In 1991, the Indian government articulated a ‘Look East’ policy with an aim to build extensive economic and strategic relations with its Eastern neighbours and SE Asia. This was different from the traditional ‘West facing’ outlook, where we looked to learn from Europe and North America. In the coming age of AI, India is now considering how it should both foster and regulate this powerful new technology which can reshape industry, society, and geopolitics. AI promises huge economic and social benefits, but there are concerns around copyright, human rights violations, privacy and fairness. For instance, the issue of deepfakes clouded the recent elections, with fears of subverting democracy. For regulating AI, should India look West towards the EU and its AI Act or at the US and UK which are considering more BigTech friendly regimes?

I believe that India should bring back its Look East philosophy and look and learn from another large democracy: Japan. Japan has been quietly building an AI regulatory regime which balances the need for integrating AI safely and responsibly in society along with building an environment for innovation and domestic development of AI. It sees AI as the lever with which it can leapfrog decades of stagnation in its innovation and tech ecosystem. Similarly, AI can also provide a strong impetus for India to craft a society and industry to help it reach a developed nation Viksit Bharat status by 2047.

Japan effectively leveraged the 2023 G7 Summit, where the Hiroshima AI process gave a clarion call for its members to explore various frameworks and possibilities to promote and regulate AI. It was no coincidence that the Summit was in Hiroshima, with its stark reminder on what could happen if a technology was used wrongly. Two principal approaches emerged: the ‘hard law-based’ approach with strict obligations as evidenced by the EU AI Act and Chinese regulation, and the ‘soft law-based’ one, which stresses on non-binding guidance and principles. Japan leans more towards the latter, and so should India.

So, what is Japan’s approach. Inge Odendaal of Stellenbosch University describes the principles very well in her paper (https://bit.ly/3Volng1):

• The Government acts as a facilitator: AI is a complex ecosystem of technologies, and the Japanese government prefers to be a facilitator rather than the sole creator of innovation. It acknowledges the private sector as the primary driver and activates its governance institutions and departments to help them. The Foreign Affairs Ministry coordinated the Hiroshima process, for example, and the Cultural Affairs ministry is looking at copyright. This is a perfect template for India: the government should make our strong tech private sector as the centre, and have MIETY, Law Ministry, and even the Information and Broadcasting ministry and institutions play an enabling role.

• Focused Funding and Investment: Japan has created a large fund for GenAI, domestic data centres, and domestic chip production. The fund is deployed as incentives and subsidies, in partnership with cloud computing providers and domestic and international tech companies. India has a similar fund created as part of the India AI Mission. However, the difference is that large parts of the Indian funds are being used to procure GPUs centrally, and not decentralise innovation as the Japanese are doing.

• Effective Government-Academia-Industry Collaboration: The AI Japan R&D Network works across universities, research institutes, private sector, and global tech companies to recommend policies around AI R&D, companies. India is carrying out something similar in AI; we already have the requisite constituents with our IITs and IISc, robust private sector, and a strong global tech presence.

• Building Domestic Competence: Japan is looking to build its own LLM; India has a raft of them being built, and they would benefit greatly from government support and collaboration. We also have a proven expertise in building citizen technology with our DPI initiatives like Aadhar, UPI, etc. which was built through collaborative and innovative philosophies. We can use a similar model to build out GenAI as a public good.

• Then, there is the philosophical argument: Western and Eastern societies differ considerably in their idea of fundamental societal issues like privacy and data usage, for instance. In my research at Cambridge University, I realised that the Western idea of privacy being the ‘right to be left alone’ was quite different from the Eastern notion of ‘collective or societal privacy’.

AI is both transformational and inevitable. As it shapes industry, society, humanity and the global world order, the world’s most populous country cannot afford to be left behind. Other countries are racing to set up frameworks around innovation and regulation, and Indian regulators and policy makers need to step up the urgency here. As they do so, they would be well served to look at Japan, a country with similar cultural traits, combined with a hard-nosed approach which effectively balances innovation and regulation.