in precision agriculture at the production stage, but also at the logistics/marketing/processing stage too. Already, many players are using it, and the government is also developing agriStack, where it will be used. The dawn of a new era in agriculture is near.
The writer is distinguished professor at ICRIER. Views are personal
Ways need to be found to upgrade their skills, or the state needs to minimise the pain of those who stand to lose out. (Illustration: C R Sasikumar) 
Share
