White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Saturday once again created a stir by saying that US resources – land, power etc – are supporting the use of AI in India. During a conversation with influential podcaster Steve Bannon, Navarro asked, “Why are Americans paying for AI in India?” This question has sparked a debate over who bears the costs of AI operations: American taxpayers, AI companies like OpenAI, or someone else? Navarro essentially said that American companies are doing charity in India by offering AI services and tools cheaply. He is also completely wrong in saying this.

On the podcast, Navarro questioned the logic of US infrastructure supporting international AI users, particularly in India and China. “ChatGPT is operating on US soil, using US electricity, serving, for example, India and China and ChatGPT’s large users around the world,” he stressed.

Outside the US, India is the largest market for ChatGPT. Be it ChatGPT downloads, active and daily usage, its adoption is skyrocketing. This much is clear, and Navarro is right in saying this.

But he is wrong in saying that access to AI tools and services of companies like OpenAI, Google and Perplexity in India is some kind of donation from these companies. He is forgetting that neither OpenAI nor Google is a charity. These are mega corporations, and their only intention is to make profits now or in the future. And for this imaginary benefit, American AI companies are offering ChatGPT, Gemini, Microsoft Copilot and Perplexity at discounted prices. In fact, AI tools are free in India for a limited time, even a year in some cases, as they have been offered to users through various bundles in partnership with Airtel and Jio.

But there are some reasons. And that’s not to explain what Google, OpenAI, Microsoft and others are doing in India. Two special reasons.

AI companies need usage data from Indians

The biggest reason why OpenAI and others are introducing AI tools so readily in India is their hunger for data. These are early days in AI development and AI companies need more and more unique data to train and improve their ChatGPTS and Geminis. This unique data can only come from users because all other data – read all Internet data – is already publicly available and already exhausted for AI training. India, because it is one of the largest markets for users, is a place where OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic and others can gain valuable user data.

It is this hunger for data that has made American AI companies join hands with Indian telecom companies like Airtel and Jio to provide free access to AI tools. In fact, contrary to Navarro’s implication, easy access to ChatGPT in India is not a donation by OpenAI. It is actually benefiting from the unpaid training and free data that Indian users are giving to the company’s AI systems.

fighting the Chinese in India

Another reason why American companies are making every possible effort to woo Indian users is the future business prospects. We’ve seen this time and again in the tech world. In the early days of any new technology there is huge competition among companies. But once the dust settles, that’s usually the case and the winner takes all. Currently in the AI ​​field, American companies such as OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic are not only competing with each other, but they are also trying to limit the spread and reach of Chinese AI models such as DeepSeek, which is a major threat to their future business prospects. For example, DeepSeek is significantly cheaper than AI offerings from American companies. And it’s also open source, and so offers flexibility to enterprise customers that ChatGPT or Google Gemini doesn’t.

With the odds stacked against them in their battle with Alibaba and DeepSeek, monopolistic US tech companies are trying to push their AI into as many countries as possible. Clearly, India is going to become one of the largest markets for AI tools and services. Achieving this at this stage, even by offering cheap or free access to AI, would make a lot of sense for companies like Google and OpenAI.

This makes Navarro’s comments not only controversial but completely wrong. A technology company’s power and profits come from users and the data they provide to that company. The reality in this context is that India is not benefiting from American AI companies. Instead, it is in net loss. India would probably be better off in the long run if it had its own indigenous AI systems and tools. In other words, neither are American companies offering their AI services in India out of the goodness of their hearts, nor is India using their equipment in the name of friendship and goodwill. It’s all determined by necessity. On both sides.