Launch of Central Suspect Registry to Combat Cyber Crimes

Introduction
‍

India’s data centre sector is rapidly emerging as strategic national infrastructure at the centre of the country’s AI ambitions, fuelled by a combination of technological advancements and the global political economy. Estimates suggest that national data centre capacity is expected to rise from 1.2 GW in 2025 to almost 8 GW by 2030. With a funding of ₹10,372 crore, the IndiaAI Mission aims to establish domestic compute power and expand GPU infrastructure throughout the nation. Simultaneously, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 has introduced a form of “soft localisation,” empowering the government to mandate domestic storage for sensitive categories of data.

Together, this push for infrastructure aims to transform India from a passive data market into an active shaper of global data flows. Yet India’s current policy model differs significantly from the approaches being adopted in other major digital economies. A comparison with Singapore and the European Union reveals that while India is focused on aggressive data centre expansion, other jurisdictions are increasingly prioritising sustainability, efficiency, and digital sovereignty.

This raises a critical policy question: can India scale its AI infrastructure ambitions while accounting for the governance and resource challenges that other markets are now attempting to correct?
‍

India’s Incentive-Led AI Infrastructure Push
‍

India’s current approach to data centre expansion is fundamentally facilitative. The state is acting as an enabler of rapid private investment through fiscal incentives and infrastructure prioritisation.

The Union Budget 2022 had classified data centres as “infrastructure,” which enables developers to access cheaper institutional financing and long-term capital. The Union Budget 2026 further introduced tax holidays for foreign cloud providers using Indian facilities for global operations. At the state level, governments such as Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh are aggressively competing to attract hyperscale investments through electricity duty exemptions, expedited approvals, and “essential service” status designed to guarantee uninterrupted operations.

This approach reflects India’s broader strategic positioning. As global demand for AI compute accelerates, India seeks to establish itself not only as a major digital market, but as a sovereign compute hub for the Global South.

The IndiaAI Mission demonstrates this ambition clearly. By seeking to scale domestic GPU capacity to 100,000 units, the government is recognising that compute infrastructure is increasingly becoming geopolitically strategic. AI leadership will now depend on the ability to control and secure the physical infrastructure powering advanced AI systems.

However, while India’s policy framework strongly incentivises capacity creation, it remains relatively underdeveloped in areas such as sustainability benchmarks, resource management, and operational accountability.
‍

Singapore and the European Union: Governance After Scale
‍

Singapore and the European Union offer models of digital infrastructure governance as rapid infrastructure growth starts to raise resource and sovereignty issues.

With the limited energy resources and land at its disposal, Singapore has shifted from unrestricted data centre growth to a tightly managed sustainability-first model. Through the Data Centre Call for Application (DC-CFA) framework, only projects meeting strict efficiency and economic value criteria are approved. For instance, new facilities are expected to maintain Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) levels of 1.3 or lower and submit detailed water efficiency plans to comply with advanced environmental standards. The country has also developed tropical cooling standards that allow facilities to run at higher ambient temperatures, reducing cooling energy consumption significantly. Rather than uninhibited growth, Singapore is now geared towards growth efficiency.

The European Union, on the other hand, is pursuing a sovereignty-oriented governance model in response to geopolitical pressures. However, it is still introducing energy reporting requirements and waste heat recovery rules into digital infrastructure rules through the revised Energy Efficiency Directive and proposed EU Cloud and AI Development Act. Simultaneously, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is being used to investigate hyperscale cloud providers for potential “gatekeeper” behaviour, reflecting concerns about excessive concentration of digital infrastructure power in the hands of a few non-European firms. This approach shows that sovereignty and energy efficiency can go hand-in-hand.

These models illustrate an important trend: digital infrastructure governance is shifting from the promotion of investment to sustainability, competition regulation and strategic autonomy.
‍

India’s Emerging Governance Challenge
‍

India’s current trajectory and global geopolitical tensions suggest that pressures regarding sustainability and sovereignty are set to intensify over the next decade.

