The EU-India Trade And Technology Council: Turning Potential Into Progress

(Organised by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, New Delhi, in collaboration with the Council for Strategic and Defence Research (CSDR) on May 28, 2025)

The dialogue serves as the opening session for a series of policy briefs and webinars focussed on critical issues shaping the European Union (EU) and India’s relationship as they prepare for a much-anticipated summit later this year, in the backdrop of global volatility.

Speakers 

i) Dr Amaia Sanchez-Cacicedo, Senior Fellow, Institut Montaigne

ii) Dr Rajat Kathuria, Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Shiv Nadar University

iii) Ms Viktoria Apitzsch, Counsellor Head, Science and Technology section, Embassy of Germany, New Delhi

Moderator

Dr Karthik Nachiappan, Research Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore

Opening Remarks

1. Moderator Dr Karthik Nachiappan opened the floor for discussion on the progress of the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) since the time of its inception, evolution, and future prospects, and how the TTC, backed by intent and rhetoric, translate strategic motivation and objectives into mutually beneficial outcomes for Europe and India. As the European Union (EU) and India ties appear to be at a hinge moment, with things moving quickly and cooperation underway since 2025, the most pivotal track is technology, and how the two actors can forge and accelerate emerging technological issues. 

2. Dr Nachiappan notably stated that the TTC is the reason to believe in meaningful EU-India cooperation going forward, given the shared values of both partners, rooted in an open, rules-based, and human-centric digital future. He highlighted their complementary capabilities—with India as a software power prioritising innovation and Europe with its advanced research and development (R&D) capabilities, with technological expertise, along with their mutual strategic interest, which involves reducing dependency on China and the United States. 

3. He further identified some shared challenges ahead in terms of regulatory issues, encompassing matters like data privacy, intellectual property rights, and market access. Given the fact that both partners are massive bureaucracies, institutional inertia may also arise. Dr Nachiappan mentioned how both parties have expressed a strong commitment to conclude a trade agreement by the end of 2025, adding momentum to the EU-India strategic relationship in light of dynamic structural shifts in the international system. 

Panellists' Session

4. Dr Amaia Sanchez-Cacicedo opened her remarks by tracing the commencement of the EU-India TTC, which was in April 2022, following Ursula von der Leyen’s visit to India as a chief guest, as a result of which, two subsequent meetings had been held in May 2023 in Brussels and the other in February 2025 in New Delhi. While the EU-India TTC embeds the trade policies of both actors, she also mentioned the often-overlooked aspects of the TTC in terms of its economic security and trade agendas.

5. Additionally, she suggested a renewal of the strategic agenda posed for 2030 and talked about a strong momentum behind the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA). She also shed light on the harsh competition between the United States and China in terms of geoeconomics, due to which the EU and India find themselves in a hard place looking for strategic autonomy and the development of their indigenous capacities in sectors such as quantum computing, communication, artificial intelligence (AI), and green technology. 

6. From the EU standpoint, Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo explored how the EU envisions the TTC as a means to foster its innovation, strengthen its autonomy, and overcome its reliance on external technologies, given the current conjecture and uncertainty in the transatlantic relationships. She added how this was also mentioned by Dr Cristina Caffarra, one of her interviewees: that it was not solely about the EU innovating or underregulating, but rather the EU producing its own commercially viable and deployable technology, such as a cloud space or hardware infrastructure.

7. In terms of shared interests, she talked about the three working groups—first, strategic technologies, digital governance, and connectivity; second, clean and green technology; and third, trade investment and resilient value chains. The silos of the three working groups, she added, are in themselves not necessarily helpful due to crosscutting issues such as value chains, intellectual property rights, and trade, amongst others, which is also one of her critiques. 

8. On their complementary skills, she expanded on the lack of skilled labour in the EU despite the available physical capital—which can be curbed by the vast Indian human resource, especially with regard to scaling up the hardware industry, highlighting the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in November 2023 that aimed to boost the semiconductor supply chains. Adding to this, she also elaborated on the matter of migration and mobility and how India has been producing over a million skilled engineers from prestigious universities, which coincides with the EU’s ‘Choose Europe for Science’ programme.

9. Finally, Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo notably discussed another major convergence being green technology, considering both partners’ goal of achieving net-zero emissions—2050 for the EU and 2070 for India. On the divergences, she presents data privacy, knowledge and technology transfer, non-tariff barriers, and fundamental sustainability regulations such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBOM) and European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) as the underlying issues. Most importantly, she questioned the result of technology transfers—if they occur, to third-party countries, such as Russia or Iran. 

