Temasek's Two Horses Are Racing in India — STT vs Keppel vs CapitaLand

Can these three businesses be called Temasek's horses, and are they actually racing against one another in India? The public record through 13 October 2026 supports a narrower story. Temasek has a minority interest in Keppel and a reported 100% holding in CapitaLand Group; STT GDC, meanwhile, completed a change of ownership to KKR and Singtel in September 2026. There is meaningful geographic overlap in Karnataka, but no evidence that the three are competing for the same customer, parcel of land or power allocation.

The capacity numbers also sit on different ledgers: an India expansion plan, an India IT-capacity snapshot, a state-listed power request, a global gross-power portfolio, an Asia-Pacific powerbank and a Bengaluru project whose completion timing is on hold. Treating them as one race would erase the most important information.

Original conceptual illustration. It does not depict a surveyed site, a real company project or a measured capacity comparison.

Contents

1. The short answer: a race is not yet in evidence
2. What the headline compresses
3. Temasek has different links to the three names
4. STT GDC: a 550MW India plan and two unreconciled snapshots
5. Devanahalli: one proposal, two very different cost figures
6. Keppel: a global portfolio, an exploratory India signal and a cooling contract
7. CapitaLand and CLINT: 42MW of power capacity, with timing on hold
8. Are they racing in Karnataka?
9. A capacity-basis audit: keep these figures in separate columns
10. What evidence would change the conclusion?
11. Frequently asked questions
12. Related Gridvik guides
13. Sources and method

The short answer: a race is not yet in evidence

There is a strong article here, but its strongest defensible angle is not “three equivalent Temasek-controlled companies battling for India.” It is this: three Singapore-linked platforms have different ownership relationships and different levels of India project evidence, while Karnataka has publicly discussed activity involving STT GDC and CapitaLand.

The evidence hierarchy matters:

• STT GDC India announced a multi-year plan to add 550MW of data-centre capacity in 2024; contemporaneous coverage explicitly described the planned addition as IT capacity. By February 2026 the company described more than 400MW of critical IT load across 30 facilities, including those under development. A September 2026 company update reported more than 613MW of India IT capacity across 34 centres. The releases do not provide a common status bridge connecting those snapshots to the 550MW plan.
• Keppel reported a 1.2GW near-term global gross-power target in 2024—not an India target. Its latest company results available by this research cut-off put the global portfolio at 840MW gross power across 37 centres as at 30 June 2026, with 60% of gross power capacity operational. Separately, Keppel described an Asia-Pacific powerbank of over 1GW for future development. That is not the same measure as its existing portfolio.
• CapitaLand India Trust (CLINT) lists a 42MW power-capacity data centre at International Tech Park Bangalore (ITPB). CLINT’s issuer materials put the estimated completion date on hold as at 30 June 2026; a later Karnataka minister-attributed report described the project as being developed. The public material reviewed does not reconcile those status descriptions or state the project’s total IT load.

The comparison below is an orientation aid, not a ranking.

Source IDs: STT GDC S06–S08; Invest Karnataka S10; Keppel S17, S20–S21; CapitaLand/CLINT S13–S16. Full links and claim limits appear in the companion source register.

What the headline compresses

The title’s two phrases—“Temasek’s Two Horses” and “racing in India”—compress three separate questions:

1. Who owns or controls each entity today? The answer differs across Keppel, CapitaLand Group/CLI/CLINT and STT GDC.
2. What India capacity is actually attributable to each platform? STT and CLINT disclose India projects and portfolios; Keppel’s large capacity headline is global, and the India-campus signal found here is exploratory.
3. Are the projects direct competitors? A shared market or state is not enough. Evidence of a common customer tender, the same land parcel, a scarce power allocation contested by both, or a documented displacement decision would be needed to make that claim.

The article keeps the supplied title unchanged. The body treats its rivalry language as a question, not a finding.

