Cited by 230Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Digitalization, Law, and Regulation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 129 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond

Open access
Sambasivan, Nithya, Arnesen, Erin, Hutchinson, Ben, Doshi, Tulsee, Prabhakaran, Vinodkumar·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Abstract

Conventional algorithmic fairness is West-centric, as seen in its subgroups, values, and methods. In this paper, we de-center algorithmic fairness and analyse AI power in India. Based on 36 qualitative interviews and a discourse analysis of algorithmic deployments in India, we find that several assumptions of algorithmic fairness are challenged. We find that in India, data is not always reliable due to socio-economic factors, ML makers appear to follow double standards, and AI evokes unquestioning aspiration. We contend that localising model fairness alone can be window dressing in India, where the distance between models and oppressed communities is large. Instead, we re-imagine algorithmic fairness in India and provide a roadmap to re-contextualise data and models, empower oppressed communities, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper de-centers West-centric algorithmic fairness by analyzing AI power in India through 36 expert interviews and discourse analysis, arguing that core fairness assumptions about reliable data, unbiased ML makers, and accountable ecosystems fail in the Indian context. It proposes a roadmap to re-contextualise data and models, empower oppressed communities, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems rather than only localising model fairness.

Key findings

  • Data and model distortions: datasets are not always reliable due to socio-economic factors; half the Indian population lacks Internet access, with the excluded half primarily women, rural communities, and Adivasis; 67% of Internet users are male; models overfit digitally-rich profiles, typically middle-class men; caste, gender, and religion require different fairness implementations.
  • Double standards and distance by ML makers: Indian users are perceived as “bottom billion” data subjects and “petri dishes” for intrusive models, with poor recourse; AI makers are described as distant and largely privileged class/caste males, e.g., Dalit sanitation workers tracked with microphones, GPS, cameras, and SIMs.
  • Unquestioning AI aspiration: AI is aspirational in the Indian state, media, and legislation and is adopted early in high-stakes domains, while a weak ecosystem of journalists, researchers, and activists inhibits meaningful fairness; of 138 FAccT papers in 2019–2020, only one substantially engaged a non-Western context—Marda’s paper on New Delhi’s predictive policing.
  • Proposed roadmap: re-contextualise data and models, empower oppressed communities through participatory action, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems; reservations are discussed as an Indic justice approach, with quotas ranging from 30% to 80% depending on policy.

Methods

  • Qualitative interviews with 36 expert researchers, activists, and lawyers working closely with marginalised Indian communities: Computer Science (11), Activism (9), Law and Public Policy (6), Science and Technology Studies (5), Development Economics (2), Sociology (2), and Journalism (1); all had 10–30 years of experience; 24 were based in India, 2 in Europe, 1 in Southeast Asia, and the rest in the USA; 25 self-identified as male, 10 as female, and 1 as non-binary.
  • Semi-structured one-hour interviews in English via video conferencing, captured through field notes and video recordings; recruitment used purposeful sampling until saturation; respondents were compensated except government employees; transcripts were inductively coded with seven top-level categories and analysed using feminist, decolonial, and anti-caste lenses.
  • Discourse analysis of algorithmic deployments and emerging policies in India starting from Aadhaar (2009), including Indian news publications, policy documents, community media, and prior research.

Limitations

  • Stated: the authors acknowledge that their interpretations of research ethics may not be universal, and that all authors come from privileged positions of class and/or caste; three authors are Indian and two are White.
  • Stated: the concerns raised may also be true of other countries, and the broader goal should be global approaches to Fair-ML; the authors describe the challenges as large and open-ended.
  • Evident from the text: the sample consists of 36 experts rather than directly affected community members, interviews were conducted in English, recruitment was purposive, 25 of 36 respondents were male, and the discourse analysis relies on secondary sources; findings are qualitative and interpretive rather than statistically generalizable.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3442188.3445896

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 129 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 74 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 56
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 51
91 of 91
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a lack of substantial policy or research on advancing algorithmic fairness for India's large AI-interfacing population.

    “Despite the momentum on high-stakes AI systems, currently there is a lack of substantial policy or research on advancing algorithmic fairness for such a large population interfacing with AI.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    India is on a unique path to AI characterised by pluralism, socio-economic development, technocratic nationbuilding, and uneven AI capital.

    “We contend that India is on a unique path to AI, characterised by pluralism, socio-economic development, technocratic nationbuilding, and uneven AI capital-which requires us to confront many assumptions made in algorithmic fairness.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The views and experiences reported by the interview respondents are representative enough of Indian AI practices to support general conclusions about India.

    “We presented a qualitative study and discourse analysis of algorithmic power in India, and found that algorithmic fairness assumptions are challenged in the Indian context.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • SEWA citation points to an unrelated reference

    Minor

    The text cites reference [10] for SEWA, but reference 10 is an article about cow-related violence. SEWA appears as reference 9.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 141 references