10. Dr Rajat Kathuria initiated his discussion by shedding light on India’s position in the international arena as a growing economy and with the world’s largest population. He addressed how, despite identifying as a multilateralist, India finds itself in a position where the international multilateral system is certainly in a “coma” with minimal chances of revival, consequently leading the country to act contrary to its DNA in the matters of trade by engaging more bilaterally or regionally. 

11. Owing to the change in India’s trade policy, Dr Kathuria added that the relationship with Europe has been brought in at a crucial time, as it can serve as a motive for India to scale up its regulatory value chain. He notably mentioned how the EU and India had already engaged in a great deal of commerce, considering Europe is India’s second-largest trade partner; thus, they seemed to be “synergies” that can be honed as a result of the TTC. 

12. On the question of whether the TTC holds any realistic value, Dr Kathuria promptly replied, claiming there is undeniable value in the TTC, not just in itself, but also as a catalyst for the implementation of numerous other deals, such as the FTA. Returning to the subject of synergies, he talked about the course of migration and mobility, pointing out that India appears to be on the positive end of the demographic transition, with Europe on the receiving end. He further discussed the possibility of joint technology sharing and R&D innovation. 

13. One of India’s weaknesses, Dr Kathuria elaborated, lies in the lack of engagement between the country’s government, industry, and academia. While such matters are being addressed via the New Education Policy (NEP), they largely remain on paper with limited operation. With the TTC in place, he hoped for an innovative consortium between the two partners, granted the increased funds, skilled personnel, and shared intent for mutually beneficial economic gains. 

14. Moreover, he observed a significant divergence in the regulatory landscape of both partners, taking into account the considerable per capita income disparity between the EU and India. With the EU at the higher end of the spectrum, there would be a need for regulatory harmonisation, which cannot be implemented from the start. This calls for a regulatory coherence that would take place over a period of time, providing India with the momentum it needs to bring about strategic domestic reforms—which Dr Kathuria identified as his ‘structural recommendation’. 

15. He further outlined his ‘sectoral recommendations’, which necessitate having an industry-wise collaboration in the fields of AI, green technology, and especially the semiconductor industry, noting that India accounts for 20 per cent of all chip designers worldwide. He also highlighted partnerships between the Indian Institutes of Technology’s (IITs) High-Performance Computing (HPC) clusters and Europe’s new EuroStack, stating that such alliances are essential in extracting the greatest benefits from existing synergies.

16. Lastly, Dr Kathuria presented his ‘operational recommendations’ by highlighting the three working groups, as classified by Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo, and the synergism between the said groups. While there is an obvious demarcation between the three working groups, he talked about deploying a mechanism including expertise from both the EU and India for breaking down the internal silos and creating an umbrella where these groups could be effectively converged for optimum utility. 

17. Ms Viktoria Apitzsch began her discussion by emphasising that the TTC is not a standalone entity in this dialogue, but it can certainly send the right signals towards the European economy and research on a daily basis. She talked about the importance of recognising India as an ever-growing partner with its enormous raw potential, and she is keen on observing if the industry can identify India as its key partner, given their shared interests in the fields of green technology and AI quantum. 

18. As the academic counsellor of the Embassy of Germany in New Delhi, she mentioned how she has had continuous interaction with a huge pool of skilled personnel from various IITs and even the second-tier universities across the country, demonstrating an exceptional level of intellect. Despite the remarkably skilled labour, she stressed the need for further refining technological proficiency in the matters of AI, especially now that India has begun to address its AI objective. 

19. Further, with its research-based approach and the incoming Horizon Fund, Ms Apitzsch emphasised the significance of the TTC in taking the EU-India ties forward, particularly with regard to the long-awaited FTA agreements between the two partners. She mentioned how the TTC will be a constructive platform in determining the collective interests of both parties moving forward and identifying the areas in which Europe and India most closely align and those that require further alignment. 

Moderator’s Comments

20. Referring to some of the topics raised in the discussion on the convergences, divergences, and the prospects of the EU-India TTC, Dr Nachiappan pointed out that India’s technological diplomacy has few partnerships with other countries due to its economic structure. He highlighted India’s natural convergence with the United States and many Southeast Asian countries, namely Singapore, and asked whether Europe fits into India’s technical landscape. Addressing Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo, he probed more on how the TTC reflects a strategic convergence amidst global shifts and the US policy changes.  

21. Strategic convergence is unquestionably the primary factor, followed by technological convergence, stated Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo. From Europe’s lens, she continued, India fits very well in both strategic and technical aspects of its industry, citing India’s strengths such as skilled manpower, a robust telecommunication network, green technology including green hydrogen and India’s Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), which can provide a means to economic prosperity alongside other social benefits. 