Temasek has different links to the three names

Temasek’s major-investments table reports holdings as at 31 March 2026 of 100% in CapitaLand Group, 21% in Keppel and 52% in Singtel (the latter figures are rounded in the table). Keppel’s separate share-information page lists Temasek at 20.64% as at 2 March 2026. These are not three equivalent majority-control relationships.

Ownership map: percentages have dates; the Singtel-to-STT GDC line reflects the post-acquisition ownership announced at closing. CLI, CLINT and their trustee-manager are separate legal and reporting entities.

STT GDC is no longer directly owned by Temasek

On 2 September 2026, STT GDC said the KKR-led consortium with Singtel had completed its acquisition. Singtel’s February transaction announcement described post-completion ownership as 75% KKR and 25% Singtel. The operating platform is therefore no longer directly owned by Temasek. Temasek’s 52% Singtel figure is dated 31 March 2026—before the STT GDC transaction closed—so it supports a possible indirect economic exposure through Singtel, not a claim that Temasek directly owns or controls STT GDC. No post-close Temasek-to-STT ownership percentage is asserted here. [S01, S04, S08]

CapitaLand Group, CLI and CLINT are not synonyms

The structure is layered:

• CapitaLand Group Pte. Ltd. is the parent name that Temasek lists at 100% in its 31 March 2026 portfolio snapshot.
• CapitaLand Investment Limited (CLI) is a separately listed real-asset manager. CLI’s 2025 annual report identifies CapitaLand Group as its leading shareholder; this package does not state a current Temasek percentage for CLI.
• CapitaLand India Trust (CLINT) is a separately listed Indian property trust. Its assets are held through the trust structure; it is managed by CapitaLand India Trust Management Pte. Ltd., which CLINT describes as a wholly owned subsidiary of CLI. CLINT’s own February 2026 unitholder disclosure lists a 25.44% deemed interest for CapitaLand Group, which is another reason not to describe the trust as wholly owned by CLI or Temasek. [S01, S02, S03, S05]

That distinction matters for the 42MW Bengaluru project: CapitaLand’s property listing names CapitaLand India Trust as the ownership/platform entity. A minister may refer to CapitaLand Investment in an investment meeting, but that does not make CLI and CLINT the same project owner.

Keppel is a minority Temasek holding, not a Temasek-controlled business

The 21% reported by Temasek is a significant minority interest, not a 100% ownership position. For this story, “Temasek-linked” is more precise than “Temasek-owned” when referring to Keppel. The reporting should state the dated percentage and avoid implying that Temasek directs each Keppel project or that Keppel’s data-centre portfolio is an arm of Temasek.

STT GDC: a 550MW India plan and two unreconciled snapshots

STT GDC’s 6 September 2024 announcement said it planned to invest US$3.2 billion (₹26,000 crore, as stated by the company) to add 550MW of data-centre capacity in India over five to six years. At that time STT GDC India reported more than 318MW of IT load across 28 centres in 10 cities. The release said the expansion would nearly triple IT-load capacity; DCD’s contemporaneous coverage explicitly characterised the planned 550MW as IT capacity. This is a multi-year expansion plan, not a statement that 550MW was already operational or that all of the associated investment had been deployed. [S06]

The subsequent snapshots do not line up into a public project ledger:

The February release is especially helpful on Karnataka: STT GDC India said it had signed strategic MoUs with Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana and Uttar Pradesh, and that expansion plans were progressing in cities including Bengaluru. But it also said the 400MW figure included facilities under development. The September figure is a later snapshot, yet the public release does not provide a schedule of operating, under-construction and planned IT MW. Neither snapshot should be converted into “live capacity” without that bridge. [S07, S08]

Nor should the Devanahalli 100MW be added on top of the 550MW plan. The state project proposal may be included in the national expansion plan, but the public documents reviewed do not provide an explicit crosswalk.

