Digital sovereignty is not about banning Microsoft, AWS, Google or anyone else. It is about ensuring that we always have the capability to choose.
A recent development from China caught my attention.
China has been steadily working to reduce its dependence on foreign technology. Recent reports suggest that this effort is now extending further into government computing, with Microsoft Windows losing ground as China encourages domestically controlled alternatives.
What particularly interests me is that Open Source Software is playing an important role in this journey.
It would be easy to see this simply as another chapter in the technology rivalry between China and the United States.
I see a much larger question.
What can India learn from it?
Not whether we should ban Microsoft.
Not whether we should stop using AWS, Azure, Google, Oracle, SAP or other global technologies.
But whether India should ensure that our dependence on any technology never becomes so great that we lose our freedom of choice.
I call this Digital Freedom.
China Is Asking a Strategic Question
China’s effort to reduce dependence on foreign technology is not new.
For years, it has encouraged domestic operating systems, processors, cloud platforms and enterprise software. Recent reporting, including by Reuters, points to Microsoft’s declining position in parts of China’s government ecosystem amid Beijing’s continuing push towards domestically controlled technology.
Domestic operating systems such as Kylin and UnionTech UOS have emerged as alternatives, forming part of a broader domestic technology ecosystem that draws heavily upon open-source foundations.
There is an important lesson here.
Open Source does not mean simply downloading some free software from the Internet.
The larger opportunity is to use open technologies to develop domestic expertise, domestic products, domestic support ecosystems and ultimately greater control over critical technology infrastructure.
Whatever our views about China’s policies or its political system, the strategic question behind this effort deserves attention:
How dependent should a nation become on technology over which it ultimately has limited control?
Haven’t We Seen This Question Before?
Those who have followed my writing may remember that I raised a similar question earlier while discussing the experience of Nayara Energy in my article on digital sovereignty and geopolitical risk to infrastructure.
Following European Union sanctions against the company, Microsoft suspended certain technology services to Nayara. The company approached the Delhi High Court, arguing, among other things, that it held valid licences for Microsoft’s products and services.
Microsoft subsequently restored the services.
I referred to this episode earlier not because I wanted to criticise Microsoft.
And I bring it up again today for the same reason.
A multinational technology company operates across jurisdictions and has legal and regulatory obligations of its own.
My concern was not Microsoft. My concern was dependency.
The Nayara episode demonstrated that technology dependency can become intertwined with geopolitics.
The developments in China bring me back to the same subject - but from another direction.
China appears to be asking not merely how to manage technological dependency when it becomes a problem, but how to systematically reduce that dependency in the first place.
That deserves India’s attention.
A Subject Close to Me
Those who have followed my writing also know that Open Source and Digital Sovereignty are subjects particularly close to me.
I have written about them before - from why institutions resist unfamiliar technology choices to the power of choice in enterprise technology decisions to how open source platforms have evolved over 25 years.
And I will probably write about them again.
Not because Open Source is the answer to every technology problem. It isn’t.
Nor because proprietary technology is somehow undesirable. It isn’t.
These questions matter to me because they ultimately concern capability, resilience and freedom of choice.
Technology keeps changing.
Products will come and go.
Companies will rise and fall.
Geopolitical relationships may also change.
But the ability of a country, organisation or individual to understand its technology, evaluate alternatives and make informed choices will remain valuable.
That is why I increasingly prefer another expression:
Digital Freedom.
Digital Sovereignty Does Not Mean Digital Isolation
When we speak about technological sovereignty, the discussion can easily drift towards:
“Let’s replace all foreign technology.”
I don’t believe that should be India’s objective.
Microsoft has created extraordinary technologies.
AWS, Azure and Google Cloud have transformed computing.
Oracle, SAP and many other global companies have made enormous contributions to enterprise technology.
India should use the best technologies available wherever they make technical and economic sense.
But there is a fundamental difference between using a technology and having no viable alternative to it.
That distinction is at the heart of Digital Freedom.
True Digital Sovereignty is not isolation. It is Digital Freedom - the freedom to choose, the freedom to change and, when circumstances demand it, the freedom to walk away.
Open Source Changes the Equation
There was a time when technological independence would have meant building almost everything ourselves.
Imagine telling India that we must develop from scratch:
- operating systems,
- databases,
- cloud platforms,
- storage systems,
- container orchestration,
- identity platforms,
- cybersecurity systems,
- observability platforms,
- collaboration software,
- office productivity tools.
The investment would be enormous.
The time required could be measured in decades.
But something remarkable has happened.
The world has collectively created an enormous body of mature Open Source Software.
Linux. PostgreSQL. Kubernetes. OpenStack. Ceph. Keycloak. OpenTelemetry. LibreOffice. Nextcloud. And thousands of other projects.
Many of the world’s largest technology companies themselves build upon and contribute heavily to Open Source.
That fundamentally changes the question for India.
