Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to the United States, which took place at a time when the world is confronting critical geopolitical, economic, technological, and climate challenges, marked yet another milestone in the relationship between the world’s two largest democracies. 

At a time of a swift global shift towards plurilateral approaches, the visit sought to put into action the “bold and audacious” commitments that Prime Minister Modi and U.S. President Joe Biden had made to forge one of the most defining and consequential bilateral relationships of this century.

A Deep Commitment

While the highlight of the visit was the Sixth QUAD Leaders’ Summit hosted by President Biden in his hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, bilateral ties received a huge boost from key announcements in areas such as semiconductors, space, advanced telecommunications, artificial intelligence, quantum, biotechnology, and clean energy. These landmark initiatives demonstrate a deep commitment towards realising the ambitious goals of the US-India Comprehensive Global and Strategic Partnership.

The QUAD, a strategic alliance of India, the United States, Australia, and Japan with a commitment towards maintaining a free and an open Indo-Pacific, has evolved into a critical force in implementing tangible initiatives across the Pacific, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean Region. The summit cemented cooperation across various sectors, including maritime security, health, cyber capabilities, climate security, semiconductor supply chains, and disaster preparedness. The launch of the QUAD Investors Network, designed to accelerate investments in critical and emerging technologies, coupled with the inaugural meeting of the QUAD Commerce and Industry ministers in coming months, underscores the vital role businesses are set to play within the Quad. 

Chipping In

Most notable, however, is the establishment of the first India-US semiconductor fabrication unit, focusing on advanced sensing, communication, and power electronics. Hailed as the first-ever national security semiconductor fabrication plant, it will produce chips for military applications, not only bolstering the supply chain ecosystem but also further cementing vital India-US defence ties.

The success and expansion of the US-India Defense Industrial Cooperation Roadmap through India’s planned procurement of 31 MQ-9B remotely piloted aircraft, enhancing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, is another key result of Prime Minister Modi’s visit. This, along with the establishment of a Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul facility for C-130J Super Hercules aircraft, and initiatives like the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) underscores the deepening defence partnership between the two nations, essential for addressing current and future global security challenges. 

The Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET), launched in 2023 by the two countries, acts as a crucial platform guiding responsible technological development globally and secures our countries’ technology supply chains. The recent meeting expanded this strategic cooperation through tangible actions, such as the mobilisation of millions of dollars in funds to support high-impact R&D partnerships between US and Indian universities and research institutions in the areas of semiconductors, next-generation communication systems, biotechnology, sustainability, connected vehicles, and green technologies and intelligent transportation systems and initiatives around advanced materials, quantum, and artificial intelligence.

On Clean Energy

The newly unveiled US-India Roadmap to Build Safe and Secure Global Clean Energy Supply Chains, with a commitment to unlock over $1 billion in multilateral financing, represents another historic opportunity for both nations to lead in renewable energy transition, energy storage, and zero-emission vehicles, while collaborations under the Strategic Clean Energy Partnership to accelerate the development of supply chains for critical minerals reflects a concerted effort towards operationalising this energy partnership. 

Industry across both countries has been playing a crucial role in operationalising these initiatives. While Indian companies are seeking access to investments and technologies, American companies already employing millions of Indians are keen to further dip into the vast Indian talent pool and the world’s biggest market. Prime Minister Modi emphasised the enormous potential of technological collaboration in his meeting with some of America’s top CEOs. This mutual growth can revolutionise the global technology landscape while driving shared India-US prosperity. 

Finally, deepening relations with the United States can be central to Prime Minister Modi’s vision to make India a developed nation by 2047. A bipartisan understanding of India’s importance in the world makes the U.S. an important stakeholder and player in India’s growth story. His latest visit not only strengthened the Quad, but also highlighted the alignment between the two nations even as it built new avenues and mechanisms of collaboration among all stakeholders. As India’s largest trading partner, the United States will be instrumental in providing the capital, expertise, and market access required for India to climb the global economic ladder.

(Rahul Sharma is the Managing Director at USIBC, and Aditya Kiran Kaushik is the Senior Director, Digital Economy, Media & Entertainment at USIBC.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The situation around the Ukraine conflict is becoming more complicated. The US is in an election mode, and that means that any step that might disadvantage the Democratic presidential candidate cannot be taken. After supporting a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia all this while, any step to de-escalate or open the doors to negotiation would be almost impossible politically.

