Living on borrowed AI won’t end well for India, warn experts

Anthropic’s suspension of access to its advanced Mythos and Fable models after a US government directive has sparked a debate over whether India is becoming overly reliant on advanced artificial intelligence technologies that are controlled by foreign entities. Policy experts and researchers caution that India can no longer assume it will have continued access to essential AI capabilities.

The US government directive came shortly after India had secured access to the company’s highly guarded AI systems.

Experts say the development is not merely about one AI model being withdrawn. Instead, it has exposed a deeper vulnerability in India’s AI ambitions.


“It is arguably the most visceral example of the risks of depending on frontier AI controlled outside India, because access vanished overnight by government order rather than commercial choice,” said Subimal Bhattacharjee, a technology policy analyst. “The gap between what’s economically rational today and what’s strategically safe long term has rarely been so visible.”

According to Bhattacharjee, dependence on foreign AI infrastructure is not new. India has long relied on foreign chips, cloud infrastructure, and digital platforms. However, the Anthropic episode made an abstract risk feel immediate by showing how access to frontier AI capabilities can ultimately depend on decisions taken outside the country.

The incident has also raised questions over whether India risks becoming an AI adopter rather than an AI power.

“A country becomes an AI power when it possesses meaningful influence over the foundational layers of the AI stack,” said Kazim Rizvi, policy analyst and founder of public policy think tank The Dialogue. Those layers include advanced models, compute infrastructure, semiconductor access, data ecosystems, and the ability to shape how AI systems are deployed, he said.

Rizvi said, “The issue is not merely access to one Anthropic model, but the fact that a capability relevant to cyber defence, vulnerability discovery, and critical infrastructure security could be withdrawn through decisions taken outside India."

He added that nations relying entirely on external providers remain vulnerable to export controls, geopolitical tensions, and shifting regulatory priorities. “Frontier AI should now be treated as strategic infrastructure, not merely as a commercial software service," he said.

Sarang Nerkar, former researcher and founder of Innosapien Technologies, said the episode should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers and enterprises alike.

“It is not access to data that is being restricted. It is the model itself. The algorithmic layer is being controlled from abroad, and that is something we should take very seriously,” Nerkar said.

He cautioned that organisations building critical systems around frontier AI models need to carefully assess their dependence on technologies they do not control. “Imagine if access were suddenly restricted to a model that an organisation had relied on for two years. Entire workflows and dependencies could be affected,” he said.

The episode has also raised concerns about the concentration of power in the global AI ecosystem.

“The incident is less about Mythos or Anthropic and more about the structural reality of today’s AI ecosystem,” said Mishi Choudhary, founder of Software Freedom Law Center India. “A handful of companies and governments control the most advanced models, the compute infrastructure, and often the terms of access.”

Choudhary said the answer is not technological isolation but greater resilience through open-source AI, public-interest research, stronger domestic capabilities, and procurement policies that reduce dependence on any single provider.

As access to frontier AI increasingly becomes a geopolitical issue, experts argue India will need significantly greater investments in research, compute infrastructure and domestic AI capabilities if it wants a meaningful role in shaping the next phase of the global AI race.