The 2026 AI Summit in New Delhi was billed as a turning point for a more inclusive and development-focused approach to AI. As a rising ‘digital middle power’, India used its role as host to reframe the global AI debate around social empowerment, trust, energy efficiency, and equitable access to technology. Drawing on the concept of MANAV (a Sanskrit word for humanity), and a set of seven guiding pillars, the summit sought to place development and inclusion at the centre of global AI governance.
Yet, as Marília Maciel argues in her blog ‘The New Delhi AI Summit: Inclusive rhetoric, fractured reality,’ the event ultimately exposed growing fragmentation in the international AI landscape. While India succeeded in broadening the narrative, many of its priorities were pushed into working groups and voluntary initiatives rather than reflected in strong political commitments.
A proliferation of new charters, coalitions, and platforms added to an already crowded field of AI initiatives, raising concerns about duplication and a lack of follow-through from previous summits.
The language of the Delhi Declaration reinforced this impression. Its reliance on non-binding formulations and cautious diplomatic phrasing signalled a retreat from even modest collective ambition. At the same time, key UN-led processes on digital cooperation and AI governance were largely sidelined.
For Maciel, this omission risks weakening evidence-based multilateral efforts at a time when reliable data and coordinated policymaking are urgently needed to understand AI’s real impact on economies, labour markets, and education systems.
India’s decision to join the US-led ‘Pax Silica’ initiative on AI and supply chain reflects a broader trend in which AI governance is increasingly tied to economic security and strategic competition.
While the partnership may bring India investment and access to technology, it also embeds AI more deeply within bloc-based alignments and the securitisation of global supply chains.
The summit also highlighted the fluid and often contradictory meaning of ‘digital sovereignty.’ Although India is frequently seen as a champion of sovereign digital infrastructure, the concept received limited emphasis in Delhi.
Maciel notes that sovereignty is increasingly shaped by immediate political and economic calculations rather than anchored in clear strategies, metrics, or participatory governance frameworks. Without greater clarity, she warns, AI sovereignty risks drifting away from broader goals of autonomy, rights, and self-determination.
In the end, the New Delhi Summit may be remembered less for its inclusive rhetoric than for revealing a fractured reality. India demonstrated how middle powers can influence the AI agenda, but the event underscored how fragmented, securitised, and initiative-heavy global AI governance has become. Whether future summits and the United Nations can restore coherence and continuity to this landscape remains an open question.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!