The choice is between escalating or avoiding any serious new escalatory step. It is here that the discussion over allowing Zelenskyy to use NATO-supplied long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory comes in. Ukraine is already striking deep into Russia with drones and has also launched a land invasion of Russia in Kursk. But for Russia, it will mean a major escalation by NATO if the UK-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles were used against Russia itself, although they have been used against Ukrainian territories that Russia has annexed. Russia has in practice accepted that distinction and not raised the stakes as President Vladimir Putin has now done.

UK Determined To Escalate

The Russian president has warned that such a move will mean NATO entering into a direct conflict with Russia as these missiles cannot be launched without guidance by US satellites and, indeed, by NATO crews on the ground in Ukraine, as the Ukrainian military would not know how to prime them technically for targeting. Putin has declared that Russia will take appropriate steps to counter this escalation. What this could mean is a matter of speculation as Russia could have options below the nuclear threshold.

The UK, as usual, is determined to escalate the conflict. Five of its ex-Defence Secretaries want Ukraine to be given permission to use long-range weapons even without the US’s approval. The UK’s deep-seated hostility towards Russia seems almost compulsive. Its excessive warmongering could also be to both push the US to escalate while also acting as a willing front for the US to make the latter look more “responsible”. The US, which is ultimately responsible for managing the consequences of escalation, and not Europe, seems hesitant to allow the use of its long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia but seems prepared to clear the use of British and French missiles. The fiction would be that the US would not be directly involved, though when Putin refers to NATO being involved – as these missiles need NATO technical support for launching them – he is implicating the US too.

The Western Narrative On Ukraine

Zelenskyy’s strategy seems to be to drag NATO more and more into the conflict, no matter what the eventual cost is for Ukraine or for Europe, as the survival of his own regime is involved. The Western narrative on Ukraine is simple: Russia has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a smaller European country; the attack is unprovoked and violates the international order; if Russia were to succeed it would next threaten Western Europe; Russia cannot be allowed to win, and therefore Ukraine has to be supported. Zelenskyy has exploited this simplistic narrative to seek more and more arms from the West, claiming that it is not merely a Ukrainian fight but a European one. He is now intending to go to the US to discuss his “victory plan” with Biden.

The US and Europe openly seek to use this conflict to impose a strategic defeat on Russia, and if that looks increasingly unlikely despite imposing draconian sanctions, then to, at least, continue to bleed and weaken Russia by prolonging the proxy war against it. This was the sense of the joint Op-Ed in Financial Times by the US and UK intelligence chiefs, which stressed it was vital to continue supporting Ukraine, with the CIA chief also seeing virtue in Ukraine’s land attack against Russia in Kursk. The US Secretary of State and the UK Foreign Secretary also jointly visited Kyiv very recently and announced more financial aid to Ukraine.

India’s Options

It is in this background that India is seeking to play some role to nudge the two sides towards a negotiated solution to the conflict. India has not been deterred from taking this initiative despite the complexity of the issue, the seemingly irreconcilable position of the two sides on some fundamental points, and the fact that any peace effort with Russia and Ukraine cannot move forward without the US. We have not announced contact with the US on this subject.

Actually, Europe will have to be involved too if India wants to play a substantive role.

That Modi will discuss India’s initiative with Biden when he goes to the US this month is likely, now that he knows Putin’s mind after his own talks with him and the feedback he has got from National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. But Biden can hardly modify its position in favour of dialogue and diplomacy with the US presidential election in the offing when all along the choice has been to wage a proxy war against Russia for larger geopolitical reasons that go beyond Ukraine.

The rhetoric against Russia has gone up, with accusations against the Russian spread of disinformation in the US and globally, and the effort to seek a worldwide ban on RT and related Russian media for intelligence activities, etc. With German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visiting India shortly, Modi will have a chance to discuss his peace initiative with him too.