Devanahalli: one proposal, two very different cost figures

Karnataka’s 63rd State High Level Clearance Committee (SHLCC) proceedings record a meeting on 8 March 2024 and an approved STT GDC India project proposal at Devanahalli. The record lists:

• ₹1,352.30 crore as project cost;
• 10 acres of KIADB land; and
• 100MW power from BESCOM.

The proceedings include a recommendation that KIADB allot the land. A recommendation in committee minutes is not the same evidence as an executed allotment, lease or sale document, a possession certificate, a firm grid connection or construction completion. KIADB’s published process material distinguishes application, allotment and possession steps. In searches for a later STT-specific instrument or groundbreaking record, no such document was located; that is a limit of the material reviewed, not proof that no later document exists. [S10, S11]

A 25 September 2026 ANI report, attributing the statement to Karnataka Industries Minister M. B. Patil, describes STT GDC as investing approximately ₹5,000 crore to develop a 100MW Devanahalli campus on KIADB land. This is a later, minister-attributed signal and should not be ignored. But the report does not supply a revised project filing, a cost schedule or a statement explaining how the ₹5,000 crore figure relates to the SHLCC’s ₹1,352.30 crore proposal. The two numbers could reflect a changed scope, a broader investment envelope, a different phase or another project treatment; the sources do not settle which. [S12]

The responsible description is therefore: a 2024 state-approved proposal with a 100MW BESCOM power requirement and a listed ₹1,352.30 crore cost; a September 2026 minister-attributed report describing a 100MW campus at about ₹5,000 crore; scope and cost reconciliation outstanding. Do not merge the amounts, imply one is a correction of the other, or call the 100MW IT load.

The minister’s later phrase “on KIADB land” is relevant to land-status reporting, but the source reviewed is not the land instrument. Before saying STT has possession, obtain the allotment/lease/possession record or an equivalent company/state document naming the parcel and stage.

Keppel: a global portfolio, an exploratory India signal and a cooling contract

Keppel’s 1.2GW figure is often the most striking number in this comparison—and one of the easiest to misread. In its 24 October 2024 9M results release, Keppel said it aimed to grow its data-centre portfolio from 650MW to 1.2GW in the near term, explicitly on a gross power capacity basis. The footprint described was across Asia Pacific and Europe. It was not an India target. The release also described roughly 220MW in different development stages in Singapore, Tokyo and Taiwan. [S17]

The figure needs a date label—and the FY2025 slide needs to be read by year rather than by the nearest headline number. Keppel’s official 5 February 2026 FY2025 results presentation shows 650MW for 2024 and 800MW for 2025, with 39 data centres as at end-2025; the portfolio definition includes projects under development. A later June 2026 Keppel release describes the end-2025 portfolio as “over 800MW.” The 650MW figure is the end-2024 comparator, not the end-2025 figure. [S19]

Keppel’s latest portfolio figure available at the 13 October 2026 research cut-off is from its 1H 2026 results: 37 data centres across Asia Pacific and Europe, with 840MW gross power capacity as at 30 June 2026. The company stated that 60% of this gross-power capacity was operational; the portfolio definition includes projects under development. The published materials reviewed do not provide a detailed bridge for the centre count moving from 39 at end-2025 to 37 at end-June 2026, so do not describe that as a contraction. The 840MW figure is a newer global portfolio snapshot, not Indian capacity, and not wholly operational capacity. Keppel did not restate the 1.2GW number as an India goal in that results presentation. The safe treatment is to call 1.2GW a dated 2024 global target, then report the 800MW and 840MW global portfolio snapshots separately by their dates. [S18, S19, S21]

A third Keppel number belongs in yet another column. In January 2026 the company said its Asia-Pacific data-centre powerbank had expanded to over 1.0GW. Keppel described powerbank capacity as future development potential; a large part of the addition was its right to lease a site near Morwell, Victoria, with capacity of up to 720MW in phases over time. The company said it would do pre-development work, including seeking approvals and contracting power and water, before its private funds took up long-term leases; it was in active discussions with prospective hyperscalers and neoclouds. That is a material growth option, but it is not 1GW already operating, a single committed campus or a part of India’s capacity. Do not add it to the 840MW portfolio as though the measures were identical. [S20]

What did Keppel actually say about India?

