The recent high-profile visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in China, post US tariff escalation, underscores India’s efforts to establish itself as a pivotal actor in global politics and refute any allegations of intimidation by American President Donald Trump. Following the visit, two comprehensive statements were issued by both states, which were further accompanied by the SCO summit, attended by his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, alongside the Chinese and Indian leaders.
The images of embraces, laughter, and camaraderie served as a significant comfort for those at home who felt deceived and disappointed by the conduct of the American president. This represented an opportunity to promote their claims regarding India’s growing significance and its role in contemporary global affairs. The statements of both the Indian and Chinese sides highlighted that India and China are partners and not rivals, which is an essential shift in the language. However, India never categorically said that China is an adversary. Apart from this, their discussion on the issue of terrorism and PM Modi’s statement that both India and China are victims of terrorism is a significant move towards more closeness. However, at the SCO summit, India did not show its interest in BRI, and it also did not mention the role of Pakistan in the recent terror attack and the future of India-Pakistan relations. Both the Indian and Chinese leaders called the meeting productive and positive, respectively.
Beyond the celebrations, the event underscored the importance of Narendra Modi for his domestic supporters. The much-celebrated friendship between Modi and Trump, marked by a moment of triumph, was a great moment for the admirers of the leadership. However, things did not turn out the way they (Modi’s supporters) wanted. That’s why the recent meeting between India, China, and Russia served as a platform for the domestic audience and critics to be effectively muted, presenting an image of untainted success under the leadership of their supreme leader, Prime Minister Modi. The very individuals who championed a boycott of all Chinese products and severed ties between India and China are the same ones who criticized Nehru and his party for allegedly fostering too close a relationship with China, rather than aligning with the United States.
Nonetheless, it is crucial to re-recognize that these advancements have emerged following a significant period of patience from India. After a month of expectation for a more favorable response from the United States, it became increasingly clear that the hoped-for positive signals were materializing. In light of the realization, India shifted its approach, adopting a more assertive stance towards the US. The initial remarks came from India’s external affairs minister, who shared his perspectives on Trump and the United States, sparking a conversation that merits deeper analysis. The subsequent developments revealed a continuation of rigid stances from both India and the United States. The United States has levelled accusations against characterizing the situation as a Brahmin trade. Consequently, this development has added layers of complexity to the existing relationship.
However, from an Indian jingoist perspective, these developments seem like the perfect response for India, as no one would dare bully it. Considering its economic strength and global political influence, India claims to be a leader in all aspects of development.
However, it is not the right approach for India’s future, and I argue that India is heading in the wrong direction. There are several reasons for the same.
One, India is going the wrong way because initially, these might be tactics from the Indian side to convey to the US that India is a significant player and cannot be taken lightly. This looks perfect, considering the national interest and India’s image. And India has every right to protect its interests and image. However, this ‘bluff’ tactic, if it is, has the potential to seriously damage the intricately and carefully built trust between the two largest democracies in the world. We need to understand that trust between the two nations is not just about trust and mistrust between the two states but also encompasses cultural, bureaucratic, and practical aspects. It goes far beyond a few ministers and diplomats. It is reflected in the organization’s relations with other organizations, people-to-people ties, and cultural relations. India should avoid damaging the trust between the two states, because if trust is broken, merely satisfying the domestic audience’s ego might have long-term negative impacts on Indians who stay in, work in, and study in the US. The Indian diaspora in the US is a huge and important one. Its number is around 5.2 million. It’s not just the numbers but the value these numbers hold for both India and the US that is important. But essential. So the trust deficit jeopardized their future.
Two, India does not have much to gain from its strong relations with China and Russia. The Chinese and Russian political systems are characterized by authoritarianism and the state’s tight control over every aspect of life. This is in stark contrast to the Indian system of free and open democracy, where people generally have far more freedom. So India and China will never be natural allies. The political system is a barrier. Apart from the political system, the people-to-people interaction between these states is also significantly less compared to that between India and the US. The diaspora is almost negligible, but its importance cannot be denied in the state’s development.
Third, China is the state that will gain the most from these developments. That’s why China has been showing support for India from day one. It is seen as an opportunity to limit American influence in the Indo-Pacific and increase its own influence in the region. It might see it as an opportune moment to revive its BRI project with a few modifications to include India in the project. Thus, it might be a pawn in China’s hands rather than being free from the US.
Fourth, the Russian friendship does not provide anything extra at this moment. Although Russian oil is a contentious issue, it does not affect Indo-Russian relations. So, the advantages are not enough. However, it seriously jeopardizes India’s strategic autonomy in the time to come if it gets closer to China and Russia. However, this India–Russia–China triangle has the potential to affect the India-Pakistan relations. India did not mention Pakistan clearly regarding terrorism, and it’s an essential shift despite Pakistan being an important player in the region in the time to come.
Thus, considering the interests of the Indian diaspora in the US, its future strategic choices, and its place in the changing environment, India is instead going the wrong way in global politics by projecting too much of an anti-US stance in its images and statements. These might be a bluff tactic from India, or India is seriously doing it; whatever the reality may be, certainly the critical audience for these poses is the domestic audience, to project strong leadership. Domestic gains and losses in mind should not limit Indian interests. They might have a profound impact on India’s domestic politics, economy, and place in world politics. India’s natural friend is America, not China, due to its democratic system, the presence of the Indian diaspora in the US, and its security ties. India should not forget their history of betrayals and recent encroachment in the Himalayas. And India should not damage much of the hard-won trust between the two democracies. Although Trump’s policies may seem harsh and practical, leaders change, and so do their policies. India should not harm relations to push America too far.
