News related to
security

Ramesh Khandelwal, who represents Madhya Pradesh on the government-constituted board, said on Wednesday that the 0.4 per cent merchant discount rate, or MDR, on UPI transactions above Rs 2,000 was at odds with the government’s stated emphasis on ease of doing business. The charge is due to take effect on October 15.

Khandelwal said he would raise the issue at the next meeting of the National Traders’ Welfare Board and sought an immediate rollback in the wider interests of merchants and customers. He argued that businesses operating on thin margins could struggle to absorb the additional transaction cost and that some of the burden might ultimately feed into retail prices.

The National Payments Corporation of India has said the revised framework will apply to specified person-to-merchant UPI payments above Rs 2,000. The fee will be borne by merchants rather than consumers and will be capped at Rs 300 for transactions of Rs 75,000 or more.

Person-to-person transfers, including payments between friends and family, will remain free. Merchant transactions up to Rs 2,000 will also continue without MDR, while small merchants receiving up to Rs 1 lakh a month through UPI QR payments are exempt under the framework.

Specified categories including railway tickets, fuel, agriculture, utilities, telecom, insurance, credit-card dues and tax payments will attract a lower flat charge of Rs 5 on eligible transactions above Rs 2,000. The government has also advised banks to ensure that merchants do not directly pass the MDR on to customers.

The opposition from Khandelwal adds to broader concern among traders over the return of merchant charges to UPI after more than six years of a zero-MDR regime. A nationwide LocalCircles survey of more than 32,000 merchants and businesses across 242 districts found that only 17 per cent of respondents were willing to bear a 0.4 per cent MDR on payments above Rs 2,000, while 41 per cent said they were unwilling to pay any such fee.

Merchants have raised particular concerns about sectors where high-value digital payments are common but margins are comparatively narrow. Textile traders in Surat, for example, said the levy could affect smaller businesses and workers who use UPI extensively for salaries, purchases and other routine transactions.

The policy change also marks a significant shift in the economics of the UPI ecosystem. Banks, payment applications and payment aggregators have long argued that the rapid expansion of transaction volumes requires greater spending on infrastructure, fraud prevention, cyber security and system capacity. The new MDR is intended to create a revenue stream to support those costs while keeping small-value and personal transfers outside the charging structure.

UPI has become the dominant retail digital payment system, with billions of transactions processed every month. That scale has increased the cost of maintaining the network even as users have become accustomed to making payments without a visible transaction fee.

The government’s approach seeks to confine the charge to larger commercial payments and to limit the exposure of small merchants and customers. Under the announced structure, a Rs 5,000 eligible merchant payment would carry an MDR of Rs 20, while a Rs 50,000 payment would cost the merchant Rs 200. Payments of Rs 75,000 and above would face the Rs 300 ceiling.

Khandelwal’s intervention puts the focus on whether traders will accept those costs or seek alternatives such as cash, bank transfers or other payment methods. His position is that even a small percentage charge, when repeated across large transaction volumes, can become a meaningful operating expense.

The dispute is likely to centre on merchant margins, enforcement and whether businesses can absorb the levy without changing prices or payment preferences. Traders also want clarity on how exemptions will be identified at the point of payment, particularly where a business accepts UPI through multiple bank accounts, QR codes or payment service providers across different locations.

Bae said South Korea was still trying to close the gap with leading AI powers while creating new markets, making its position different from countries or companies at the technological frontier. “We cannot afford to slow down AI right now,” he wrote on social media, describing the government’s approach as one of “speed responsibility” rather than speed control.

His remarks place Seoul firmly on the acceleration side of a widening debate over whether developers should moderate the pace of capable AI systems. Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei has called for a slowdown in frontier model development to allow more time for safety work, while OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman and other technology leaders have voiced support for stronger precautions as capabilities advance.

Bae said South Korea should continue expanding research, industrial adoption and home-grown model development while strengthening protections against deepfakes, cyber threats and privacy violations. Faster progress, he said, required safety and trust measures to move at the same pace rather than follow after deployment.

The minister pointed to a broader technology agenda that includes sovereign foundation models, systems capable of processing vision and language, and models able to interact with physical environments. He said the country also needed to prepare for AI becoming deeply embedded across industries and everyday life.