AI infrastructure is resource-intensive by design. For example, a single modern AI server rack can consume up to 250 kilowatts (kW) of power, compared to a traditional enterprise server rack which typically requires only 15 kW. Despite the use of water use effectiveness (WUE) technologies, the sheer volume of heat transfer means that AI data centres can still put immense pressure on local water resources, especially in warmer climates. These figures juxtaposed against hyperscale clusters mean the volumes of electricity, cooling systems, land, water, and high-density compute rise by significant orders of magnitude.  Yet most Indian policies remain overwhelmingly focused on fiscal incentives rather than long-term resource governance.

This creates the risk of a reactive policy cycle in which sustainability standards are introduced only after resource pressures become acute. Urban concentration, grid stress, water scarcity, and energy reliability may eventually force abrupt regulatory interventions which can lead to higher compliance costs and uncertainty in operations.

At the same time, India’s push for sovereign AI infrastructure also raises broader questions around digital sovereignty and institutional capacity. Procuring GPUs alone does not create an AI ecosystem. Secure hosting environments, skilled infrastructure personnel, cybersecurity preparedness, and interoperable governance mechanisms are equally essential.

This makes workforce development a strategic human resource development issue rather than simply an industrial challenge. Without sufficient thermal engineers, cybersecurity professionals, and digital infrastructure specialists, India’s infrastructure ambitions may struggle to translate into long-term resilience.
‍

Building Governance into the Expansion Phase
‍

India’s current “pre-regulatory” moment also presents a significant opportunity. Because the sector is still evolving, both policymakers and infrastructure actors have the ability to shape governance standards before constraints become restrictive.

It is vital to establishing national sustainability benchmarks through public-private technical partnerships, possibly under the aegis of of NITI Aayog, the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) and MeitY, before the next resource pressures dictate reactive regulation. Pilot “sustainability sandboxes” focused on liquid immersion cooling, renewable integration, battery energy storage systems, and water-efficient operations could help create evidence-based policy frameworks tailored to Indian conditions. Similarly, Likewise, collaborations with skilling institutions like NSDC and NIELIT can contribute to the development of dedicated digital infrastructure academies for thermal engineering, cybersecurity, and AI infrastructure management.

This would support India to progress towards a sovereign AI infrastructure stack, bringing together compute capacity, sustainability, capacity building and governance resilience into a seamless ecosystem.
‍

Conclusion
‍

With AI systems become increasingly utilised in finance, healthcare, governance, and public services, the infrastructure ecosystem supporting them will become equally politically and strategically significant. The choices India makes today to operationalise sustainability, skilling, competition, and sovereign compute capacity will shape the foundations of its future AI economy.

The central challenge is no longer whether India can become a major AI infrastructure hub. It is whether the country can transition from an incentive-led expansion model toward a governance framework that balances scale with sustainability, sovereignty, democratic accountability, and long-term resilience.

That transition may ultimately define the success of India’s AI century.
‍

References
‍

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/economic-survey-indias-data-centre-capacity-to-reach-about-8-gw-by-2030/article70566326.ece

https://indiaai.gov.in/news/cabinet-approves-india-ai-mission-at-an-outlay-of-rs-10-372-crore

https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/cross-border-data-transfers-and-data-localization-mandate-under-the-data-protection-regime/

https://www.sttelemediagdc.com/in-en/resources/what-does-infrastructure-status-mean-data-centre-industry

https://www.midcindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IT-ITES_Policy_2015.pdf

https://uplc.up.gov.in/en/page/uttar-pradesh-data-center-policy

https://www.imda.gov.sg/resources/press-releases-factsheets-and-speeches/press-releases/2025/sg-it-energy-efficiency-standard-for-data-centres-launched

‍

Introduction

Social media has emerged as a leading source of communication and information; its relevance cannot be ignored during natural disasters since it is relied upon by governments and disaster relief organisations as a tool for disseminating aid and relief-related resources and communications instantly. During disaster times, social media has emerged as a primary source for affected populations to access information on relief resources; community forums offering aid resources and official government channels for government aid have enabled efficient and timely administration of relief initiatives.

