Editor’s note: This article is based on insights from a podcast series. The views expressed in the podcast reflect the speakers’ perspectives and do not necessarily represent those of this publication. Readers are encouraged to explore the full podcast for additional context.
In an episode of the “Regulating AI” podcast, host Sanjay Puri spoke to Anu Bradford at the India AI Impact Summit, and what came out of this conversation was not only a criticism of current global models of regulation but also a strong argument for why India should do things its own way.
Bradford, a Columbia Law School professor and author who is known for her “Digital Empires” theory, described the three main models that are currently shaping the tech industry: the American market-driven model, the Chinese state-driven model, and the European rights-driven model.
As Bradford was so blunt about, “I have reservations about the American market-driven model. It is a techno-optimist, techno-libertarian model, and I think it has generated many benefits. But at the same time, I don’t believe we should outsource the governance of technology to the tech companies themselves. They don’t wake up in the morning thinking, what can I do today to advance public interest? What can I do for democracy?” She believes that the companies think about how to grow. This is a problem for countries like India.
On the other side of the spectrum is the China model, which is state-led and therefore efficient and centralized, but also deeply entwined with censorship and state control. Bradford is very clear that while the China model may offer scale, it does not offer empowerment or enhanced democratic institutions.
READ: ‘Not a shiny new toy’: Thomas Davin on AI’s role in education and protecting childhood (May 8, 2026)
Bradford believes regulation is not the innovation killer. This leaves Europe’s rights-based framework. Despite complaints that regulation is driving companies out, Bradford argues that the premise that regulation is Europe’s problem is itself problematic.
The actual problem, she says, “what is really explaining this innovation gap that we are observing between the U.S. and the EU is that there is no digital single market in Europe. We have a fragmented market consisting of 27 different jurisdictions. They have different languages. They have different cultural priorities that affect consumer demand for technologies, but also different regulatory regimes. So it’s harder for European tech companies to scale in Europe.”
The lesson for India is profound: the dichotomy between innovation and regulation is a false one. India can safeguard digital rights and create deep capital markets, a digital infrastructure, and an ecosystem that embraces risk-taking. In other words, it can create a hybrid model that harnesses the strengths of Europe and America.
The discussion then turned to the question of how the “Brussels Effect,” famously described by Bradford as, “a term that I use to capture this European Union’s global regulatory influence that is often unilateral,” could be replicated in India.
Bradford thinks that it can. The size and success of India in developing digital public infrastructure make it a special case. Instead of following the example of Washington, Brussels, or Beijing, India can offer the world its own innovations in the field of digital public infrastructure.
The topic of discussion also touched upon the widening gap between global superpowers and the potential for what Bradford terms a “coalition of the willing.” With the tensions between the United States and China preventing universal governance of AI, the role of middle powers such as India and the European Union becomes important to develop frameworks that ensure the benefits of AI are shared while preventing the damage. AI, after all, does not recognize borders.
READ: ‘Trust is infrastructure’: Raju Narisetti on the future of AI (April 29, 2026)
One of the most thought-provoking moments came when Bradford spoke about language diversity. “The AI is drawn from data on the internet, which is primarily 70% English-based Western culture… if you think about social media and content moderation, we have massive failures of the leading social media platforms, for instance, not investing in adequate content moderation in smaller languages, many Indian languages,” she said.
However, she is cautiously optimistic about the future, “AI is making great strides in translations… I would say bridge some of those divides where we can switch from one language to another and the translation techniques are getting more and more accurate to great extent.”
Finally, Bradford turned to the question of the emergence of agentic AI. Her stance is measured but clear: innovation should not run ahead of governance. Whether it is teenagers consulting AI agents on mental health issues or the dangers of automation, protection is necessary, and this is particularly true for vulnerable groups.
The final message she had for the world leaders was very clear: “We all need to understand that there is more than common, that we all have, than what divides us. And I think AI can be a tremendous technology to benefit the entire humanity.”
Even in the days of the Cold War, there were areas where they could come together. In the age of AI, it is important to find “islands of agreement” and come together to ensure that this technology is used for the betterment of humanity.
For India, the time is now. As Bradford argues, India does not have to choose between great powers. It can create something entirely its own pro-innovation, pro-governance, and world-leading.