The government has made domestic foundation-model development a central part of its ambition to place South Korea among the world’s top three AI powers. The Ministry of Science and ICT has been running a sovereign AI foundation model programme intended to improve domestic capabilities and reduce dependence on foreign technology.

Three teams led by Upstage, SK Telecom and LG AI Research advanced after the programme’s second-stage evaluation this year. The ministry has said models developed under the initiative were built with comparatively limited resources but were released as open source as part of an effort to expand the domestic AI ecosystem.

Bae indicated that further details on the next phase of the foundation-model programme would be announced after ongoing reviews. His comments also referenced government work on security-focused AI models and frontier systems, alongside an “AI for All” initiative intended to spread adoption across the economy.

The policy push is being developed alongside South Korea’s AI Basic Act, which establishes rules covering both the development of artificial intelligence and the creation of a framework for trust. The law’s stated purpose includes protecting rights and human dignity while supporting quality of life and national competitiveness.

That legal structure gives Seoul a basis for pursuing faster adoption without presenting safety as a separate objective. Bae said competitiveness and sustainability were linked, arguing that development speed and safeguards should advance together.

The global dispute has intensified as leading executives and policymakers weigh the economic benefits of faster AI deployment against concerns over misuse and loss of control. Amodei has proposed independent safety evaluators, coordination among major laboratories and greater international cooperation, while Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang has argued against slowing technological progress and favours advancing safety alongside innovation.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Wednesday backed calls for greater caution and said frontier AI laboratories would be invited for talks on managing risks. Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, by contrast, said AI companies already had strong incentives to build systems safely and did not require an industry-wide slowdown.

Bae’s intervention highlights the competitive pressures facing countries outside the United States and China, where most frontier AI investment and model development remains concentrated. South Korea has strong semiconductor and technology industries, but its government has acknowledged the need to strengthen domestic models, computing capacity and commercial adoption to narrow the gap.

The Ministry of External Affairs said Pakistan’s Charge d’Affaires was called in and a strong protest lodged over what it described as “unacceptable and unprofessional conduct” by Pakistani naval units. The ministry said the conduct led to a collision with a unit of the Indian Navy and urged Pakistan’s authorities to ensure that military units exercise due care and observe existing bilateral agreements.

The collision occurred on Tuesday while a frontline warship from India was conducting what officials described as a routine surveillance mission. Officials from India said a Pakistan Navy vessel approached at high speed before the vessels collided. No major damage was reported, and there was no immediate public statement from Pakistan’s government or military responding to New Delhi’s account.

India also instructed its top diplomat in Islamabad to lodge a similar protest with Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry. The exchange elevated what could otherwise have remained a maritime safety incident into a formal diplomatic dispute between two nuclear-armed neighbours whose military contacts are governed by a series of confidence-building arrangements.

New Delhi said the episode breached a 1991 bilateral agreement covering military exercises, manoeuvres and troop movements. Under that agreement, naval ships and submarines of the two countries are required to remain at least three nautical miles apart in international waters to reduce the risk of accidents. India’s foreign ministry said the Charge d’Affaires had been asked to convey the need for all military units to respect those provisions and prevent a recurrence.

Pakistan had not, as of Wednesday afternoon, issued its own description of the encounter, leaving key operational details — including the precise movements of the vessels before impact — based on India’s official account. No ship names, casualty reports or detailed damage assessments were released publicly by either side.

The incident is the clearest publicly acknowledged military encounter between the neighbours since four days of hostilities in May 2025. That fighting followed an April 22 attack on tourists in Pahalgam, in Jammu and Kashmir, that killed 26 people. India blamed Pakistan for supporting cross-border terrorism, an allegation Islamabad rejected, and the crisis developed into missile, drone and artillery exchanges before both sides announced an understanding to halt the fighting.

Relations have remained strained since then despite the cessation of large-scale hostilities. Diplomatic ties had already been downgraded in 2019 amid disagreements over Kashmir, and neither country currently posts an ambassador in the other’s capital, with missions headed by Charges d’Affaires.

