9. Military AI Governance: India’s Strategic Abstention and Global Dilemmas

In the lead-up to the India–AI Impact Summit 2026 in New Delhi, the global discourse on the militarization of Artificial Intelligence has reached a critical juncture. At the third global summit on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM 2026) held in Spain, India joined major powers like the U.S. and China in abstaining from the ‘Pathways to Action’ declaration. This move underscores India’s cautious \'watch-and-wait\' policy, balancing ethical imperatives with national security requirements. • Decline in Global Consensus: The REAIM 2026 summit saw a significant drop in commitment, with only 35 out of 85 participating countries signing the ‘Pathways to Action’ pact. This reflects growing hesitation among technologically advanced states to accept binding constraints on dual-use technologies. • Dual-Use Complexity: AI presents a unique challenge in arms control because its civilian R&D (logistics, data analysis) is often indistinguishable from military applications. This \'dual-use\' nature makes verifying compliance with international treaties nearly impossible without intrusive oversight. • Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWS): Often termed \'killer robots,\' LAWS remain the most contentious issue. While smaller nations push for an outright ban, countries like India view a legally binding instrument as \'premature,\' arguing that the defensive potential of autonomous systems (e.g., border surveillance, anti-missile defense) must be fully explored. • Definitional Deadlock: There is no international consensus on what constitutes \'autonomy.\' States with advanced AI capabilities prefer high-threshold definitions to maintain operational freedom, while others seek restrictive definitions to curb the technological gap. • Strategic Reluctance: India’s abstention is rooted in its unique security environment—characterized by long, contested borders and cross-border terrorism. New Delhi seeks to avoid \'regulatory capture\' that might prevent it from developing indigenous AI-driven defense capabilities like the Indrajeel drones or Swarm technologies. • The Call for Non-Binding Guardrails: Experts suggest that instead of an immediate ban, the focus should shift to non-binding mechanisms: excluding AI from nuclear command and control, voluntary data-sharing on military AI development, and creating a \'risk hierarchy\' for different AI use cases. Definitions & Key Terms • LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems): Weapons that, once activated, can search for, select, and engage targets without further human intervention. • Human-in-the-Loop: A system where the AI suggests actions, but a human must explicitly authorize the lethal force. • Human-out-of-the-Loop: A fully autonomous system where no human intervention occurs between activation and the engagement of a target. • Dual-Use Technology: Technology that can be used for both peaceful/civilian purposes and military/destructive purposes (e.g., GPS, Nuclear energy, AI). Constitutional & Legal Provisions • Article 51 (Directive Principles): Mandates that the State shall endeavor to promote international peace and security and maintain just and honorable relations between nations. • Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW): The UN-led forum where the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) discusses LAWS. India considers this the only appropriate forum for such negotiations, resisting parallel processes like REAIM.• Defence AI Council (DAIC): An Indian body chaired by the Defence Minister, tasked with providing strategic direction for the adoption of AI in the armed forces. • IHL (International Humanitarian Law): The primary legal framework (including the Geneva Conventions) that applies to AI in warfare, demanding that any weapon must be able to distinguish between combatants and civilians (Principle of Distinction). Conclusion India’s refusal to sign the REAIM 2026 declaration is not a rejection of \'responsibility\' but a calculated refusal to accept \'unequal\' regulations. Much like its stance on the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), India seeks to ensure that it does not become a second-tier power by signing away its right to develop critical emerging technologies. The path forward lies in championing a non-binding, accountability-based framework that establishes safety guardrails—particularly in nuclear and chemical domains—without stifling the indigenization of defense technology. UPSC Relevance • GS Paper II: International relations; Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests; Global groupings and agreements involving India. • GS Paper III: Science and Technology—developments and their applications; Security challenges and their management in border areas; Indigenization of technology. • Ethics (GS IV): Ethical dilemmas in warfare; De-humanization of conflict through algorithms; Responsibility and accountability in automated systems.