Where Does India Stand in the UN's New Cyber Order?
The UN established its first permanent Global Mechanism for cybersecurity which will begin operations in March 2026. The policy framework for Western countries exists because their current strategies are being developed. The situation in India presents greater complexity and higher levels of interest than any other country.
The Fence That Became a Vantage Point
The United Nations cybersecurity talks have seen India actively participate since their start. India brought its proposal for an open and inclusive multilateral framework which was supported by Western states who wanted to establish universal norms and responsible state behaviour but India did not accept their geopolitical viewpoint.
India did not support the Russia-led bloc which wanted a permanent open-ended working group that would focus only on plenary meetings and the country also rejected the European Union's Program of Action. India maintained its previous stance by supporting multilateralism as a general principle while showing hesitation about backing specific power structures.
The fence now provides an advantage because it no longer serves as a point of vulnerability. India's non-alignment provides him with operational power because the body operates through decision-making which requires all members to agree.
Sovereignty First, Norms Second
The digital sovereignty framework which defines India's long-standing cybersecurity diplomatic activities serves as the country's fundamental cybersecurity diplomatic framework. New Delhi has been reluctant to endorse frameworks that could constrain how it manages its own cyberspace, whether through content regulation, surveillance architecture, or incident response. The Indian government establishes its control over internet governance through its implementation of VPN regulations and CERT-In reporting requirements and data localization discussions.
The new Global Mechanism creates a situation which India must handle because it creates an uncommon diplomatic situation. The framework's five pillars, threats, norms, international law, confidence-building measures, and capacity-building, each carry embedded assumptions that don't sit neatly with India's domestic policy posture. India supports the norm which prohibits countries from attacking each other's critical infrastructure while developing offensive cyber abilities and keeping its cyber response strategies secret.
The Capacity-Building Opening
The Indian government has a definite interest in dedicated thematic group 2 which focuses on building cybersecurity capacity. India exists in two opposing states because it operates as a developing nation which lacks basic national cybersecurity systems while also maintaining advanced cyber defense capabilities. The donor table exists as a platform which gives India both funding rights and complete rights to speak for developing nations. India should serve as a connecting force for DTG 2 by sharing its experience with CERT-In development and its sectoral frameworks for finance and telecom and its National Cyber Coordination Centre programs which train cybersecurity professionals while requesting capacity-building programs that follow demand-based needs assessment and local context understanding and which do not include the typical restrictions that accompany Western technical assistance.
India has done this before in other multilateral settings. The organization maintains its independence through its role as a credible Global South representative which it uses to speak for the Global South without aligning with any particular alliance.
The DTG 1 Question: Critical Infrastructure and Strategic Ambiguity
The DTG 1 study about ICT security challenges shows how resilience and cooperation and stability work together as different themes but creates complex challenges for India.
The 2020 Mumbai power grid incident which some researchers attribute to Chinese state-linked actors has become one of three major attacks against India's critical infrastructure together with AIIMS Delhi incidents in 2022 and ongoing cyber intrusions into defence and government networks. The international standards which govern critical infrastructure protection require actual implementation from India because the country possesses vital national assets.
India has not yet established formal processes for cyberattack attribution while its officials avoid the norm-enforcement diplomacy which Western countries practice through their coordinated attribution and sanction procedures.
India must either develop deeper transparency about its operations or create specialized operational plans which can keep its needed information undercover if it wants to participate in DTG 1 about cross-border interdependencies and incident response collaboration. India will likely engage selectively, supporting the idea of critical infrastructure norms while resisting mechanisms that operationalise accountability.
Geopolitical Triangulation
The new Global Mechanism needs countries to implement their national policies because states must stop merely restating their positions. Multilateral cybersecurity forums operate as Geopolitical triangulation platforms for India. India's security system must protect its interests against its two main cyber adversaries which include China and Pakistan-based groups.
The US and EU strategic partnership between India and these Western governments requires India to show closer ties with democratic nations through its participation in international forums. The new Global Mechanism will require India to pursue its current position by participating in capacity-building activities while developing common norms through its work on general norms language.
India will maintain its current position between Western liberal order enforcement and Russia-China sovereignty-maximalist counter-narrative through its capacity-building activities and general norms language work.
What India Should Actually Do
The document establishes core argument which states early DTG development needs to be established for proper assessment of future results which applies to Indian territory and European territory. India has the credibility and technical foundation and diplomatic ties which enable it to establish itself as an agenda-setter who takes proactive actions instead of following others. India should take the following actions to achieve its goals: lead or co-lead DTG 2 discussions which focus on the capacity requirements of the Global South while advancing DG 1 areas that protect developing nations from actual threats and establish South-South cybersecurity agreements through this system which will help them bypass Western capacity development restrictions. The Global Mechanism offers an essential multilateral platform which provides advantages to countries that take initial actions. India has the ability to make an impact because it possesses strategic advantages which will be activated through its choice between active participation and total disengagement.
References
- http://interface-eu.org/publications/the-new-united-nations-mechanism-on-cybersecurity#a-european-strategy-for-the-dtgs
- https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/emerging-challenges/developments-field-information-and-telecommunications-context
- https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/redecho-targeting-indian-power-sector
- https://www.saikrishnaassociates.com/cert-in-issues-directions-for-information-security-practices-procedure-prevention-response-and-reporting-of-cyber-incidents/