In October 2024, Data Center Dynamics reported that Keppel’s CEO said the company was looking at AI campuses in Malaysia, India, Japan and Indonesia. The report does not identify an Indian site, capacity, land instrument, power approval, financing, customer or development timetable. It is best described as exploratory interest, not a committed Indian project. The company’s 2026 public announcements reviewed here identify a 60MW development in South Korea and the staged Australian powerbank opportunity; they do not identify an India campus. This search result does not prove Keppel has stopped evaluating India internally—it means an India commitment was not substantiated in the sources reviewed by the cut-off. [S22, S23]

Keppel does have Indian activity in cooling and building services. Its October 2024 release announced a Cooling-as-a-Service contract with Nucleus Office Parks for a 4,300-refrigeration-ton chiller system at Bengaluru’s Exora Business Park, to be operated for ten years, plus a separate collaboration with Tata Power Trading Company to offer cooling services in India. These are cooling-service and energy-solutions activities—not a Keppel-operated data-centre campus and not India data-centre MW. [S24]

CapitaLand and CLINT: 42MW of power capacity, with timing on hold

CapitaLand’s property page lists CapitaLand Data Centre ITPB, Bangalore as an Under Development property, gives 42MW power capacity, and identifies CapitaLand India Trust as the platform/ownership entity. The downloadable factsheet describes one data-centre building with 12 data halls, and says the IT power capacity per hall is 2.0MW or 2.5MW. It does not provide the count of each hall type or a total IT-load figure. Therefore, it is not possible to turn the 42MW site power number into a project-level IT load from the factsheet alone. [S13]

The status evidence is mixed and needs dated attribution:

The state’s September description is later than CLINT’s June financial statements, so the discrepancy deserves follow-up. But the public report does not quote a new project schedule or provide a dated engineering/construction milestone. The CapitaLand webpage’s generic “Under Development” label is not equivalent to an issuer confirmation that the on-hold completion date has been lifted. The most accurate wording is: the property page still labels ITPB under development; CLINT’s latest dated schedule disclosure located puts estimated completion on hold; a later minister-attributed report describes the facility as developing. Whether and when the schedule changed remains unconfirmed. [S12–S16]

This does not mean CLINT has no active data-centre programme. Its 1H2026 results materials show a three-development data-centre pipeline reported at 200MW gross capacity and separately note that ITPB’s development is on hold. The results release also says the 50MW gross Navi Mumbai Tower 1 was fully leased, operational and handed over in July 2026. Those data points show activity elsewhere in CLINT’s India portfolio, but they do not change the status or IT-load basis of the Bengaluru ITPB building. [S15, S16]

The investment amount in ANI’s report—approximately ₹2,000 crore—is also minister-attributed. It should not be treated as audited deployed capex, nor compared mechanically with STT’s proposal cost or global plan. A cost-to-MW comparison would require consistent project boundaries, date, ownership share, power/IT basis, land treatment and what each figure includes.

Are they racing in Karnataka?

The strongest shared geography is Karnataka, but the evidence points to different projects at different stages:

1. STT / Devanahalli: a state-approved project proposal, 10 KIADB acres listed and 100MW BESCOM power requirement in the 2024 SHLCC record; later minister-attributed description in September 2026, with unreconciled project cost and no executed land instrument located in the reviewed materials.
2. CLINT / ITPB, Whitefield: a listed 42MW power-capacity project; issuer completion date on hold as of June 2026; later government description of it as developing, without a published revised schedule found here.
3. Keppel / India: a 2024 report of exploratory AI-campus interest, but no Indian site or campus capacity commitment located in the current company materials reviewed. The Bengaluru cooling-services contract is a different line of business.