Doval’s Visit

India has raised its peacemaking profile by Modi sending Doval to St Petersburg to personally brief Putin on the talk the Prime Minister had with Zelenskyy in Kyiv. Despite the controversial comments made by Zelenskyy to the Indian press on India’s purchase of Russian oil, calling on India to join the communiqué issued after the first summit in Switzerland if it wanted to hold a peace summit, and differing perspectives on the agenda of the next peace summit that came out in External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s press briefing in Kyiv, enough of substance seems to have emerged from the private talks with Zelenskyy to warrant a personal briefing to Putin. Is it that the Ukrainian position in private is less rigid on substantive issues than its public enunciation? By accepting to receive Doval in an unprecedented gesture, Putin is endorsing India’s peace efforts, though it is difficult to imagine that he would resign from his core position on territory and NATO membership of Ukraine.

Judging from what the Ukrainian ambassador to India said subsequently to the press here on India’s peace efforts, it appears that Ukraine continues to aggressively define its position. The ambassador was out of line in asking India to convince Moscow to join peace talks, linking the legitimacy of India’s bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council to taking a position of its own on global issues and not simply conveying messages from one side to the other and being a courier or messenger or a post box. He reiterated Zelenskyy’s position that the condition for India to hold the next peace summit would be to join the Burgenstock communique

All in all, it is difficult to judge the dynamics of the peace initiative India has taken as the hurdles to peace are all too apparent at present.

(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The situation around the Ukraine conflict is becoming more complicated. The US is in an election mode, and that means that any step that might disadvantage the Democratic presidential candidate cannot be taken. After supporting a proxy war in Ukraine against Russia all this while, any step to de-escalate or open the doors to negotiation would be almost impossible politically.

The choice is between escalating or avoiding any serious new escalatory step. It is here that the discussion over allowing Zelenskyy to use NATO-supplied long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory comes in. Ukraine is already striking deep into Russia with drones and has also launched a land invasion of Russia in Kursk. But for Russia, it will mean a major escalation by NATO if the UK-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles were used against Russia itself, although they have been used against Ukrainian territories that Russia has annexed. Russia has in practice accepted that distinction and not raised the stakes as President Vladimir Putin has now done.

UK Determined To Escalate

The Russian president has warned that such a move will mean NATO entering into a direct conflict with Russia as these missiles cannot be launched without guidance by US satellites and, indeed, by NATO crews on the ground in Ukraine, as the Ukrainian military would not know how to prime them technically for targeting. Putin has declared that Russia will take appropriate steps to counter this escalation. What this could mean is a matter of speculation as Russia could have options below the nuclear threshold.

The UK, as usual, is determined to escalate the conflict. Five of its ex-Defence Secretaries want Ukraine to be given permission to use long-range weapons even without the US’s approval. The UK’s deep-seated hostility towards Russia seems almost compulsive. Its excessive warmongering could also be to both push the US to escalate while also acting as a willing front for the US to make the latter look more “responsible”. The US, which is ultimately responsible for managing the consequences of escalation, and not Europe, seems hesitant to allow the use of its long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia but seems prepared to clear the use of British and French missiles. The fiction would be that the US would not be directly involved, though when Putin refers to NATO being involved – as these missiles need NATO technical support for launching them – he is implicating the US too.

The Western Narrative On Ukraine

Zelenskyy’s strategy seems to be to drag NATO more and more into the conflict, no matter what the eventual cost is for Ukraine or for Europe, as the survival of his own regime is involved. The Western narrative on Ukraine is simple: Russia has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a smaller European country; the attack is unprovoked and violates the international order; if Russia were to succeed it would next threaten Western Europe; Russia cannot be allowed to win, and therefore Ukraine has to be supported. Zelenskyy has exploited this simplistic narrative to seek more and more arms from the West, claiming that it is not merely a Ukrainian fight but a European one. He is now intending to go to the US to discuss his “victory plan” with Biden.

The US and Europe openly seek to use this conflict to impose a strategic defeat on Russia, and if that looks increasingly unlikely despite imposing draconian sanctions, then to, at least, continue to bleed and weaken Russia by prolonging the proxy war against it. This was the sense of the joint Op-Ed in Financial Times by the US and UK intelligence chiefs, which stressed it was vital to continue supporting Ukraine, with the CIA chief also seeing virtue in Ukraine’s land attack against Russia in Kursk. The US Secretary of State and the UK Foreign Secretary also jointly visited Kyiv very recently and announced more financial aid to Ukraine.