However, given the nature of social media, misinformation risks during natural disasters has also emerged as a primary concern that severely hampers aid administration during natural disasters. The disaster-disinformation network offers some sensationalised influential campaigns against communities at their most vulnerable. Victims who seek reliable resources during natural calamities often reach out to inhospitable campaigns and may experience delayed or lack of access to necessary healthcare, significantly impacting their recovery and survival. This delay can lead to worsening medical conditions and an increased death toll among those affected by the disaster. Victims may lack clear information on the appropriate agencies to seek assistance from, causing confusion and delays in receiving help. 

Misinformation Threat Landscape during Natural Disaster

During the 2018 floods in Kerala, it was noted that a fake video on water leakage from the Mullaperyar Dam created panic among the citizens and negatively impacted the rescue operations. Similarly, in 2017, reports emerged claiming that Hurricane Irma had caused sharks to be displaced onto a Florida highway. Similar stories, accompanied by the same image, resurfaced following Hurricanes Harvey and Florence. The disaster-affected nation may face international criticism and fail to receive necessary support due to its perceived inability to manage the crisis effectively. This lack of confidence from the global community can further exacerbate the challenges faced by the nation, leaving it more vulnerable and isolated in its time of need.

The spread of misinformation through social media severely hinders the administration of aid and relief operations during natural disasters since it hinders first responders' efforts to counteract and reduce the spread of misinformation, rumours, and false information and declines public trust in government, media, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who are often the first point of contact for both victims and officials due to their familiarity with the region and the community. In Moldova, it was noted that foreign influence has exploited the ongoing drought to create divisions between the semi-autonomous regions of Transnistria and Gagauzia and the central government in Chisinau. News coverage critical of the government leverages economic and energy insecurities to incite civil unrest in this already unstable region. Additionally, First responders may struggle to locate victims and assist them to safety, complicating rescue operations. The inability to efficiently find and evacuate those in need can result in prolonged exposure to dangerous conditions and a higher risk of injury or death.

Further, international aid from other countries could be impeded, affecting the overall relief effort. Without timely and coordinated support from the global community, the disaster response may be insufficient, leaving many needs unmet. Further, misinformation also impedes military, reducing the effectiveness of rescue and relief operations. Military assistance often plays a crucial role in disaster response, and any delays can hinder efforts to provide immediate and large-scale aid.

Misinformation also creates problems of allocation of relief resources to unaffected areas which resultantly impacts aid processes for regions in actual need. Following the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal, a Facebook post claimed that 300 houses in Dhading needed aid. Shared over 1,000 times, it reached around 350,000 people within 48 hours. The originator aimed to seek help for Ward #4’s villagers via social media. Given the average Facebook user has 350 contacts, the message was widely viewed. However, the need had already been reported on quakemap.org, a crisis-mapping database managed by Kathmandu Living Labs, a week earlier. Helping Hands, a humanitarian group was notified on May 7, and by May 11, Ward #4 received essential food and shelter. The re-sharing and sensationalisation of outdated information could have wasted relief efforts since critical resources would have been redirected to a region that had already been secured.

Policy Recommendations

Perhaps the most important step in combating misinformation during natural disasters is the increasing public education and the rapid, widespread dissemination of early warnings. This was best witnessed in the November 1970 tropical cyclone in southeastern Bangladesh, combined with a high tide, struck southeastern Bangladesh, leaving more than 300,000 people dead and 1.3 million homeless. In May 1985, when a comparable cyclone and storm surge hit the same area, local dissemination of disaster warnings was much improved and the people were better prepared to respond to them. The loss of life, while still high (at about 10,000), the numbers were about 3% of that in 1970. On a similar note, when a devastating cyclone struck the same area of Bangladesh in May 1994, fewer than 1,000 people died. In India, the 1977 cyclone in Andra Pradesh killed 10,000 people, but a similar storm in the same area 13 years later killed only 910. The dramatic difference in mortalities was owed to a new early-warning system connected with radio stations to alert people in low-lying areas. 

Additionally, location-based filtering for monitoring social media during disasters is considered as another best practice to curb misinformation. However, agencies should be aware that this method may miss local information from devices without geolocation enabled. A 2012 Georgia Tech study found that less than 1.4 percent of Twitter content is geolocated. Additionally, a study by Humanity Road and Arizona State University on Hurricane Sandy data indicated a significant decline in geolocation data during weather events.

