Punching above its weight

India’s AI Impact Summit demonstrates its knack for turning weakness into diplomatic edge

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government hosted the India Artificial Intelligence Impact Summit in New Delhi in February, the event was billed as a global gathering for the greater good. Under the theme “Prosperity and happiness for all”, it drew world leaders and tech tycoons alike. By the end, 91 countries and international organizations had signed the New Delhi Declaration on AI Impact. For a country whose AI industry remains heavily dependent on imported GPUs, whose foundational models lag behind those of the United States and China, and which suffers acutely from a brain drain and automation’s disruptions, the feat was impressive. India had somehow seized the agenda on one of the defining technologies of the age.

The same pattern is visible elsewhere. In 2015, India, together with France, launched the International Solar Alliance. Today the organization, headquartered in India, counts more than 100 states as members and is the first intergovernmental body with its secretariat on Indian soil. Yet India’s own solar industry, though growing fast in installed capacity, remains technologically dependent — above all on Chinese components and supply chains. Once again, limited hard power has not stopped New Delhi from claiming a prominent seat at the table.

The contrast is striking. In both artificial intelligence and solar energy, India’s material capabilities fall well short of its diplomatic reach. What explains this ability to set the global agenda despite modest underlying strength? The answer lies in a deliberate strategy of narrative-shaping, geopolitical positioning and skillful packaging — what might be called India’s “diplomatic wrapping” technique.

India’s shortcomings in AI are no secret. The country imports virtually all its high-end computing power, its home-grown large language models trail international pioneers, and many of its best engineers work abroad. Yet during the New Delhi summit, the government turned these vulnerabilities into assets through a carefully orchestrated campaign.

First, it leaned heavily on its credentials as a heavyweight of the “Global South”. By emphasizing AI applications tailored to developing countries and promoting the idea of “AI dividends for all”, India positioned itself as a counterweight to Western-dominated rule-making. The widespread endorsement of the final declaration was partly the result of this framing: many poorer nations saw New Delhi as a more sympathetic interlocutor than Washington or Brussels.

Second, Indian officials shrewdly addressed the “technological anxiety” felt across much of the developing world. Talk of “sovereign AI” — national models attuned to local languages and data-privacy concerns — resonated strongly with countries wary of over-reliance on a handful of dominant platforms. Where Western discourse often dwells on existential risks or cutting-edge competition, India offered a friendlier, more inclusive vision.

Third, the summit served as an investment prospectus. By repeatedly touting India’s vast market, youthful population and long-term potential, the government lured commitments from Google, OpenAI, Microsoft and others, as well as domestic conglomerates such as Adani, Reliance and Tata. Plans for massive data-center investments and the allocation of thousands of GPUs to local researchers were presented as proof of seriousness. In effect, India was trading political convening power and future market access for the capital and technology it currently lacks.

Finally, the event was wrapped in symbolism. India cast itself as a trailblazer for the Global South: the first developing country to host a major AI summit on this scale. The message was clear — technological leapfrogging is possible even from a position of relative weakness.

The playbook was tested earlier with the International Solar Alliance. Although India’s solar capacity has surged past 100 GW, the industry still relies heavily on imported panels and equipment, much of it from China. The alliance, launched on the sidelines of the 2015 Paris climate conference, aims to mobilize $1 trillion in investment for solar deployment across the “sunshine belt” of developing nations. India provides the headquarters and political leadership, but the financial burden is shared through voluntary contributions and private-sector involvement — a “light-asset” model that minimizes New Delhi’s own exposure.

Here too, India skillfully deployed the Global South narrative. It framed solar power as a tool for energy security, poverty reduction and climate resilience, while highlighting the financing and technology barriers faced by poorer countries. Initiatives such as “One Sun, One World, One Grid” helped extend India’s reach. Even though China leads the manufacturing of solar hardware, India succeeded in positioning the International Solar Alliance as a Southern-led platform for cooperation rather than a mere technical contest.

India’s approach is neither accidental nor confined to these two domains. Four elements stand out. The first is the identity leverage. With its huge population, political credentials and developing-country status, India is unusually well placed to speak for the Global South at a time when trust in Western-led institutions has frayed. By championing “inclusion”, “sovereignty” and “equitable access”, New Delhi converts numerical weight and moral framing into bargaining power.

The second is narrative dexterity. India has a talent for reframing weakness as virtue. In AI, it presents “sovereign” models as a democratic alternative to great-power dominance. In solar energy, it portrays itself as a fellow traveler rather than a technological laggard. At the same time, it sells a compelling vision of future returns to attract today’s investment.

The third is geopolitical opportunism. India exploits the strategic movements of major powers and Western unease, to widen its room for maneuver. It courts Western capital and technology while burnishing its non-aligned credentials.

The fourth is timing. Both AI governance and the global energy transition are still in flux. New Delhi has moved quickly to occupy the institutional vacuum, building low-cost platforms that deliver high symbolic returns.

India’s “packaging strategy” demonstrates that in an era of fluid global governance, soft power, narrative control and convening ability can amplify limited material resources. By creating forums, shaping the conversation and mobilizing coalitions, a country can achieve influence disproportionate to its technological or industrial heft.

Yet there are clear limits. Packaging cannot indefinitely substitute for genuine capability. India’s brain drain continues, its technological dependence remains, and the gap with the US and China in frontier AI is wide. The real test for India will be whether it can convert the diplomatic spotlight into durable domestic progress — whether the data centers and laboratories materialize, whether talent begins to flow home, and whether “sovereign AI” becomes more than a slogan.

For other emerging powers, particularly China, the Indian example offers both inspiration and caution. Hard strengths in manufacturing, supply chains and cost control remain formidable assets. But they must be married to persuasive storytelling and institutional entrepreneurship if they are to be fully translated into agenda-setting power. In the contest for global influence, presentation matters — but so does the product inside the wrapping.

The author is an associate researcher at the Department of International Cooperation under the National Development and Reform Commission of China. 

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.