India’s Options

It is in this background that India is seeking to play some role to nudge the two sides towards a negotiated solution to the conflict. India has not been deterred from taking this initiative despite the complexity of the issue, the seemingly irreconcilable position of the two sides on some fundamental points, and the fact that any peace effort with Russia and Ukraine cannot move forward without the US. We have not announced contact with the US on this subject.

Actually, Europe will have to be involved too if India wants to play a substantive role.

That Modi will discuss India’s initiative with Biden when he goes to the US this month is likely, now that he knows Putin’s mind after his own talks with him and the feedback he has got from National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. But Biden can hardly modify its position in favour of dialogue and diplomacy with the US presidential election in the offing when all along the choice has been to wage a proxy war against Russia for larger geopolitical reasons that go beyond Ukraine.

The rhetoric against Russia has gone up, with accusations against the Russian spread of disinformation in the US and globally, and the effort to seek a worldwide ban on RT and related Russian media for intelligence activities, etc. With German Chancellor Olaf Scholz visiting India shortly, Modi will have a chance to discuss his peace initiative with him too.

Doval’s Visit

India has raised its peacemaking profile by Modi sending Doval to St Petersburg to personally brief Putin on the talk the Prime Minister had with Zelenskyy in Kyiv. Despite the controversial comments made by Zelenskyy to the Indian press on India’s purchase of Russian oil, calling on India to join the communiqué issued after the first summit in Switzerland if it wanted to hold a peace summit, and differing perspectives on the agenda of the next peace summit that came out in External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s press briefing in Kyiv, enough of substance seems to have emerged from the private talks with Zelenskyy to warrant a personal briefing to Putin. Is it that the Ukrainian position in private is less rigid on substantive issues than its public enunciation? By accepting to receive Doval in an unprecedented gesture, Putin is endorsing India’s peace efforts, though it is difficult to imagine that he would resign from his core position on territory and NATO membership of Ukraine.

Judging from what the Ukrainian ambassador to India said subsequently to the press here on India’s peace efforts, it appears that Ukraine continues to aggressively define its position. The ambassador was out of line in asking India to convince Moscow to join peace talks, linking the legitimacy of India’s bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council to taking a position of its own on global issues and not simply conveying messages from one side to the other and being a courier or messenger or a post box. He reiterated Zelenskyy’s position that the condition for India to hold the next peace summit would be to join the Burgenstock communique

All in all, it is difficult to judge the dynamics of the peace initiative India has taken as the hurdles to peace are all too apparent at present.

(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be in Poland and Ukraine this week. Both visits are historic in their own ways: for Poland, this will be the first visit by an Indian Prime Minister in 45 years, while for Ukraine, Modi’s will be the first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister. Where Modi has talked about India and Poland’s “mutual commitment to democracy and pluralism” reinforcing the bilateral relationship, he has expressed “hope for an early return of peace and stability” in Ukraine. 

Often, China and India are put in the same bracket when it comes to their response to the Ukraine war. But Modi’s visit to the country, which follows his much-controversial trip to Russia last month, is why the world shouldn’t compare them. 

India Is More Than Just A Mediator In Europe

Modi’s visit to Russia last month raised a lot of eyebrows as it was also his first visit abroad in his third term. There is now talk of India becoming a potential peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine war. But that is missing the woods for the trees. Modi will be in Ukraine to underline that New Delhi’s position on the war remains consistent. Despite close ties with Russia and its decision not to publicly call out Russia as an aggressor, New Delhi has always maintained that the sanctity of territorial integrity and sovereignty remains inviolable in international affairs, and that dialogue and diplomacy is the only way to a sustainable outcome.

Unlike China, Modi publicly told Putin during his visit to Moscow that this was not the era of war, and expressed pain at the death of children after a lethal strike by Russia on Kyiv’s main hospital for children. At that time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had denounced Modi for visiting Russia, calling the trip a “devastating blow to peace efforts”. But New Delhi has continued to maintain its ties with both Moscow and Kyiv throughout the course of the war over the last two and a half years, steadfast in its belief that both sides should be engaged if a lasting solution is to be found. 