22. One major caveat, as highlighted by Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo, lies in the dissimilarity between the regulation policies of the EU and India. She talked about the matter of data privacy and the issues of cross-border data flows without adequate regulation. The fact that for India, national security, the role of the state, and economic development are the primary concerns, as opposed to the EU’s reservations regarding user privacy and individual rights, may also serve as an obstacle. 

23. Dr Nachiappan addressed the lack of convergence between the EU and India on the matter of data security and asked Ms Apitzsch if there is more confidence in the European firms vis-à-vis India, given the newly passed data protection laws. She replied that the EU will continue to strengthen its data protection laws as it views them with a human-centric approach. She emphasised how the difference in their approaches could cause some hindrances, as information privacy remains a key aspect that the EU is not willing to disregard. 

24. On whether there exists a natural convergence between the EU and India as opposed to a strategic convergence, Dr Kathuria explained by identifying a natural convergence in the terms of trade, foreign direct investment (FDI), and interpersonal connection, which is substantial in the case of the EU and India, indicating some degree of natural convergence. Referencing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), he discussed how India presented itself as an inveterate multilateralist abstaining from FTAs while the rest of the world, including the EU, continued to do so. 

25. He went on speaking about Europe's FTAs within its own borders or its optimal currency region. He described how the EU acknowledged that trade will inevitably be divided within its borders, but that is how they intend to approach their trade policy, signifying a lack of natural convergence due to the trade divisions. Dr Kathuria added that all regional trade agreements are arguably strategic convergences with the hope of increasing their natural convergence in the future.

26. Moreover, Dr Kathuria talked about leveraging “dynamic comparative advantage” as opposed to “static comparative advantage” in his approach to the EU and India relationship, id est, there may be areas of divergences, but over time, there could be a creation of dynamism in the comparative advantage, or more precisely, the creation of a natural comparative advantage between Europe and India. On the subject of differing regulatory frameworks, he estimated that India may move up the regulatory ladder, especially with a binding FTA in place, India’s regulatory policies can slowly begin to converge and harmonise with those of the EU.

27. Further on the matter of regulations, Dr Nachiappan wondered if there are deliberations within the TTC working groups in India seeking Europe to decrease its regulatory policies in order to drive innovation and commercial partnerships, to which Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo responded by highlighting the similar demands made by Europeans themselves. Although she did not think the EU would be inclined to deregulate, she maintained that Europe does recognise the significance of innovation, which runs parallel with less restrictive regulations. 

28. Furthermore, Dr Sanchez-Cacicedo also shed light on the importance of increasing the flexibility of the EU’s regulatory policies by highlighting how the EU can learn from India’s techno-nationalist model, which could also benefit Europe’s other strategic partnerships in the global south, including the broader aspects of the EU and India’s technical relationship, covering negotiations on the dual-use aspect of technology, strategic defence partnership, and space research.

29. To Dr Nachiappan’s question on whether the three working groups can move further towards one another, given the distinct digital philosophies of both the actors, Ms Apitzsch responded by highlighting the core idea behind the TTC, designed to observe the congruences between Europe and India and increase their future alignment. There has been active engagement on the subject of ethical use of AI, and through the workshops on electric mobility and battery recycling, she said, the EU-India coordination on the infrastructural development of electric vehicles has also increased. 

30. Dr Nachiappan talked about the significance of AI testing models in the TTC’s structure and probed whether both partners should prioritise the first working groups, in the context of international AI advancements, particularly in the United States and China. Dr Kathuria replied by stating that there is a definitive logic and merit in putting higher stakes into AI technology and software, as it benefits across the other two working groups as well. 

31. Lastly, Dr Nachiappan briefly questioned how the FTA would help iron out some of the differences in standards on technical issues between the EU and India. Dr Kathuria addressed this by recounting the FTA between the United Kingdom and India, wherein India’s commitment to standards has been on a “best-effort” basis, and he does not believe that this would be any different in the case of the EU-India FTA. 

32. He highlighted that India had abstained from entering the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) despite several exhortations from scholars and economists because of the linkage between trade and standards. Standards based on the environment, labour, competition, and procurement have all been inextricably tied with trade. Dr Kathuria stated that with the FTA in place, India will remain on its best-effort basis and gradually improve its standards over a period of time. 

Concluding Remarks

33. Moderator Dr Nachiappan closed his remarks, noting that the sign of a good discussion lies in the kind of questions it raises, and the questions regarding the TTC will only grow in significance. He observed that the EU-India relationship will continue gaining prominence in the future, and that despite the minor setbacks along the way, the structural logistics that are driving Europe and India into the TTC and beyond will persist. 

Ends.

The author, Alankrita Singh, is an Associate Editor at Ramjas Political Review.

Featured image credit: PTI