Panchamia urges shared AI development for developing nations

Indian cybersecurity entrepreneur Kunal Panchamia urged developing countries to pursue collaborative AI development at the AI for Developing Countries Forum in Geneva, arguing that smaller nations should not have to build every layer of the AI ecosystem on their own.

Panchamia, Founder & Chief Executive Officer of ePROTECT360, made the case during a discussion on whether small nations should build, buy or share AI. The session examined how smaller and developing economies should approach investment in AI infrastructure, models and related systems, along with the risks tied to cost, security and long-term dependence on outside providers.

He argued that AI sovereignty should not be treated as an all-or-nothing choice between full domestic development and reliance on foreign technology groups. Instead, countries should assess which parts of the AI stack need to remain under national control and where they can work with trusted partners or shared platforms.

The debate has grown more prominent as governments view AI not only as a commercial technology, but also as a matter of national competitiveness, public service delivery and strategic autonomy. For many developing countries, building a domestic AI ecosystem requires far more than access to a model.

It also requires computing infrastructure, energy supply, data resources, skilled workers, digital networks, cybersecurity measures and governance structures. For smaller economies with limited budgets or weaker technical infrastructure, those requirements can put domestic AI development out of reach.

Panchamia drew on the Indian idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, or The World Is One Family, to frame his argument for shared development. He said countries should contribute their existing strengths rather than try to recreate the entire technology chain independently.

"The question should not always be who owns the technology. We should also ask how we can bring together what each country already has and use those capabilities collectively for the benefit of society. The philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam reminds us that progress becomes more meaningful when it is shared," said Kunal Panchamia, Founder & Chief Executive Officer, ePROTECT360.

Build or share

The wider discussion in Geneva considered several options for smaller nations, from building their own AI systems and infrastructure to buying tools from international suppliers, adopting open technologies or joining shared regional and international arrangements.

One conclusion highlighted in the session analysis was that AI sovereignty does not necessarily depend on reproducing the whole stack within national borders. A more practical route starts with identifying a country's existing strengths, constraints and dependencies before deciding what should be built, bought or shared.

That approach is likely to resonate across parts of the Global South, where policymakers are trying to balance the promise of AI with concerns about affordability and external control. It also reflects a broader shift in the international AI debate away from simple comparisons with the largest technology economies.

Panchamia argued that developing nations could move more quickly if they treated their resources and expertise as complementary. In his view, collaboration would allow countries with different assets to combine them in ways that support wider access to AI.

"Every country has something to contribute. One may have technology, another may have talent, another may have infrastructure, data or a specific domain capability. If these strengths can come together through responsible and secure collaboration, developing countries can accelerate their AI journey rather than spending years trying to build everything independently," said Panchamia.

Security focus

Panchamia also tied the AI access debate to cybersecurity and digital resilience. As governments and operators of critical systems adopt AI in public services and infrastructure, security should be built into those systems from the start rather than addressed after deployment, he said.

That point aligns with concerns often raised by policymakers and security specialists about technological dependence, data protection and the resilience of essential services. Countries that adopt AI systems without corresponding safeguards may deepen vulnerabilities even as they expand digital services.

ePROTECT360, led by Panchamia, works in cybersecurity and digital resilience, and he linked its work to the broader policy discussion. He said the company had developed cybersecurity and AI-based tools intended to help protect critical infrastructure and government systems.

He also said those tools could be made available to government entities globally without commercial involvement, though he did not disclose further operational details. That placed his intervention in Geneva not only in the context of a policy debate, but also in relation to his company's work in the sector.

For smaller nations, the underlying question remains how to gain meaningful access to AI while retaining enough control over strategic systems and national data. The Geneva discussion suggested that the answer may lie less in self-sufficiency at all costs and more in selective control, careful procurement and trusted partnerships.

The summit centred on the role of smaller nations and developing-country ecosystems in shaping the future of AI. Its theme framed the debate around the idea that influence over AI development should not remain concentrated among a small number of leading technology powers.

"The AI conversation cannot stop at access. If developing countries are going to adopt AI at scale, they also need to think about cybersecurity, data readiness and resilience from the beginning. The objective should be to create AI ecosystems that are not only accessible, but also secure and sustainable," said Panchamia.