While our Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi swears by “Made in India” the reference to 26 ISO standards in the AI guidelines indicates that MeitY is not concerned with such indigenization of industry efforts.
This was once pointed out by the undersigned in 2011 when Section 43A rules were notified where MeitY became the marketing agency for ISO 27001 standards. This same mindset is reflected in the guidelines where instead of developing our own standard for compliance we are still interested in promoting only and only ISO standards.
I wish the committee had recognized that there are efforts already for development of indigenous frameworks of compliance such as DGPSI or Data Governance and Protection Standard of India which is better than ISO27701:2025. The extended version DGPSI-AI has suggested compliance measures for DPDPA Compliance which include all the recommendations that this guideline suggests ( as would be specifically pointed out in subsequent articles). But the research of the Committee or the pressure to support non-indigenous standards must have over weighed the considerations of the committee and suppressed mention of any reference to DGPSI or similar efforts.
I am disappointed with the Chairman Dr Balaraman for not making a reference to the framework DGPSI and DGPSI-AI while finalizing the report.
DGPSI-AI could be considered as a framework which is a single indigenous framework which is good enough for compliance over the 26 or more ISO standards pointed out in the report and would have hurt the interests of promoters of ISO standards. Perhaps these forces must have worked in suppressing the information on the existence of DGPSI framework which is a boon for SMEs to remain compliant with an affordable cost.
This would be considered as a failure of the Committee.
P.S: I am aware that my comments could create an adverse backlash on me but truth has to be told. If such committees headed by academic persons exhibit influence of vested interests, it has to be called out. Naavi will not be Naavi without pointing out such deficiencies of the system. My advise to the committee members is “Be-Indian and Encourage Made in India efforts” . It is not enough if we call the mission as “India AI mission” and the guidelines as “India AI Guidelines”. The Indianness has to reflect through the actions and not remain in the name. If DGPSI-AI did not merit a mention at least on Page 56 under Types of Voluntary frameworks, it only indicates that the Committee has not conducted proper literature research…or it was deliberately suppressed by vested interests.
Naavi
