For most of the last decade, a trade deal between India and the EU seemed unlikely. The nudge came as the world changed around both. Nicolas points to three converging forces: the pressure of US tariffs under Trump, which gave both sides political incentive to show they had other partners; the shared interest in reducing dependence on China for critical supply chains; and India's loss of GSP preferential treatment in the EU from January this year, which created a very concrete economic urgency on the Indian side. Together, these forces did what years of diplomatic goodwill could not.

The deal itself is ambitious by India's standards, covering tariff elimination on 96.6% of EU goods exports, significant reductions on cars, wine and spirits, and new services commitments across sectors that were previously off the table. But Nicolas is candid about the gaps. There is no chapter on government procurement, the sustainability provisions lack any real enforcement mechanism, and investment protection has been deferred to a separate negotiation. On the regulatory side, Indian exporters still face the carbon border adjustment mechanism on steel and aluminium, strict food safety standards that have already led to hundreds of rejected shipments, and product testing requirements that a tariff cut alone cannot resolve.

On mobility, Nicolas notes that the framework for Indian professionals is genuinely more promising than what was on offer in the original negotiations, partly because the UK is no longer in the room and partly because Europe's labour market has shifted significantly. But immigration policy remains a national competence, and many EU governments are currently run by or in coalition with parties for whom restricting migration is a core political position. The gap between what Brussels signs and what Vienna or Rome implement could be quite wide, and managing expectations around this will be one of the more delicate parts of the implementation process ahead.

Every two weeks, Interpreting India brings you diverse voices from India and around the world to explore the critical questions shaping the nation's future. We delve into how technology, the economy, and foreign policy intertwine to influence India's relationship with the global stage.

As a Carnegie India production, hosted by Carnegie scholars, Interpreting India, a Carnegie India production, provides insightful perspectives and cutting-edge by tackling the defining questions that chart India's course through the next decade.

Stay tuned for thought-provoking discussions, expert insights, and a deeper understanding of India's place in the world.

Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review to join the conversation and be part of Interpreting India's journey.

This episode is part of our special series on the India AI Impact Summit 2026, examining the conversations, perspectives, and debates that are shaping global AI discourse.

Tino has been in the room at all four AI summits, and his account of how the conversation has evolved is both candid and grounding. Bletchley Park, he says, was about putting AI on the agenda as a matter of global significance. Seoul was about bringing the private sector formally into that conversation. Paris marked a pivot towards economic opportunity, reflecting a growing recognition, particularly in Europe, that being seen only as a regulator was not a position anyone wanted to hold for long. And New Delhi brought something none of the previous summits had: scale, and a genuinely different set of questions. Half a million people attended, and the conversations happening on the floor of the convention center were about crop yields, public service delivery, and what the technology meant for jobs and families. That, Tino says, is not a dilution of the AI safety agenda. It is a necessary part of building one that the rest of the world can actually be part of.

On the criticism that these summits produce declarations that no one enforces and voluntary commitments that companies quietly walk away from, Tino is pragmatic rather than defensive. He points to the eradication of smallpox, the reduction of nuclear weapons, and the Montreal Protocol as reminders that consequential international progress tends to look messy and incremental from the inside. The network of AI safety institutes that now exists across multiple countries, the UN panel on AI, and the fact that frontier labs are taking evaluation and testing seriously at all, are all, in his view, real if incomplete achievements. The harder question, particularly after the U.S. and UK declined to sign the Paris declaration, is whether the summit process can hold its shape as geopolitical competition intensifies and the appetite for multilateral consensus shrinks.

For Geneva, Tino hopes the conversation moves inward, towards understanding how AI is actually changing organizations, families, and daily life at the micro level. He is also candid about risks he thinks are still not being taken seriously enough, particularly around loss of control, pointing to early evidence of models that scheme, misrepresent, and in controlled environments show signs of self-preservation. His overall posture is one of cautious optimism: he does not think the technology should slow down, but he does think the work of aligning it with what is genuinely good for people has barely begun.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction
02:18 Introduction to AI Diplomacy
04:07 The Bletchley Park Summit: Hope and Concerns
10:24 Seoul Summit: Concrete Commitments and Challenges
11:58 Paris Summit: Shifting Focus to Action
16:04 Delhi Summit: The Global South Perspective
21:30 Diverse Perspectives: Government, Private Sector, and Civil Society
26:15 Critiques of Summit Effectiveness and Global Cooperation
29:24 Assessing AI's Global Impact
33:45 India's Role in AI Development
39:07 Looking Ahead to the Geneva Summit
43:09 Global Perspectives on AI
47:25 The Future of AI Governance

Every two weeks, Interpreting India brings you diverse voices from India and around the world to explore the critical questions shaping the nation's future. We delve into how technology, the economy, and foreign policy intertwine to influence India's relationship with the global stage.

As a Carnegie India production, hosted by Carnegie scholars, Interpreting India, a Carnegie India production, provides insightful perspectives and cutting-edge by tackling the defining questions that chart India's course through the next decade.

Stay tuned for thought-provoking discussions, expert insights, and a deeper understanding of India's place in the world.

Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review to join the conversation and be part of Interpreting India's journey.

The conversation begins with a close look at India’s data protection regime, particularly the DPDP Act and its emphasis on consent. Nikhil challenges the perception that the law is overly consent-driven, pointing to a range of exemptions and alternative legal bases for processing data. At the same time, he highlights gaps in enforcement and deterrence, arguing that the current framework may struggle to address large-scale misuse of data or systemic harms.

On AI governance, Nikhil makes a case that India does not need a sweeping, EU-style AI law, at least not yet. Given India's legislative pace, enforcement gaps, and how fast AI is evolving, he thinks strengthening existing laws and making targeted amendments is a far more practical path. He does, however, flag artificial intimacy as something that deserves serious attention soon. AI-powered companionship is supercharging the loneliness economy, building emotional dependency at scale, and raising risks that no existing framework is really built to handle.

Closer to home, Nikhil offers a window into how AI is changing legal practice at Trilegal, where 75% of lawyers now use AI in their daily workflows. The firm is simultaneously building AI products, using them internally, and advising clients on AI risk, a position Nikhil sees as an advantage rather than a conflict. For him, the era of lawyers who write code and speak directly with engineers is not something to fear but a long overdue shift in what it means to practice technology law.

Episode Contributors

Nidhi Singh is an associate fellow at Carnegie India. Her current research interests include data governance, artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. Her work focuses on the implications of information technology law and policy from a Global Majority and Asian perspective. She has previously contributed to the Indian Express, The Secretariat, Medianama and HinduBusiness Line.

Nikhil Narendran is a Partner in Trilegal’s Bengaluru office and part of the TMT practice of the firm. He is a subject matter expert in the technology, media, and telecom communication space. Nikhil focuses on the interplay of technology, human lives, and commerce. He has substantial experience in advising companies on telecom, media and technology laws in relation to their entry into India, operations, strategy, policy, regulatory issues, disputes, and business models.

Every two weeks, Interpreting India brings you diverse voices from India and around the world to explore the critical questions shaping the nation's future. We delve into how technology, the economy, and foreign policy intertwine to influence India's relationship with the global stage.

As a Carnegie India production, hosted by Carnegie scholars, Interpreting India, a Carnegie India production, provides insightful perspectives and cutting-edge by tackling the defining questions that chart India's course through the next decade.

Stay tuned for thought-provoking discussions, expert insights, and a deeper understanding of India's place in the world.

Don't forget to subscribe, share, and leave a review to join the conversation and be part of Interpreting India's journey.