In a brief titled, the EU-India relationship I: the bilateral layer of the negotiations published by Elcano Royal Institute in February 2026, the authors Ana Ballesteros Peiró, Chiara Boldrini, Andrea Arrieta Ruiz and Denise Ripamonti examine the evolving foundations of the EU’s relationship with India. Highlighting the changes shaping the international system, authors reflect on the distinct interpretations of the partnership, from economic to technological cooperation while emphasizing a pragmatic approach grounded in normative divergences. While both sides stress shared values in official discourse, there remain key differences over democracy, sovereignty and global governance which generate friction. Fundamentally it arises from their varied outlooks informed by different worldviews, that shape how each actor interprets the contemporary international order.
On 26 January the Presidents of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the Parliament, Antonio Costa, attended India’s Republic Day in New Delhi, where they signed a bilateral FTA describing it as the ”Mother of All Deals”. This reflects the Indian foreign policy that has become more assertive and interest-driven, reflecting domestic political transformations. A centralised leadership, strong nationalist overview and the invocation of Bharat as a civilisation-state, promoting a multipolar, sovereignty-first order have influenced India’s external posture over Western universalist norms. While strategic approaches like non-alignment persist, they have evolved into a more flexible strategy of multi-alignment, ensuring that India’s partnerships ensure strategic autonomy and its agile, ambitious growth while engaging selectively with multiple partners.
For the EU this creates a paradox. India is an indispensable partner for the EU in its trade, technology, security objectives, yet it simultaneously challenges the EU’s values based foreign policy. The 2025 Joint Communication on a New Strategic EU-India Agenda underscored this duality, by expanding cooperation across five pillars from sustainability, innovation, defence, connectivity and mutual understanding. But internal tensions in Brussels complicate engagement as the European Parliament and the European External Action Service (EEAS) emphasise democratic standards, while the Commission and Council prioritise pargmatic cooperation.
India’s strategic ambiguity should not be misread as inconsistency but, in a volatile geopolitcal environment, a structural feature of its global strategy. New Delhi seeks tangible economic and technological gains rather than ideological alignment making Brussels both a useful partner and a strategic ally. However, a purely transactional relationship based on normative convergence risks alienation and may erode the EU’s strategic identity.
As per authors, the future trajectory of this partnership therefore requires the EU to accept India’s selective multilateralism, while adopting a more modular, sector-based diplomacy on shared interests. Parliamentary exchanges and cooperation, though currently underutilised offers a complementary channel to sustain dialogue and manage differences over time. Therefore both actors should continue to engage and recognise the durable nature of this partnership, depending less on assumed ideological alignments and more on strategic realism.