As India hosts the AI Impact Summit this week, artificial intelligence has ceased to be a mere technological frontier; it is now a theatre of geopolitical contestation. Much like nuclear technology during the Cold War, AI has moved to the heart of strategic competition. States are not merely investing in algorithms - they are investing in power. Economic primacy, military superiority, and societal control increasingly hinge on who shapes, trains, and governs intelligent systems. The transition from narrow AI applications to generative and autonomous systems has only intensified this urgency.
Unlike oil or territory, AI's strategic value lies in intangibles: data, computing power, talent, and algorithmic innovation. These are the new currencies of influence. Control over AI ecosystems - cloud infrastructure, semiconductor supply chains, regulatory standards - has become synonymous with digital sovereignty. The geopolitical map, therefore, is being redrawn not through shifting borders but through control of code and compute. In this emerging order, resilience is defined less by geography and more by technological depth.
Building On The Paris Summit
Building on the momentum of the 2025 AI Action Summit in Paris, the AI Impact Summit 2026 represents an expanded partnership between Paris and Delhi to shape the future of AI through inclusive, responsible, and impact-oriented collaboration. French President Emmanuel Macron's visit to India this week will be an important milestone in this partnership as the two nations inaugurate the India-France Year of Innovation 2026. The summit aims to transition from high-level principles to practical outcomes and partnerships, reinforcing India and France as co-leaders in global AI governance and innovation. The India-France AI partnership reflects a shared vision of leveraging technology for sustainable development, democratic values, and global digital governance, positioning both nations as influential actors in shaping the future of artificial intelligence. By aligning their approaches to responsible and inclusive AI, India and France are seeking to craft a middle path - one that safeguards democratic values while remaining globally competitive. In that sense, their collaboration is as much about shaping global governance debates as it is about fostering domestic innovation.
At the core of AI geopolitics lies great-power rivalry, most visibly between the United States and China. For Washington, technological leadership underpins its global pre-eminence; for Beijing, AI mastery is central to national rejuvenation. This is not merely an economic competition, even if the economic stakes are enormous. Estimates suggest AI could add trillions to global GDP, but the distribution of gains will be uneven, privileging those with advanced digital ecosystems. Technological leadership is, thus, inseparable from strategic leadership.
AI Is Everywhere
Security anxieties further sharpen this contest. AI enhances intelligence gathering, cyber capabilities, and autonomous weapons systems. The militarisation of machine learning is no longer speculative - it is underway. Export controls on advanced chips, restrictions on semiconductor supply chains, and tightening investment regimes are symptomatic of a broader technological decoupling. What is emerging resembles a digital Cold War, with competing blocs seeking self-sufficiency in critical technologies.
Resources add another combustible layer. The hardware that powers AI depends on critical minerals - lithium, cobalt, rare earths - linking AI competition to the geopolitics of supply chains and energy transitions. At the same time, data itself is fragmenting along national lines, creating politically siloed digital ecosystems. The promise of a globally integrated internet is giving way to sovereign data regimes.
Ideology cannot be divorced from this technological contest. Democratic systems emphasise transparency, privacy, and human rights in AI governance, while authoritarian regimes view AI as an instrument of state control and social management. Competing regulatory models are thus exporting competing political values.
AI Won't Level The Field
And the consequences of this competition are already visible. The global order is tilting towards fragmentation. The United States and China remain dominant, while Europe struggles for technological autonomy, and much of the Global South risks marginalisation. AI-induced economic disruptions - particularly automation-driven unemployment - could exacerbate inequalities, both within and between nations. Technological bifurcation threatens to produce parallel AI ecosystems: one relatively open and rules-based, the other centralised and surveillance-driven.
Security risks are equally profound. AI-enabled cyber warfare, autonomous weapons, and algorithmic disinformation campaigns undermine trust in institutions and erode international norms. The weaponisation of information, amplified by generative AI, weakens democratic resilience. In authoritarian contexts, AI strengthens state capacity for surveillance and control. In democracies, it tests the balance between innovation and civil liberties. AI's voracious appetite for energy and water - particularly through large-scale data centres - also ties the geopolitics of AI to climate politics. Competition for compute could translate into competition for energy resources, complicating already fraught sustainability debates.
It is evident that AI is not merely an enabler of power; it is redefining what power means. Nations that adapt, regulate wisely, and invest strategically will shape the contours of the new order. Those that lag may find themselves strategically vulnerable and economically sidelined.
Is Collaboration Possible?
Yet, the trajectory is not predetermined. The same technology that divides could also connect. International cooperation on standards, ethical norms, and risk mitigation remains possible - though increasingly difficult. The challenge is to prevent competitive imperatives from overwhelming cooperative instincts. A fragmented AI order may yield short-term strategic gains, but it risks long-term instability.
For India, the AI moment is not merely about technology - it is about strategy. The choices before New Delhi are subtle, even fraught. In a century where power will be increasingly mediated through code, compute, and control over data, India cannot afford to drift into technological dependency. Yet it would be unrealistic to imagine that it can match, dollar-for-dollar, the scale of investments being mobilised by Washington or Beijing. The task, therefore, is not imitation but calibration.
What India Brings To The Table
India's strengths are distinct. Its digital public infrastructure, expansive data ecosystems, and deep reservoir of human capital offer a foundation that few can replicate. The real challenge lies in converting these assets into strategic leverage without being locked into hardened technological blocs. Partnerships with like-minded countries are indispensable for access to frontier technologies and resilient supply chains. But India's foreign policy tradition of strategic autonomy will not be easily abandoned; alignment will remain issue-based rather than absolute.
At home, however, the balancing act is even more complex. Innovation must not come at the expense of inclusion. AI must serve India's developmental trajectory, enhancing productivity, governance, and service delivery rather than exacerbating inequalities or deepening social fault lines. Globally, India is well placed to articulate a middle path in AI governance: one anchored in democratic accountability but sensitive to the aspirations of the Global South. Whether India becomes a shaper of emerging norms or merely adapts to standards set by others will depend on its ability to marry ambition with prudence. In the unfolding geotech churn, that balance will define its standing.
(Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