Alternatively, Publish frequent updates to promote transparency and control the message. In emergency management and disaster recovery, digital volunteers—trusted agents who provide online support—can assist overwhelmed on-site personnel by managing the vast volume of social media data. Trained digital volunteers help direct affected individuals to critical resources and disseminate reliable information. 

Enhancing the quality of communication requires double-verifying information to eliminate ambiguity and reduce the impact of misinformation, rumors, and false information must also be emphasised. This approach helps prevent alert fatigue and "cry wolf" scenarios by ensuring that only accurate, relevant information is disseminated. Prioritizing ground truth over assumptions and swiftly releasing verified information or acknowledging the situation can bolster an agency's credibility. This credibility allows the agency to collaborate effectively with truth amplifiers. Prebunking and Debunking methods are also effective way to counter misinformation and build cognitive defenses to recognise red flags. Additionally, evaluating the relevance of various social media information is crucial for maintaining clear and effective communication.

References

1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40399-9#:~:text=Moreover%2C%20misinformation%20can%20create%20unnecessary,impacting%20the%20rescue%20operations29. 
2. https://www.redcross.ca/blog/2023/5/why-misinformation-is-dangerous-especially-during-disasters
3. https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blog/disinformation-during-natural-disasters-emerging-vulnerability‍
4. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/SMWG_Countering-False-Info-Social-M dia-Disasters-Emergencies_Mar2018-508.pdf

Executive Summary:

‍
A widely circulated claim on social media indicates that six soldiers of the Assam Rifles were killed during a retaliatory attack carried out by a Myanmar-based breakaway faction of the United Liberation Front of Asom (Independent), or ULFA (I). The post included a photograph of coffins covered in Indian flags with reference to soldiers who were part of the incident where ULFA (I) killed six soldiers. The post was widely shared, however, the fact-check confirms that the photograph is old, not related, and there are no trustworthy reports to indicate that any such incident took place. This claim is therefore false and misleading.

‍

‍

Claim:

‍
Social media users claimed that the banned militant outfit ULFA (I) killed six Assam Rifles personnel in retaliation for an alleged drone and missile strike by Indian forces on their camp in Myanmar with captions on it “Six Indian Army Assam Rifles soldiers have reportedly been killed in a retaliatory attack by the Myanmar-based ULFA group.”. The claim was accompanied by a viral post showing coffins of Indian soldiers, which added emotional weight and perceived authenticity to the narrative. 

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍
We began our research with a reverse image search of the image of coffins in Indian flags, which we saw was shared with the viral claim. We found the image can be traced to August 2013. We found the traces in  The Washington Post,  which confirms the fact that the viral snap is from the Past incident where five Indian Army soldiers were killed by Pakistani intruders in Poonch, Jammu, and Kashmir, on August 6, 2013. 

‍

‍

Also, The Hindu and India Today offered no confirmation of the death of six Assam Rifles personnel. However, ULFA (I) did issue a statement dated July 13, 2025, claiming that three of its leaders had been killed in a drone strike by Indian forces. 

‍

‍

However, by using Shutterstock, it depicts that the coffin's image is old and not representative of any current actions by the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA).

‍

‍

The Indian Army denied it, with Defence PRO Lt Col Mahendra Rawat telling reporters there were "no inputs" of such an operation. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also rejected that there was cross-border military action whatsoever. Therefore, the viral claim is false and misleading.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍
The assertion that ULFA (I) killed six soldiers from the 6th Assam Rifles in a retaliation strike is incorrect. The viral image used in these posts is from 2013 in Jammu & Kashmir and has no relevance to the present. There have been no verified reports of any such killings, and both the Indian Army and the Assam government have categorically denied having conducted or knowing of any cross-border operation. This faulty narrative is circulating, and it looks like it is only inciting fear and misinformation therefore, please ignore it.

• Claim: Report confirms the death of six Assam Rifles personnel in an ULFA-led attack.
• Claimed On: Social Media
• Fact Check: False and Misleading

‍