Context:

• In February 2026, India hosted the India AI Impact Summit 2026. The goal was to place the needs of the Global South at the centre of global Artificial Intelligence (AI) discussions.
• India's approach was different from earlier AI summits — Bletchley Park (2023, UK), Seoul (2024), and Paris (2025).
• Those summits had focused mainly on catastrophic and existential risks of AI. India's summit instead focused on real-world harms, equity, and inclusion — issues that matter more directly to developing nations.

How Did India's Position Shift After the Summit?

• As the summit progressed, the focus quietly changed. Instead of championing Global South solidarity, India's attention shifted toward raising capital for AI development and pushing domestic adoption of AI use cases.
• India began positioning itself as a "middle power" in global AI politics — moving away from its original role as a Global South representative.
• This shift became clearer when India joined Pax Silica. This is significant because Pax Silica signals alignment with the US-dominated semiconductor supply chain.
• As part of this arrangement, India agreed to adopt a pro-innovation regulatory approach.
• This essentially means lighter regulation — a trade-off that comes at the cost of India's strategic autonomy.

The Middle Power Dilemma

• India's attempt to reposition itself as a "middle power" is diplomatically appealing but strategically shaky.
• India wants to be seen alongside countries like Japan and various European nations. However, these countries do not see India as their technological or economic peer.
• This ambition also clashes with ground realities: India's colonial history and its low per capita income firmly place it within the Global South, not alongside advanced economies.

Can the US Be a Reliable AI Partner?

• Adding to this dilemma is the United States' evolving foreign policy stance. The US has been actively pushing global adoption of American AI technology, while showing little interest in participating in global multilateral or multistakeholder AI governance frameworks.
• This raises an important concern: will this repeat what happened with social media?
• Earlier, US foreign policy resisted global regulation of social media platforms to protect American companies' interests — even though harms were borne globally, including within the US itself.
• There's a real risk of the same pattern repeating with AI, where economic benefits mostly flow to American industry, while both India and the US bear the social and economic costs.

What Risks Does India Face?

• Several important questions arise from this situation:
  • Will India merely become a consumer of American AI technology, with Indian users absorbing disproportionate harms?
  • Will India simply serve as a source of raw material for AI — providing data, cheap labour for data-labelling, minerals for manufacturing, and natural resources like land, water, and electricity for data centres — mainly benefiting American Big Tech companies?
• There is already evidence pointing in this direction. Since the February summit, India has allocated land for data centres, which has led to displacement of local communities and resulting protests.
• There are no strong safeguards protecting these communities as American firms scrape public content to build AI datasets, including indigenous knowledge systems.
• Meanwhile, India's own AI capabilities remain limited. It cannot yet compete with global foundational AI models.
• Its semiconductor sector is largely stuck at low-value assembly work rather than advanced manufacturing.
• There are also concerns about whether India has enough capital to build and grow its own AI ecosystem independently.

A Window of Opportunity: The UN Global Dialogue

• Despite these challenges, there's a genuine opportunity ahead. The first part of a two-part UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance is taking place in Geneva (July 6-7, 2026).
• This platform brings together global stakeholders to collectively shape international rules for AI governance.
• India has a real chance here to unite a currently fragmented global AI policy discussion — one that currently lacks a clear leader.
• India possesses the political influence, technical capability, and a large, diverse market to take up this leadership role.
• Instead of positioning itself as merely an investment destination or a consumer market for AI products, India could instead champion a vision of AI development rooted in public purpose, user safety, strategic autonomy, and genuine international cooperation.

What Should India Push For?

• India should advocate for international norms that help Global South nations:
  • Build their own local AI ecosystems
  • Foster homegrown innovation
  • Protect users from AI-related harms
  • Strengthen regulatory capacity
  • Enable skill development
  • Build domestic digital infrastructure
• India should also raise important debates around competition and consumer protection in AI markets, ensuring economic value generated stays within national economies rather than flowing entirely to foreign Big Tech firms.

Building Global South Solidarity

• Beyond its own interests, India must also create genuine pathways for cooperation among Global South countries.
• The Geneva dialogue offers a critical moment for these nations to come together and strengthen their collective agency and strategic autonomy.
• This would require innovative approaches — pooling resources and capacity together on things like data sharing, computing infrastructure, common technical standards, and shared governance protocols.
• It would also mean building stronger regulatory and technical institutions across Global South nations collectively.

Conclusion

• India stands at a genuine crossroads — between becoming a mere consumer of Big Tech's AI ambitions or emerging as a principled leader for the Global South.
• Choosing solidarity over dependency could help build equitable, autonomous, and inclusive AI governance benefiting billions across developing nations.