Instead of asking:
“Can India recreate everything global technology companies have built?”
perhaps we should ask:
“Can India build the expertise, products, services and businesses required to operate critical digital infrastructure using open technologies?”
That is a far more achievable objective.
But Open Source Is Not Automatically Sovereign
There is another mistake we must avoid.
Installing Linux instead of Windows does not automatically create Digital Sovereignty.
Downloading OpenStack does not create an Indian cloud ecosystem.
Using PostgreSQL does not by itself eliminate technological dependency.
Software is only one layer.
Digital Freedom requires capability.
We need engineers who understand these technologies deeply.
We need organisations capable of implementing and supporting them.
We need security expertise.
We need documentation and training.
We need enterprise-grade operations and support.
We need data centres and infrastructure.
We need people contributing back to the open-source projects upon which we depend.
Most importantly, we need an ecosystem.
And where do we begin building such an ecosystem?
Perhaps one of the most important places is our educational institutions.
Digital Freedom Can Begin in Our Classrooms
This, I believe, deserves much more discussion.
Our engineering colleges and universities already have relationships with technology companies such as Microsoft, AWS, Google, Oracle and many others.
These relationships can be enormously valuable.
Students receive access to technologies, cloud credits, laboratories, certifications, training, research opportunities and exposure to platforms widely used by industry.
We should not turn those opportunities away.
Digital Freedom is about creating choices, not removing them.
But perhaps we should reconsider what constitutes the foundation of technology education.
Instead of beginning cloud education with:
“Here is the AWS console.”
begin with:
What is compute?
What is storage?
What is networking?
How does virtualisation work?
How do containers work?
How does orchestration work?
How do distributed systems behave?
Let students build.
Let them break things.
Let them understand what happens underneath.
Let them work with Linux, Kubernetes, OpenStack, Ceph and other open technologies.
Then introduce AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and other commercial platforms as powerful implementations and extensions of those concepts.
The same principle can apply elsewhere.
Learn databases deeply - perhaps using PostgreSQL or another open-source database - and then learn Oracle, SQL Server and cloud database platforms.
Learn identity standards and protocols, and then learn the products implementing them.
Learn observability concepts and open standards, and then explore commercial observability platforms.
In other words:
Teach technology first. Teach products second.
Open Source as the Foundation, Not the Limitation
This does not mean every student must ultimately choose Open Source.
Quite the opposite.
The objective of education should not be to decide which technology a student must choose.
Education should equip the student to make informed choices based on the requirement.
There will be situations where AWS is clearly the right solution.
There will be situations where Azure is appropriate.
There will be workloads for which Oracle makes perfect business sense.
And there will be situations where an OpenStack private cloud, PostgreSQL, Linux or another open-source solution provides greater control, lower cost or better strategic flexibility.
An engineer should understand enough to know the difference.
That leads to a principle I believe is worth considering:
Let Open Source provide the foundation. Let proprietary platforms provide additional choices. Let the requirement determine the solution.
That is not Open Source fanaticism.
It is technological pragmatism.
A product-trained engineer knows how to operate a platform.
A technology-trained engineer understands the problem well enough to choose the platform.
And that ability to choose is where Digital Freedom begins.
From Academic Programme to Entrepreneurship Programme
The implications extend well beyond education.
Digital Sovereignty need not only be a government programme.
It could become an academic programme.
It could become an entrepreneurship programme.
Imagine engineering colleges not merely teaching Open Source, but actively participating in it.
Students could contribute to established global OSS projects.
Universities could operate their own open-source clouds.
Research teams could work on security, distributed systems, sovereign cloud infrastructure and open standards.
Students could solve India-specific technology problems.
And some of those projects could become startups.
This creates an interesting cycle:
Academia → Skills → Open Source Contributions → Innovation → Entrepreneurship → Employment → National Capability → Digital Freedom
That is a very different way of looking at Digital Sovereignty.
It stops being merely a government procurement question.
It becomes an economic opportunity.
What If India Created Thousands of Open-Source Businesses?
Imagine hundreds - eventually thousands - of Indian companies specialising in areas such as:
Linux support. Private cloud implementation. OpenStack infrastructure. Kubernetes platforms. Open-source databases. Cybersecurity. Storage. Observability. Collaboration platforms. Sovereign cloud services. AI infrastructure. Government technology platforms.
Instead of asking only:
“Who will build India’s alternative to AWS?”
perhaps we should also ask:
“Can we enable hundreds of Indian entrepreneurs to build cloud and technology businesses using Open Source?”
Some may operate nationally.
Some may serve specific industries.
Some may operate from regional data centres.
Some may specialise in government requirements.
Some may support MSMEs.
Some may build highly specialised technology platforms.
And many may build products and services that we cannot even anticipate today.
Suddenly Digital Sovereignty becomes much more than a technology discussion.
It becomes about education.
It becomes about entrepreneurship.
It becomes about employment.
It becomes about innovation.
