<\/p>\n
The Indian government refutes claims of a formal collaboration with AI-generated band Trilok, as tensions rise over the use of artificial intelligence in public media and the lack of clear regulations for AI content.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has told Parliament that Prasar Bharati has not entered into any partnership with Trilok, an AI-generated music band, after questions were raised in the Rajya Sabha and public debate intensified over the use of artificial intelligence by a state-funded broadcaster. The written reply, tabled on Friday, was delivered by Minister of State for Information & Broadcasting Dr. L. Murugan and sought to dispel reports of a formal collaboration for airing content on Akashvani, Doordarshan or the WAVES OTT platform. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n According to the original report, Trilok was launched by Collective Media Network as a digital music act created entirely with AI: vocals, lyrics, visuals and stage personas were generated by algorithms and there are no human performers behind the project. The ministry\u2019s reply acknowledged this description but drew a clear distinction between Trilok\u2019s commercial partnerships and any official relationship with the public broadcaster. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n The ministry did confirm, however, that AI-generated devotional music was broadcast during the Durga Navratri festival as part of a limited pilot exercise. Dr. Murugan emphasised that the trial incurred no expenditures, budget allocations or recurring commitments, framing the broadcast as an isolated experiment rather than the start of an AI-led programming shift. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Industry reactions outlined in the lead report and subsequent coverage underline why the matter attracted parliamentary attention. Music industry bodies and musician unions warned that introducing AI-generated content on a taxpayer-funded platform without prior disclosure risked displacing human performers, depressing remuneration and creating unfair competition for creators and rights holders. Copyright experts also flagged the legal risks where AI systems are trained on unlicensed datasets. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Separate accounts have presented a different interpretation of Trilok\u2019s relationship with mainstream broadcasters. Some industry commentary characterised the AI band\u2019s appearances and platform partnerships as signalling institutional acceptance of AI music within formal broadcast frameworks, suggesting the moment could normalise AI-generated compositions in India’s media ecosystem. The contrast between that perception and the ministry\u2019s categorical denial of a formal Prasar Bharati partnership highlights the current ambiguity around how AI content is classified and disseminated. [3]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Beyond the immediate dispute, stakeholders and lawmakers have pressed for clearer policy. Members of Parliament asked the government to outline disclosure standards for AI-assisted programming, mechanisms to prevent copyright infringement and frameworks to protect performers\u2019 rights , including safeguards against non-consensual voice cloning. Observers say forthcoming guidelines will need to balance innovation with protections for livelihoods, rights enforcement and cultural stewardship. [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Trilok\u2019s creators have pursued commercial collaborations, including platform and production partnerships that support distribution and technical development; Collective Media Network has positioned the project as part of a broader move by music-tech firms to blend traditional motifs with contemporary forms, while allies in the AI-music space have linked the band to third-party tools and platforms that enable production and global reach. Those commercial ties help explain why some industry reporting interpreted Trilok\u2019s visibility as more than an isolated experiment. The government, however, maintains there is no partnership with Prasar Bharati and no public funds directed to such collaborations. [5]<\/a><\/sup>[6]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n As the debate continues, the ministry\u2019s written clarification may calm immediate concerns about state-funded endorsement of Trilok, but it has not resolved wider questions about transparency, licensing and the role of generative AI in public broadcasting. Industry watchers expect the government to publish detailed guidelines that clarify how public broadcasters should treat AI-generated content and protect established creative sectors as generative technologies become more pervasive in newsrooms, music production and entertainment. [1]<\/a><\/sup>[4]<\/a><\/sup>[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n ##Reference Map:<\/p>\n\ud83d\udccc Reference Map:<\/h3>\n
\n