As India steps up to the global stage, the question of foreign influence over domestic policy making has come under scrutiny. Across sectors — from agriculture to digital regulation — India has consistently asserted its right to adapt global frameworks to local realities. As the country prepares for the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) COP11 later this year, this principle must now be brought to the forefront of global health diplomacy. Concerns are growing that the WHO FCTC process is no longer guided purely by science or multilateral consensus. Instead, a small group of powerful international NGOs, heavily funded by private philanthropic interests, appear to exert disproportionate influence over the treaty’s direction and decision-making processes. Their policy positions often influence regulatory environments, bypassing traditional democratic channels of public consultation.The impact is visible across South and Southeast Asia. In Pakistan, the State Bank froze the accounts of two Bloomberg-funded NGOs — Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Vital Strategies — for operating without proper registration. In the Philippines, legislators raised alarms over foreign-funded groups allegedly exerting undue influence over national regulatory bodies. In India, the Delhi government suspended a Bloomberg-backed organization for failing to disclose foreign contributions, triggering concerns over transparency and adherence to domestic law.
These developments raise necessary questions: Whose agenda is being advanced in the name of public health? Whose data is shaping policy? And are countries like India being heard — or simply expected to comply? The issue becomes particularly stark in the case of tobacco regulation. India faces one of the most severe tobacco burdens globally, with over 300 million users and more than 1.35 million annual deaths attributable to tobacco-related illness. The urgency to act is clear — but so is the need for regulation that reflects Indian consumption patterns, socio-economic realities, and public health infrastructure.
Commenting on the Indian tobacco landscape, Jeffrey Smith, Resident Senior Fellow, Integrated Harm Reduction in his recent paper concluded, “The only known fact is that the existing tobacco policies fall far short of meeting the goal of cessation.” Instead, global policy frameworks have often pushed for blanket prohibitionist measures — including on emerging alternatives that help fight the ill effects of smoking or chewing tobacco— while failing to adequately address the more harmful forms of tobacco, such as bidis and smokeless tobacco. The result is a regulatory approach that appears inconsistent with risk profiles and ground realities.
Around the world, countries are re-evaluating such frameworks. Sweden, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the UAE, among others, are exploring more flexible regulatory models — focused on mitigating harm through innovation, consumer awareness, and better enforcement. India, in contrast, has remained locked into a rigid posture, shaped more by global advocacy than evidence.
“Without novel policies that provide options for those who use tobacco products to switch, it is unlikely that India will reduce the health consequences of tobacco use at the population level”, Smith added. As COP11 approaches, India has an opportunity — and responsibility — to help restore credibility to the FCTC process. That means calling for:
-Transparency in negotiations
-Inclusion of voices from the Global South
-Engagement with scientific advances and effective regulatory options
India has shown leadership in pushing back against imbalanced global frameworks before. In digital regulation, through user rights and data sovereignty. Even in global health, India’s handling of the COVID-19 response reflected a balance between international collaboration and national prioritization.
It is time to apply the same approach to global tobacco governance. If the WHO FCTC is to remain relevant, it must evolve. And if India is to remain a global leader that governs in public interest, it must ensure its regulatory choices are informed by Indian science, Indian institutions, and Indian priorities.