India and Europe: Bridging Continents Through IMEC

CSEP | Constantino Xavier and Abhishek Agarwal

India and Europe should build the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) as a resilient economic network and not a mere transport route, a CSEP report edited by Constantino Xavier and Abhishek Agarwal concludes. Announced in 2023, IMEC now serves as a wider resilience project amid the Ukraine war, Gaza conflict, Red Sea disruptions and Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Modelling in the volume suggests a 40% reduction in transit time between India and Europe could add approximately US$3.535 billion to India’s Gross Domestic Product. The report sets out four dividends: economic, security, energy and climate, and political. Governance is the missing layer. Implementation remains fragmented because the corridor lacks a common framework for governments, financiers, regulators and private actors. Proposed fixes include national Sherpas, GTLPRA-type planning frameworks and Track 1.5 structures. Differences between India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act and Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation also complicate data sharing. A six-point action agenda follows.

Comment

The report lists data protection among IMEC’s constraints, yet it may be the one that decides whether the physical works function as a system. Customs and logistics platforms run on personal and commercial data that cross borders constantly, including shipper and consignee details. Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation restricts transfers of personal data out of the EU unless the destination is found adequate or safeguards apply. India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act diverges from it, which the report says leaves logistics data sharing uncertain.

Europe’s transatlantic record shows how fragile such arrangements can be. The Court of Justice of the EU struck down Safe Harbor in 2015 and its successor, Privacy Shield, in 2020. Companies relying on either framework lost a legal basis they had trusted. A corridor-wide India–Europe data arrangement could meet the same fate if it rested on political understanding rather than durable law.

MAITRI, the customs interface the report would extend across the corridor, carries this exposure if it handles personal data. The executive summary names the EU–India Trade and Technology Council as a venue but no legal instrument, leaving MAITRI’s transfer basis unsettled.

Strategic Question for Discussion

What happens to MAITRI as a corridor-wide customs interface if a court strikes down its data-transfer basis the way Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield fell?

My assessment is that the damage would reach customs clearance first, because a shipment record cannot wait on a legal fix the way a pilot project can. The Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield rulings suggest such losses of legal footing come with little transition, leaving traders on both sides to rebuild their data flows. The executive summary’s silence on a legal instrument makes this the risk to watch.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here