When Can We Truly Call a Technology Product 
“Indigenous”?
As a technology and innovation enthusiast, I have been thinking about an important question:
When we say that a technology product is “Made in India” or “Indian technology”, what exactly should that mean?
For a smartphone, for example, is assembling the final product in India enough?
Or should we look deeper into the complete technology stack?
Design → Architecture → Hardware Engineering → PCB Design → Components → Firmware → Operating System → Security → AI/Software → Manufacturing → Testing → Productization
There is nothing wrong with global sourcing, contract manufacturing or assembly. In fact, these are important stages in building a strong technology and manufacturing ecosystem.
But there is a significant difference between:
Made in India
Designed, engineered, owned and innovated in India.
The more interesting question is therefore not simply:
“Where was the product assembled?”
“How much of the underlying technology and intellectual property was actually created and owned here?”
For genuinely indigenous technology, I would love to see greater transparency around questions such as:
Who designed the overall product architecture?
Who owns the underlying hardware and software IP?
How much of the hardware engineering happens in India?
Which components are locally developed and which are globally sourced?
How much of the firmware and operating-system stack is developed and maintained locally?
What proprietary engineering has been created by the Indian teams?
Where does the product's AI and software innovation originate?
How much of the R&D investment and resulting IP remains within India?
Ultimately, how much of the technology value chain is owned by Indian companies and engineers?
This distinction matters far beyond smartphones.
Semiconductors
AI
Computer Vision
Robotics
Automotive Technology
Drones
Industrial Automation
Cyber Security
Cloud Platforms
Defence Technology
Consumer Electronics
India has already demonstrated that it can build world-class engineering talent and increasingly sophisticated products.
The next challenge is even bigger:
Can we move from being a major market and manufacturing destination to becoming a major owner of global technology IP?
That, to me, is the real measure of technological self-reliance. And this isn't about criticizing any particular company or product.
It is about asking a generic technology question that I believe deserves a serious discussion among India's engineers, founders, researchers and technology leaders.
What should be the technical criteria for calling a product genuinely “Indian technology”?
I'd love to hear different perspectives — particularly from people involved in product engineering, hardware, semiconductors, software architecture, AI, manufacturing and R&D.
Let's have a technically informed conversation. Leave your Thoughts on this below.
Hari Kishan is the Chief Technology Officer at Pancait Smart Systems,
where he leads the design and development of AI-powered Computer Vision
platforms for intelligent surveillance, Edge AI, and smart
infrastructure. His work focuses on building scalable AI systems that
bridge advanced research with practical real-world deployments across
public safety, enterprise security, and intelligent city applications.
Resume
Personal Portfolio
LinkedIn
Email
Company
Product Demonstrations
Pancait on YouTube
About Pancait Smart Systems
Pancait Smart Systems is
an Indian technology company focused on AI-powered Computer Vision,
intelligent video analytics, Edge AI, and smart surveillance solutions.
The company is committed to developing indigenous AI technologies that
help governments, enterprises, and institutions transform conventional
camera infrastructure into intelligent, real-time decision support
systems.