The three companies have not been shown to be bidding for the same parcel, competing for a named customer’s capacity, or contesting a common grid allocation. Devanahalli and Whitefield are both within Karnataka, but that geographic fact alone does not establish a head-to-head contest. Nor is an MoU with a state a land right or a power reservation.

Timeline of source statements—not a construction tracker. A state approval/recommendation, a corporate portfolio snapshot, a generic webpage label and a minister-attributed update are different evidence types.

A capacity-basis audit: keep these figures in separate columns

A megawatt is a unit of power, but the label next to the MW determines what comparison is meaningful. IT load is the power supplied to servers and other IT equipment; gross power capacity may describe the facility’s overall power envelope; a utility connection or requested supply describes yet another boundary; a plan or powerbank describes future potential. A data-centre portfolio may also include assets under development.

The figures in this graphic are not summed or ranked. Each tile retains its own geography, date, basis and stage.

No total should be calculated from this table. The figures overlap by corporate portfolio, country, development status and capacity basis; some may describe included phases or options. In particular, do not add STT’s 100MW Devanahalli proposal to the 550MW national plan without a project crosswalk; do not add Keppel’s APAC powerbank to its global portfolio; and do not compare the 42MW ITPB power figure directly with either STT’s India IT load or the Devanahalli utility-power request.

What evidence would change the conclusion?

A real race is testable. The following disclosures would move this story beyond parallel interest and toward a documented competitive overlap:

For STT GDC’s Devanahalli project

• the executed KIADB allotment/lease instrument, parcel schedule and possession certificate;
• a project filing explaining whether ₹1,352.30 crore and approximately ₹5,000 crore refer to the same facility, phase or investment envelope;
• a dated BESCOM connection or energisation record, clearly distinguishing requested load from firm supply;
• planning/building approvals, construction start and progress evidence, with phase capacity and an IT-load/gross-power definition; and
• confirmation of whether this project is included in the 550MW India expansion plan and in which of STT’s later portfolio snapshots.

For ITPB / CLINT

• a direct issuer update stating whether the completion hold has been lifted, with revised target dates;
• a project-level IT-load schedule and the number of 2.0MW versus 2.5MW data halls;
• dated permits, construction milestones, power-connection evidence, customer commitments or an operator handover; and
• clarification of whether the minister’s approximately ₹2,000 crore statement is the same scope and capex definition as CLINT’s project disclosures.

For Keppel’s India strategy

• a named site or development partner, land rights, capacity basis, power/approval status and schedule;
• an official company announcement or filing that moves the India AI-campus idea from exploration to commitment; and
• a clear explanation of whether any India capacity sits within a global or fund-level portfolio metric.

For a genuine head-to-head contest

Look for evidence linking at least two platforms to the same customer procurement, site or constrained resource—not merely to the same state, country or market forecast. A public tender, customer award, parcel map, dated allocation decision or explicit company statement about substitution/displacement could establish such a link. Until then, “racing” remains a catchy framing, not a sourced market fact.

No company, executive or government office has been contacted for this draft. Before publication, Gridvik should offer STT GDC, Keppel, CapitaLand Investment/CLINT, Karnataka’s Industries Department/KIADB/BESCOM and Temasek a fair opportunity to correct material factual points. Report any response accurately and distinguish a company reply from a third-party or ministerial statement.

Frequently asked questions

Is STT GDC still owned by Temasek?

Not directly. STT GDC announced on 2 September 2026 that the KKR-led consortium with Singtel had completed its acquisition. Singtel’s transaction announcement describes post-close ownership as 75% KKR and 25% Singtel. Temasek’s 52% Singtel figure is a dated March 2026 portfolio snapshot and may imply indirect exposure through Singtel; it does not establish direct Temasek ownership or control of STT GDC. [S01, S04, S08]

Does Temasek control Keppel?

The public portfolio figure reviewed is a 21% holding as at 31 March 2026 (Temasek’s table rounds it); Keppel’s share-information page lists 20.64% as at 2 March 2026. That is a significant minority stake, not majority control. [S01, S02]

Is CapitaLand Investment the owner of the 42MW Bengaluru data centre?

