Standing Committee Report Summary
- The Committee on External Affairs (Chair: Dr. Shashi Tharoor) submitted its report on ‘India’s role in Global Tech Diplomacy, Digital Governance, Outer Space Diplomacy, AI and Emerging Innovations’ on September 25, 2026. The Committee examined how India uses technology, space capability and AI in its foreign policy. Key recommendations of the Committee include:
- Strategy and coordination: The Committee noted that India does not have a single policy document consolidating an approach to digital governance, AI, cyber issues and space. It also noted that India’s dependence on foreign partners for advanced components and AI models exposes it to diplomatic risks from export decisions of other countries. It recommended that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA): (i) integrate technology partnerships into country and regional desk assessments, (ii) incorporate tech diplomacy into MEA’s core policy, and (iii) create a technology vision and strategy document in consultation with relevant stakeholders. It also recommended creating an inter-ministerial coordination mechanism chaired by the MEA, with participation from ministries such as Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Department of Space (DoS).
- State level work: The Committee observed that the States Division, which handles passport and consular work, is not yet effective for engaging state governments on technology diplomacy. It recommended that the States Division be reviewed. It should be resourced with officers with relevant expertise related to technology facilitation.
- Research and development (R&D) capacity: The Committee noted that India’s R&D spending is well below leading technology nations. It recommended: (i) dialogues with industry and research institutions in tech and AI, (ii) enhanced R&D investment and a dedicated technology diplomacy budget within MEA, and (iii) creating career pathways for skilled Indians living abroad who wish to return.
- Technology expertise: The Committee noted that technology expertise remains limited across Indian diplomatic missions. It recommended: (i) expanding technology diplomacy positions across missions, (ii) scaling up technology-focused training at the Sushma Swaraj Institute of Foreign Service, and (iii) exposing diplomats to industry and research institutions to increase expertise.
- Technology partnerships: The US and UK account for 75-80% of India’s overall technology business. The Committee noted that over-dependence on a narrow set of partner countries represents a strategic vulnerability. Further, bilateral engagement consists largely of meetings held, with limited information on outcomes. It recommended: (i) cultivating technology partnerships in under-engaged regions, and (ii) creating a mechanism to track and report on deliverables under partnerships.
- Diaspora engagement: The Committee noted outreach of the Pravasi Bharatiya Academic and Scientific Sampark platform confined mostly to the US diaspora. It recommended: (i) campaigns in major overseas Indian scientific communities, (ii) measurable engagement targets, and (iii) annual reporting on diaspora contributions to research.
- Space diplomacy: The Committee noted that Disarmament & International Security Affairs (DISA), which handles space diplomacy, is stretched by a growing pipeline of cooperation requests. It recommended that the MEA review any vacancies and its coordination with the DoS, ISRO and DISA. It also noted rising competition in the commercial launch market. To tackle this, it recommended a time-bound roadmap for Indian space start-ups to expand launch services to global customers.
- Data centre infrastructure: The Committee noted that MeitY maintains no official data on data centre capacity. Industry estimates show India’s data centre capacity growth from 1.5 GW in 2025 to 8 GW by 2030. It recommended: (i) a time bound plan for international partnerships to secure advanced computing resources, (ii) collection and publication of verified data on capacity, and (iii) an assessment of the sovereignty implication of Indian data stored or processed abroad.
- AI governance: The Committee noted that India’s domestic AI regulation relies on existing laws and voluntary guidelines, while its international position is more assertive. It recommended: (i) credible domestic AI regulation, (ii) launching an AI literacy campaign, and (iii) accelerating the rollout of the 570 planned data and AI labs.
DISCLAIMER: This document is being furnished to you for your information. You may choose to reproduce or redistribute this report for non-commercial purposes in part or in full to any other person with due acknowledgement of PRS Legislative Research (“PRS”). The opinions expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s). PRS makes every effort to use reliable and comprehensive information, but PRS does not represent that the contents of the report are accurate or complete. PRS is an independent, not-for-profit group. This document has been prepared without regard to the objectives or opinions of those who may receive it.