And ultimately, it becomes about nation building.
India Already Has Much of What We Need
India does not lack engineering talent.
Indian engineers already build and operate some of the world’s largest technology systems.
Our professionals work with Linux, Kubernetes, databases, cybersecurity, cloud infrastructure and Open Source every day.
Our IT services industry serves enterprises across the world.
We have startups.
We have data centres.
We have universities and engineering colleges.
We have one of the world’s largest pools of technology professionals.
And we have access to perhaps the largest collaborative technology repository humanity has ever created:
the global Open Source ecosystem.
We don’t have to withdraw from this global ecosystem to achieve Digital Freedom.
Quite the opposite.
We should participate more deeply in it.
Use it. Understand it. Contribute to it. Build businesses around it.
And develop generations of engineers who know not merely how to consume technology, but how technology itself works.
Don’t Ban. Build.
India does not need to respond to technological dependency by closing itself to the world.
Use Microsoft when Microsoft is the right solution.
Use AWS when AWS is the right solution.
Use Google. Use Oracle. Use SAP.
Use the best technology available for the requirement.
But simultaneously:
Build alternatives.
Develop skills.
Contribute to Open Source.
Encourage Indian products built upon open standards.
Build domestic support organisations.
Encourage sovereign infrastructure.
Create opportunities for entrepreneurs.
And ensure that critical systems have viable alternatives.
The philosophy can be remarkably simple:
Don’t ban. Build.
Don’t isolate. Create alternatives.
Don’t replace one dependency with another. Build capability.
Digital Freedom Begins with the Capability to Choose
The Nayara episode reminded us that technological dependency can have consequences far beyond technology.
China’s continuing push towards domestic and open-source-based alternatives shows how seriously another major economy is thinking about technological dependence.
India does not need to copy China’s model.
We should create our own.
One suited to an open democracy, a globally connected economy and one of the world’s strongest technology talent pools.
I keep returning to Open Source and Digital Sovereignty because I believe India has an unusual opportunity.
We have the engineers.
We have the educational institutions.
We have an enormous entrepreneurial ecosystem.
And unlike nations that had to build their technology foundations decades ago, we now have access to mature open-source technologies created collaboratively across the world.
The opportunity is not to withdraw from that world.
It is to participate in it deeply enough that we always retain the freedom to choose.
Perhaps the first step towards Digital Sovereignty isn’t replacing anything at all.
It is creating awareness.
Building capability.
Giving our students broader foundations.
Encouraging our entrepreneurs to build alternatives.
Helping our enterprises understand the choices available to them.
And creating an ecosystem capable of supporting those choices.
Let Open Source provide the foundation. Let proprietary platforms provide additional choices. Let the requirement determine the solution.
Because ultimately:
Digital Freedom begins with the capability to choose.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Digital Freedom?
Digital Freedom is the ability of a nation, organisation, or individual to understand its technology, evaluate alternatives, and make informed choices without being locked into any single vendor or platform. It is not about rejecting global technology but about ensuring the capability to choose, change, or walk away when circumstances require it.
Is India trying to ban foreign technology like China?
No. India’s approach need not mirror China’s. Rather than seeking to replace foreign technology as an objective in itself, Digital Freedom means building the capability and ecosystem so that Indian enterprises and government always have viable alternatives. Use the best technology for the requirement, but ensure critical systems are never dependent on a single external provider with no fallback.
How does open source help India achieve Digital Freedom?
Open source provides mature, production-ready alternatives across the entire technology stack - from operating systems (Linux) to databases (PostgreSQL) to cloud infrastructure (OpenStack, Kubernetes). Instead of building everything from scratch, India can develop domestic expertise, support ecosystems, and businesses around these proven technologies. The investment shifts from recreating software to building capability.
What role should education play in Digital Freedom?
Engineering education should teach technology fundamentals before specific products. Students who understand compute, storage, networking, and distributed systems at a conceptual level can evaluate any platform intelligently. Begin with open technologies to build deep understanding, then introduce commercial platforms as implementations. A product-trained engineer knows how to operate a platform. A technology-trained engineer understands the problem well enough to choose the platform.
Can Digital Freedom create economic opportunities?
Yes. Digital Freedom reframes sovereignty from a government procurement question into an entrepreneurship opportunity. India could develop hundreds of companies specialising in open-source support, sovereign cloud services, cybersecurity, and government technology platforms. The cycle runs from academia to skills to open source contributions to innovation to entrepreneurship - creating employment and national capability simultaneously.
What happened with Nayara Energy and why does it matter?
In 2025, Nayara Energy temporarily lost access to critical Microsoft cloud services due to compliance interpretations linked to EU sanctions - not due to any technical failure. Access was restored after legal escalation, but the incident demonstrated that technology dependency can become intertwined with geopolitics. It showed that access to mission-critical technology services can be affected by geopolitical and regulatory decisions originating beyond India’s borders.