Google’s recent showcase at the I/O Connect India 2025 in Bengaluru was undeniably grand. The tech giant celebrated what it claims are innovative uses of its latest AI models by Indian startups, presenting a narrative of progress and collaboration. But beneath this glossy veneer lies a complex web of corporate influence, strategic positioning, and a cloud of skepticism about who truly benefits from these developments. While the headlines focus on how these startups are harnessing Google’s AI tools to democratize innovation, a critical examination raises questions about the authenticity of such empowerment.
Contrary to idealistic portrayals, Google’s involvement may reinforce its dominance rather than decentralize it. By funneling Indian startups into its extensive AI ecosystem, Google consolidates its control over the burgeoning tech landscape. The narrative of “support” masks a subtle form of technological imperialism—where local innovation is shaped and steered by a global giant, effectively making Indian startups dependent on Google’s infrastructure and policies. This creates a paradox: startups appear to be gaining independence, but in reality, they are tethered to a platform that prioritizes its strategic interests.
Selective Showcases and Manufactured Innovation
The startups—Sarvam, CoRover, Glance, Entri, Invideo, Nykaa, Toonsutra—are proudly displaying their AI-powered applications built with Google’s latest language and image models. Yet, a deeper probe reveals that many of these applications are mere iterations of existing concepts, enhanced primarily through Google’s proprietary technology. For example, Sarvam’s translation tool and Invideo’s video creation platform look impressive on paper but are extensions of Google’s pre-existing AI frameworks, benefiting from sophisticated infrastructure that most local entrepreneurs cannot replicate independently.
This selective showcase of success also overlooks the fact that not all startups enjoy equal access or expertise. The most visible ones are likely those with prior ties to Google or those operating in sectors where Google’s AI is advantageous. Emerging local talents or more modest players often still struggle with the same infrastructural gaps, making Google’s “support” seem more like a strategic showcase rather than a true effort at democratization of innovation.
The Double-Edged Sword of AI Dependency
What is most concerning is the narrative that these innovations are “Indian-driven” when, in fact, they heavily rely on Google’s cloud-based AI services. Startups like Dashverse and Toonsutra can produce films and comics, but their tools are powered by Google’s models like Gemini, Veo, and Lyria. This dependency creates a fragile ecosystem where local creativity defaults to the capabilities of a foreign platform. The risk is not just about technological dependence but also about cultural homogenization—where Indian stories, languages, and nuances are shaped by a corporate lens that may not always appreciate indigenous contexts.
Furthermore, the rapid roll-out of AI tools often leaves ethical and societal questions unaddressed. For instance, the use of AI in Indian languages and cultural content has implications for representation—are these models truly capturing the diversity and richness of Indian expressions, or are they standardizing them into more generic forms? The narrative of innovation becomes problematic if it ceases to be rooted in local realities and instead is dictated by corporate priorities.
Power, Profit, and the Promise of a Digital Future
While Google’s “accelerator” programs tout their support for over 230 startups in India, the underlying motive appears to be consolidating market dominance rather than fostering genuine innovation. These initiatives serve to cement Google’s position as the core infrastructure for India’s digital economy—thereby shaping the future not necessarily for the Indian people but for Google’s continued profitability.
The optimism surrounding AI’s potential to revolutionize sectors like education, retail, and entertainment must be tempered by skepticism. When powerhouses like Google control the pathways of technological development, questions about data ownership, privacy, and societal impact become all the more urgent. Is India truly gaining control over its digital destiny, or is this just a new chapter of dependency veiled as progress?
In this landscape, the focus should shift from celebratory headlines to critical engagement. Stakeholders—including policymakers, developers, and civil society—must demand transparency and assert greater agency over how AI models are deployed and who truly benefits from these technological advancements. The promise of democratizing innovation can only be realized if Indian startups evolve into truly autonomous entities—not mere extensions of a global tech giant’s ecosystem. Until then, the narrative of empowerment risks being a well-crafted illusion.
Leave a Reply