India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi has already made one thing clear: this is not just another technology gathering but a moment of visible diplomatic energy.

This week in New Delhi could quietly reshape the diplomatic grammar of artificial intelligence. The India AI Impact Summit, scheduled from 16 to 20 February, is not just another technology conference, there is a noticeable shift in mood. The summit feels deliberately inclusive in composition. Delegations from across regions are visibly present, and the diversity of stakeholders is harder to miss than at earlier summits. Multilateral institutions, startups, policymakers, and civil society actors are sharing space in ways that feel more distributed than hierarchical. That does not resolve deeper questions about agenda setting, but it does change the texture of the room.

It is the fourth global AI convening in under three years, after the UK’s gathering at Bletchley Park, the follow up in Seoul, and last year’s expansive forum in Paris. Each summit has shifted the centre of gravity. This one may shift the balance of power.

The earlier meetings were anchored in safety. They emerged in the shadow of frontier models and existential risk debates. But the arc has bent steadily outward. Paris reframed AI as a development question, Delhi now attempts something more ambitious: moving the conversation from safety to impact. Conversations around infrastructure, compute access, and real world deployment are surfacing early. That shift matters because it changes who gets invited, what gets measured, and whose priorities are legitimised.

For India, the summit is less about declarations and more about signalling. Expect a week of layered diplomacy. One layer is geopolitical positioning wherein New Delhi will try to present itself as a bridge between regulatory Europe and capability driven Washington. The subtext is clear that if the West is searching for a partner that can scale AI without heavy regulatory drag, India wants to make that case.

A second layer is technological signalling. Watch for announcements around sovereign capability. The government’s expanding national GPU pool and subsidised compute access will be framed as proof that India is moving beyond dependence. There will likely be noise around domestic foundational models and domain specific deployments across finance, manufacturing, and public services. Whether these systems match global benchmarks is secondary, the diplomatic message is autonomy.

The third layer is industrial policy. Expect renewed emphasis on deep tech incentives, public compute infrastructure, and partnerships with hyperscalers. India wants to attract capital into data centres and model development, but also to signal that it can eventually localise parts of the hardware stack. Even a phased narrative around chips or accelerators will be used to show strategic intent, especially in a world still shaped by US China tech rivalry.

But the summit is not only about power projection, it is also about agenda setting. India is positioning itself as the first Global South host in this summit series, which creates both opportunity and scrutiny. For years, AI development has followed an extractive pattern: data and labour sourced from lower income regions, value captured elsewhere. If Delhi wants credibility, it must push beyond symbolism. Southern leadership cannot mean hosting alone. It must translate into real debates about data ownership, compute access, and fair value distribution.

This is where the language of “impact” will be tested. Impact is an attractive word because it sounds inherently positive, but impact without accountability is branding. If adoption rates become the primary metric, the hardest questions will disappear: labour displacement, surveillance architectures, data extraction, and concentration of market power. A meaningful summit would redefine impact as public value, measured not only by deployment but by distribution of benefits and harms.

Another signal to watch is participation. Past summits have struggled with inclusion. Civil society, workers, and affected communities have often been peripheral to high level diplomacy. India has emphasised democratisation and inclusion in its framing. The real test is whether participation moves beyond panels and consultations into mechanisms that shape outcomes. Without pathways for follow through, inclusion risks becoming a performative layer over state and corporate negotiation.

There is also a domestic economic lens. India’s comparative advantage has long been people: services talent, data workforces, and digital scale. Generative AI complicates that model because automation threatens parts of the very labour base that powered earlier growth cycles. That reality explains the urgency behind sovereign models, sectoral deployments, and startup acceleration. The state wants India to move up the value chain, from back office to product nation.

This domestic urgency will intersect with global expectations. Over 140 countries are expected to be represented, alongside technology firms and multilateral actors. For many smaller states, the summit is less about frontier risk and more about access: compute, skills, and institutional capacity. If India can build coalitions around these needs, it may reshape how AI diplomacy is conducted outside traditional Western forums.

Yet there is a quiet risk. As the summit broadens its focus, the earlier safety agenda may thin out. Frontier model governance, cross border risk coordination, and corporate accountability mechanisms still lack durable global homes. If Delhi sidelines these conversations, they will migrate into smaller, tighter coalitions among frontier powers and that fragmentation could deepen divides between capability leaders and the rest.

So what should observers watch this week? Three things. First, the language of sovereignty. Not just rhetorical sovereignty, but concrete moves around compute, models, and infrastructure. Second, the definition of impact. Whether it includes costs and accountability, or remains a development slogan. Third, coalition building. Whether India uses this platform to forge Global South alignment, or primarily to court capital and partnerships.

Diplomacy often unfolds in corridors rather than communiqués. The most consequential outcomes may emerge in side rooms and bilateral meetings rather than plenary halls. But the signals will be visible ‘in how leaders frame AI’s future’, ‘in who speaks and who listens’. And in whether impact becomes a new vocabulary for shared governance, or simply a softer word for an old race.

Yes, as with any large gathering in Delhi, there is a touch of logistical chaos in the margins. But it is the kind that comes with crowded halls, overlapping conversations, and the unmistakable feeling that something consequential is underway.

Perhaps a lighter note amid the geopolitics. February is one of those rare windows when Delhi is at its most forgiving. Clear skies, soft sun, and just enough chill in the air. Delegates will debate compute and sovereignty by day, then drift through Lutyens boulevards in the evening, past wide avenues and winter gardens that still carry a hint of colonial geometry and republic ambition. It is a good week to be in the city. And a consequential one to watch closely.