|
Round
The World
New
Delhi, 5 September 2025
PM Modi in SCO
A
Dramatic Shift
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof of Practice,
NIIS Group of Institutions)
It
goes without saying that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s performance in the 25th
SCO Summit in Tianjin marked a dramatic shift in India’s foreign policy. Such a
sudden strategic turn has hardly been witnessed in India’s foreign policy since
1947. During 80s and 90s, ‘continuity and change’ was the standard norm in
India’s foreign policy making. During the Congress era, changing the foreign
policy structure created by the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was considered
imprudent and impractical. Nehru was perceived to be the architect of India’s
foreign policy.
Admittedly,
Nehru’s concept of Non-Alignment persists in one form or the other. Now it is
called strategic autonomy, multi-alignment, Global South (solidarity) or Active
Non-Alignment (mainly in Latin America). Nehru’s foreign policy, including
Non-Alignment, after the decline of Congress regime, has been subjected to
serious evaluation and coruscating criticism. This is, however, not the intent
today, to engage in that exercise. Suffice to say that Narendra Modi, with all
his innovative ideas, has not discarded lock, stock and barrel, the principle
and rhetoric of Non-Alignment. It is called strategic autonomy. I have, in this
column, engagingly expressed the disappointment about Modi somewhat following
Nehru’s foreign policy paradigm. Note that Modi’s regime has been otherwise
critical of Nehru’s policies.
Tianjin
drastically changed all that perception some of us held since 2014. In Tianjin,
Modi jumped into the bandwagon of Sino-Russian camp and revived the dormant and
inactive Trilateral, Russia-India-China (RIC). From the photo-opps and personal
conduct, Modi gave a clear message to the world that he is seeking to firm-up
the global alliance of these three countries. The bonhomie witnessed between
Modi and Putin – walking hand-in-hand to the summit, travelling in the same
car, one-to-one tete-a-tete upto 45 minutes demonstrated a remarkable personal
bond. Similar proximity, although a bit less warm, was noticed between Modi and
Xi Jinping. Let us not forget that Modi had experienced similar warmth and
closeness with American President Donald Trump in his first term. It is another
matter that now the chemistry between the two has gone off.
Therefore,
it is evident in global geo-politics that hugs and handshakes, swings and
strolls (Wuhan and Sabarmati Riverfront) do not change the focus on national
interests. They have not normalised the bilateralism between China and India. The
military clashes between both countries in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2020 confirm
China’s growing belligerence on the borders. The 2020 clashes that killed over
20 Indian soldiers happened after the meetings in Wuhan and Sabarmati. In
Tianjin, Modi committed to “taking forward the ties… based on mutual trust,
respect and sensitivity”. Xi Jinping called for the “Dragon (China) and the
Elephant (India) to come together”.
Counting
the outcomes of Tianjin Summit, Modi secured a consensus against terrorism.
Significantly, Tianjin Declaration included strong language against cross-border
terrorism. It condemned the attack on civilians in Pahalgam and against
Pakistani forces in Balochistan. Remarkably, there was common ground among the
entire SCO membership on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and in condemnation of
US-Israeli strikes on Iran. For the first time, Prime Minister Modi proposed
the construction of a Civilisation Dialogue Forum. In his speech, Modi proposed
the formation of such a dialogue in order to enhance people-to-people ties in
the SCO and to have a platform for the member countries to share their ancient
civilisation, culture, traditions and literature.
Modi
underlined the importance of connectivity projects for overall development in
member countries. He, however, underscored that such projects respect sovereignty,
and territorial integrity aligning with the fundamental principle of the SCO
Charter. Modi added that “connectivity that bypasses sovereignty loses trust
and meaning. The connectivity should not be meant only for trade but also for fostering
trade and development”. That is why Modi cited the examples of Chahbahar Port,
The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) to connect North and
South. However, as before, India maintained its opposition to the paragraph in
the Declaration supporting China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
While
all the above constituted a ‘productive’ visit to China as Modi described, he
skipped the SCO Plus Summit and the Victory Day Parade. Whether it was
deliberate or was due to his preoccupation, Modi missed the opportunity for
closer engagement with leaders from India’s neighbourhood and Global South. In
any case, Modi’s China visit is globally discussed, thanks to the high-handed
approach by Donald Trump towards India. Modi’s sudden switch to the above-mentioned
trilateral RIC was prompted by Trump’s 50 per cent tariff on India and his ‘bullying’
India to avoid buying Russian oil.
The
big strategic question is, whether Modi has reacted too soon and a bit much to
Donald Trump’s ‘capricious’ behaviour. What the World witnessed in Tianjin
masks the structural contradictions between China and India and overshadows the
structural similarities and shared realities between Delhi and Washington. The
recent contretemps between Trump Administration and Modi’s team, could be a
passing phase. Donald Trump is known for changing his mind. He is seized with
the burden of ending the war in Ukraine. In this, he wanted India’s support in
cutting off the oil revenue of Russia.
Donald
Trump is already under severe criticism from his detractors including the
Opposition Democratic Party. His former NSA Jack Sullivan has come down heavily
on Trump for undoing the good work with India for over last three decades. Worse,
critics have accused Trump for torpedoing India-America relations for the sake
of personal business in Pakistan. Be that as they may, India seems to have changed
sides too soon. Despite professing strategic autonomy, India was moving closer
to the democratic world, America and Europe, but perhaps without fullest
conviction. In a persistent paradox, the South Block in Delhi has somewhat
overestimated the possibilities with China and Russia while underestimating
those with USA.
That
said, China is the most difficult kettle of fish to deal with. Beijing thrives
on deception drawing heavily on the Art
of War by Sun Tzu written in the 5th Century B.C. During Nehru’s
time in 50s, Indians were chanting slogans like Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai
(Indian and Chinese are brothers). That false euphoria evaporated in the war of
1962 which India lost, mainly because Nehru did not anticipate and was
unprepared for it. The story of betrayal continues. On the one hand, China
dialogues with India, on the other, it builds “the String of Pearls”, to
surround and suppress India.
Furthermore,
unlike China, the US is not sharing borders with India nor does it occupy
India’s land. China has border disputes with India and has been in occupation
of about 4,800 sq kms of India’s territory. On trade, America is the largest
destination of India’s exports giving a surplus of 40b USD. US also is the
natural partner of India in politics, economy, science and technology. On the
other hand, India’s trade deficit with China is 100b USD.
Finally,
let it be acknowledged that Washington cannot build a stable Asian Order
without India; likewise India cannot realise its goal of a multi-polar Asia
without American cooperation. If India can negotiate with authoritarian China
and Russia, it can very well do so with United States that has multiple points
of entry in dialogue and diplomacy. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