6 of the 141 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Fairness in machine learning. NIPS Tutorial 1 (2017).
  2. Alexander Bogner, Beate Littig, and Wolfgang Menz. 2009. Interviewing experts. Springer.
  3. C Boyes-Watson. 2014. Suffolk University, College of Arts & Sciences. Center for Restorative Justice. Retrieved on November 28 (2014), 2015.
  4. Uma Chakravarti. 1993. Conceptualising Brahmanical patriarchy in early India: Gender, caste, class and state. Economic and Political Weekly (1993), 579--585.
  5. Susan Dray, Ann Light, A Dearden, Vanessa Evers, Melissa Densmore, D Ramachandran, M Kam, G Marsden, N Sambasivan, T Smyth, et al. 2012. Human--Computer Interaction for Development: Changing Human--Computer Interaction to Change the World. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, Third Edition. CRC press, 1369--1394.
  6. Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P Wojcik, and Peter H Ditto. 2013. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 47. Elsevier, 55--130.
  7. IEEE. 2019. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. "Classical Ethics in A/IS". In Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, First Edition. 36--67.
  8. S Inayatullah. 2006. Culture and Fairness: The Idea of Civilization Fairness. In Fairness, Globalization and Public Institutions. University of Hawaii Press, 31--33.
  9. Mayank Jain. 2016. India's internet population is exploding but women are not logging in. Scroll.in (26 9 2016). https://scroll.in/article/816892/indias-internet-population-is-exploding-but-women-are-not-logging-inia
  10. Yuvraj Joshi. 2018. Racial Indirection. UCDL Rev. 52 (2018), 2495.
  11. Srinivas Kodali. 2020. Aarogya Setu: A bridge too far? | Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/sunday-spotlight/aarogya-setu-a-bridge-too-far-835691.html. (Accessed on 08/01/2020).
  12. Nitin Kohli, Renata Barreto, and Joshua A Kroll. 2018. Translation tutorial: a shared lexicon for research and practice in human-centered software systems. In 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparancy. New York, NY, USA, Vol. 7.
  13. Subramaniam Madheswaran and Paul Attewell. 2007. Caste discrimination in the Indian urban labour market: Evidence from the National Sample Survey. Economic and political Weekly (2007), 4146--4153.
  14. Emma. Martinho-Truswell, Hannah. Miller, Isak Nti Asare, Andre Petheram, Richard (Oxford Insights) Stirling, Constanza Gómez Mont, and Cristina (C Minds) Martinez. 2018. Towards an AI strategy in Mexico: Harnessing the AI revolution. In AI whitepaper.
  15. Newslaundry and Oxfam India. 2019. Who Tells Our Stories Matters: Representation of Marginalised Caste Groups in Indian Newsrooms. (8 2019).
  16. Rodrigo Ochigame. 2020. The Long History of Algorithmic Fairness. Phenomenal World (2020).
  17. Lawrence A Palinkas, Sarah M Horwitz, Carla A Green, Jennifer P Wisdom, Naihua Duan, and Kimberly Hoagwood. 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research 42, 5 (2015), 533--544.
  18. Amy Paul, C Jolley, and Aubra Anthony. 2018. Reflecting the Past, Shaping the Future: Making AI Work for International Development. USAID. gov (2018).
  19. Usha Ramanathan. 2014. Biometrics use for social protection programmes in India-Risk: Violating human rights of the poor. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development 2 (2014).
  20. Sharmila Rege. 1998. Dalit women talk differently: A critique of 'difference' and towards a Dalit feminist standpoint position. Economic and Political Weekly (1998), WS39-WS46.
  21. Sarah T Roberts. 2016. Digital refuse: Canadian garbage, commercial content moderation and the global circulation of social media's waste. Wi: journal of mobile media (2016).
  22. Oliver Rowntree. 2020. The mobile gender gap report 2020.
  23. Nithya Sambasivan, Garen Checkley, Amna Batool, Nova Ahmed, David Nemer, Laura Sanely Gaytán-Lugo, Tara Matthews, Sunny Consolvo, and Elizabeth Churchill. 2018. "Privacy is not for me, it's for those rich women": Performative Privacy Practices on Mobile Phones by Women in South Asia. In Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2018). 127--142.
  24. Nadia Saracini and Murali Shanmugavelan. 2019. BOND: Caste and Development. (2019).
  25. Amartya Kumar Sen. 2009. The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
  26. Murali Shanmugavelan. 2018. Everyday Communicative Practices of Arunthathiyars: The Contribution of Communication Studies to the Analysis of Caste Exclusion and Subordination of a Dalit Community in Tamil Nadu, India. (2018).
  27. Ranjit Singh. 2018. 'The Living Dead'. Whispers from the Field: Ethnographic Poetry and Creative Prose (2018), 29--31.
  28. Nisha Tamang. 2020. Section 377: Challenges and Changing Perspectives in the Indian Society. Changing Trends in Human Thoughts and Perspectives: Science, Humanities and Culture Part I (2020), 68.
  29. Sukhadeo Thorat and Paul Attewell. 2007. The legacy of social exclusion: A correspondence study of job discrimination in India. Economic and political weekly (2007), 4141--4145.
  30. Tunisia. 2018. National AI Strategy: Unlocking Tunisia's capabilities potential. http://www.anpr.tn/national-ai-strategy-unlocking-tunisias-capabilities-potential/. In AI workshop.
  31. Virginius Xaxa. 2011. Tribes and social exclusion. CSSSC-UNICEF Social Inclusion Cell, An Occasional Paper 2 (2011), 1--18.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 230

Metadata

Authors
Sambasivan, N., Arnesen, E., Hutchinson, B., Doshi, T., & Prabhakaran, V.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-03
Pages
315-328
OpenAlex
W3123871787
Cited by
228
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 13
FWCI
27.85
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
algorithmic fairness, decolonial AI, model fairness, data reliability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review