India Pushes for Global AI Governance Framework as Tech Powers Clash Over Regulation

India Pushes for Global AI Governance Framework as Tech Powers Clash Over Regulation

India is lobbying for what it calls a "Delhi Declaration" on artificial intelligence, positioning itself as a bridge between Western regulatory approaches and the developing world's concerns about being left behind in the AI race.

The initiative comes as finance chiefs at multinational corporations navigate an increasingly fractured landscape of AI rules, with the European Union's AI Act now in force, China rolling out its own governance framework, and the United States taking a more hands-off approach under the current administration. For CFOs overseeing global operations, the prospect of yet another regulatory regime—or alternatively, a harmonizing framework—carries significant implications for compliance costs and technology investment strategies.

India's proposal, discussed at recent international forums, seeks to establish common principles for AI development and deployment that acknowledge the resource constraints of emerging economies. The country has positioned itself as representing nations that lack the computational infrastructure and capital of the US and China but want a seat at the table as AI reshapes everything from financial services to manufacturing.

The timing is notable. As companies pour billions into AI capabilities—with enterprise software spending on AI tools accelerating sharply over the past year—finance leaders are simultaneously grappling with how to account for these investments amid regulatory uncertainty. A Delhi Declaration, if it gains traction, could either simplify compliance by establishing baseline standards or complicate matters further by adding another layer to an already complex patchwork.

India's pitch emphasizes what it calls "inclusive AI governance," arguing that current frameworks emerging from Brussels and Beijing don't adequately address the needs of countries still building digital infrastructure. For multinational finance teams, this matters because it could influence how AI systems need to be configured and audited across different jurisdictions. A company deploying AI-powered financial controls in Mumbai may face different requirements than the same system running in Manhattan or Munich.

The challenge for India is credibility. While the country has a massive technology sector and a growing AI research community, it lacks the regulatory heft of the EU or the market dominance of the US. Getting other nations to sign onto a Delhi Declaration would require demonstrating that India's approach offers something neither Western nor Chinese frameworks provide.

For CFOs, the near-term question is whether to wait for regulatory clarity or press ahead with AI deployments. The risk of moving too fast is building systems that don't comply with future rules. The risk of moving too slowly is falling behind competitors who are already using AI to automate financial processes, improve forecasting, and reduce headcount.

India's initiative also highlights a broader tension in AI governance: whether rules should focus on the technology itself or on specific use cases. Finance leaders generally prefer the latter—they want to know what's allowed in credit decisioning or fraud detection, not abstract principles about algorithmic transparency. Whether a Delhi Declaration would provide that specificity remains unclear.