The CapitaLand property listing identifies CapitaLand India Trust as the ownership/platform entity for Data Centre ITPB. CLINT is a separately listed trust managed by a wholly owned CLI subsidiary. A minister-attributed report may describe CLI as developing the project, but CLI, CLINT and CLINT’s trustee-manager are not interchangeable. [S03, S05, S13]

Is the ITPB 42MW figure IT load?

The CapitaLand page and factsheet describe 42MW as power capacity. The factsheet gives 12 data halls and lists IT power per hall as 2.0MW or 2.5MW, but it does not state how many halls use each rating or provide a total IT-load figure. Do not call the full 42MW IT load. [S13]

Is CLINT’s Bengaluru project cancelled?

The sources reviewed do not establish cancellation. CLINT’s dated FY2025/1H2026 materials put the estimated completion timing on hold; CapitaLand’s public property page labels it “Under Development”; and a later September 2026 ANI report attributes a “developing” description to Karnataka’s minister. A revised issuer schedule or construction update was not located. The right answer is status requires reconciliation, not “cancelled” or “back on track.” [S12–S14]

Is Keppel’s 1.2GW data-centre target for India?

No. Keppel announced the 1.2GW near-term goal in 2024 as a global gross-power portfolio target across Asia Pacific and Europe. Its 1H2026 results separately reported 840MW gross power across 37 global facilities, with 60% operational. [S17, S21]

Does Keppel have a data-centre campus in India?

The reviewed 2024 reporting describes exploratory interest in AI campuses in India, but no site, capacity, permits, power reservation or committed Indian campus was identified in the sources reviewed through 13 October 2026. Keppel’s Bengaluru cooling contract is for a business-park chiller system; it is not a data-centre campus. This conclusion is bounded by the public material reviewed and is not proof that Keppel has no private discussions. [S22–S24]

Do the sources prove that the three companies are direct competitors in Karnataka?

No. They show state-level activity involving STT and CapitaLand, plus exploratory India interest reported for Keppel. They do not establish a common customer bid, parcel, power allocation or other direct contest.

Can the investment figures be compared as capex per MW?

Not safely. The ₹1,352.30 crore SHLCC cost and ANI’s roughly ₹5,000 crore STT figure are unreconciled and may differ in scope; ANI attributes about ₹2,000 crore to the CapitaLand project; the US$3.2bn STT figure is a multi-year national plan. Before any cost-per-MW comparison, reconcile project boundary, phase, land, ownership share, IT/gross/utility basis, financing and what each amount includes. None is an audited statement of deployed capex in the cited material.

Related Gridvik guides

These live Gridvik guides were fetched and verified on 13 October 2026; links are included because they provide useful context rather than to repeat the same keywords:

• India Data Centre Investment Map 2026: Key Plans — distinguish project plans, investment types, policy targets and operating assets.
• India Data Centre Boom 2026–2030: Capacity & Cities — broader market, city and forecast context.
• India Data Centre Power: Grid & Policy Bottlenecks — why state-level power availability is not the same as a site connection.

Sources and method

This article uses company announcements, company financial materials, a state committee record and a minister-attributed news report. Company and government claims are attributed rather than treated as independently audited outcomes. The research cut-off is 13 October 2026 (IST). See the companion SOURCE_REGISTER.md in this package for the claim-by-claim evidence ledger, date checks, limits and open questions.

Key primary sources include the Temasek portfolio table (S01), STT’s 2024 India announcement (S06), STT’s February 2026 update (S07), the SHLCC proceedings (S10), CLINT’s 1H2026 disclosures (S14), and Keppel’s 1H2026 results presentation (S21).

The 2024–2026 company and government snapshots are not a shared measurement series. No claims of virality, company reaction, investor FOMO, capital migration, direct customer competition, or legal certainty are made. This is an editorial research draft, not investment advice.