The latest protest focused narrowly on maritime conduct rather than broader political disputes. India’s statement did not announce retaliatory military measures or new diplomatic restrictions, and it called instead for compliance with the bilateral framework designed to prevent accidents between armed forces operating near one another.

The northern Arabian Sea is routinely used by both navies for patrols, exercises and surveillance. The 1991 agreement was intended to create practical safeguards at times of tension, alongside notification procedures for certain military activities. Its distance requirement gives commanders a defined separation standard when vessels or submarines from the two countries encounter each other beyond territorial waters.

The military relationship remains sensitive because both countries maintain forces across the Line of Control in Kashmir and continue to accuse each other of hostile activity. Their 2025 confrontation demonstrated how quickly a security incident can widen across domains, although neither government indicated on Wednesday that the naval collision had triggered wider force movements or changes in military posture.

Tuesday’s collision did not produce the kind of damage that would normally force a ship out of service, according to India’s account. The absence of reported casualties limited the immediate operational consequences, but the diplomatic summons ensured the episode received attention at the highest working level between the two foreign ministries.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Monday that artificial intelligence was a consequential technology for humanity and should be developed openly and inclusively. Asked about calls from Dario Amodei, Sam Altman and Elon Musk for companies to slow frontier development, Guo warned that “fear-mongering, confrontation and vicious competition” would hinder sound global AI governance.

The response came as Washington’s debate over AI safety widened into a strategic argument about China. Anthropic chief executive Amodei has urged tougher safeguards for advanced systems and has argued that a Chinese lead in frontier AI could create national security risks for the United States. OpenAI chief executive Altman and Musk have also called for stronger precautions as systems become more capable.

Trump, however, has resisted proposals that could materially slow US development. He said this week that America already had tools to police the industry and stressed the importance of maintaining leadership over China. House Speaker Mike Johnson similarly rejected a moratorium, saying any pause could hand Beijing a competitive advantage and create national security risks.

The dispute places AI governance among the issues likely to shadow the Trump-Xi meeting scheduled for September 24 in Washington. The leaders are also expected to confront trade disputes, semiconductor restrictions and China’s controls on rare-earth exports, all of which affect the broader contest over computing capacity and advanced manufacturing.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is due to meet Vice-Premier He Lifeng before the summit.

China has presented a different framework for AI governance, emphasising access, development and multilateral rules while opposing measures it regards as technological containment. At the BRICS summit this month, Xi proposed an open-source and inclusive AI initiative and said China would help establish a BRICS AI open-source community and digital ecosystem platform.

Beijing has nevertheless acknowledged the risks posed by increasingly powerful systems. Chinese officials have called for stronger global governance and risk awareness, while arguing that safety should not become a justification for blocking technological diffusion. The government has also supported the establishment of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, whose founding agreement was signed in Shanghai in July by 29 countries.

The argument over safety is closely linked to semiconductor controls. Washington has maintained restrictions on the export of advanced computing technology to China, although the Commerce Department in January shifted applications for Nvidia H200, AMD MI325X and comparable chips to case-by-case review under specified security conditions. Beijing has repeatedly criticised US technology restrictions as discriminatory and has threatened countermeasures when Chinese companies are targeted.

China’s Commerce Ministry last week also challenged a US cybersecurity advisory accusing China-based AI companies of using distillation campaigns against American models. The ministry said China was prepared for an intergovernmental AI dialogue with the United States but would respond if Washington used such allegations to suppress Chinese firms.

That exchange underscored the difficulty of separating AI safety from the strategic rivalry. US officials and technology executives increasingly frame advanced models as both commercial assets and national security capabilities, while China portrays broad restrictions as attempts to preserve US dominance.

There are areas of overlap. Both governments have said advanced AI presents risks requiring governance, and the two sides have agreed to launch an intergovernmental dialogue on the technology. Informal discussions among researchers and policy specialists have also continued, though official positions remain far apart on access to chips, model controls and the balance between safety and development.

The September 24 summit follows Trump’s May visit to China, when the two leaders agreed to pursue what the White House described as strategic stability and set up new bilateral trade and investment mechanisms. Artificial intelligence was not the centrepiece of those agreements, but it has since moved higher on the bilateral agenda as concerns over model capabilities, export controls and industrial competition have intensified.