A Renewed Vision For Europe

Europe is facing a moment of reckoning with growing internal challenges, a widening regional divide, a war that shows no signs of ending, a rising China, calls for isolationism in the US, and a fracturing of the post-Cold War security arrangement. The end of the Ukraine war will perhaps lay the foundations of a new security order in Europe, but that end is nowhere in sight as both sides search for favourable battlefield realities that they can potentially leverage at the negotiating table. It is at this critical juncture that Europe has started looking at India as a key partner.

And New Delhi has reciprocated. India now views Europe as central to its developmental and strategic priorities. This is borne by the extraordinary diplomatic investment the Modi government has made in imparting momentum to its ties with Europe. What has been an evolving feature of this outreach is India’s attempts to engage with different sub-regions of Europe, allowing New Delhi to focus on their core strengths. It is Central Europe that is now the focus, with Modi visiting Austria last month followed by Poland and Ukraine now. The region has developed its own unique voice on European matters, and especially after the Russian invasion, it has been critical in shaping the larger European response to regional and global issues.

Why Poland Matters To New Delhi

As for Modi’s visit to Poland, it is among the fastest-growing economies in Europe and has been vocal about its strategic aspirations to see Europe emerge as a key geopolitical actor on the global stage. Warsaw’s role will also be critical in shaping the European security architecture once the embers of war in Ukraine cool down. Its location makes it a hub of connectivity across Europe, and India enjoys a lot of goodwill. If India is to move beyond France, Germany and the UK in its European imagination, then building strong economic ties with Poland will be critical. Modi’s visit should lay the foundation for a long-term sustainable partnership with Warsaw.

It is in New Delhi’s interest that a sustainable security architecture takes shape in Europe as European stability is critical for a globally engaged India with critical equities in that geography. New Delhi won’t be playing the mediator. Its eyes are on the larger horizon, where India’s emergence as a credible partner of Europe is seen as important for ensuring that its own developmental and strategic priorities remain insulated from wider disruption. 

(Harsh V Pant is Vice-President for Studies at ORF)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The Lok Sabha witnessed heated exchanges between the treasury benches and the opposition during the Motion of Thanks to the President’s address. The claims, counterclaims, and interjections all point towards a confrontational atmosphere in the 18th Lok Sabha, perhaps shaped by changes in its composition.

From 2019 to 2024, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and friendly parties held a significant lead of around 300 MPs over the INDIA bloc and opposition. However, this session saw the margin narrowing to just 60 MPs. The verbal sparring between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi turned acrimonious and personal, reflecting the recently concluded election campaign dynamics and entrenched positions.

Both Congress And BJP Remain Steadfast

While the Congress aims to sustain momentum, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) remains resolute not to concede further ground. The shift in strength, allocation of time for parties, and the calibre of speakers on both sides will significantly influence proceedings over the next five years. During the recent Motion of Thanks debate, Rahul Gandhi, as Leader of the Opposition, spoke for nearly an hour and 40 minutes out of the allotted 16 hours – roughly 15% of the total time allotted to the opposition.

Time allocations are based on Lok Sabha strength. During the No Confidence Motion of August 2023, the BJP received around 45% of the time, while the Congress’ share was just 18% With the BJP’s friendly parties (the Biju Janata Dal, the YSR Congress Party, the Bahujan Samaj Party) losing ground in recent elections, their allocation has shifted notably to opposition parties.

Also Read | ‘Hug, Wink In Parliament’: PM Modi’s Dig At Rahul Gandhi

Some prominent speakers from the treasury benches, such as Smriti Irani, were notably absent. Conversely, the presence of parties like the Samajwadi Party (SP) has bolstered the opposition, particularly with effective speakers in fluent Hindi. Akhilesh Yadav’s speech, noted for its sarcasm without overt anger, followed Rahul’s assertive tone.

Rahul’s Performance As LoP

During Monday’s session, Rahul Gandhi launched a scathing attack on the Modi government, highlighting issues including inflation, unemployment, NEET, Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops, the Agniveer scheme, and Hindutva, aiming to put the government on the defensive. Top ministers, including the Prime Minister, intervened during Rahul’s speech.

While Rahul addressed critical issues, some noted the absence of specific data and figures in his speech. There is already an ongoing debate over Rahul’s performance in his role as Leader of the Opposition, with supporters arguing his assertiveness marks a significant political presence that cannot be ignored.

Not new to controversy, Rahul made a reference to the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), stating, that those who called themselves Hindu only talked about violence, hatred, and untruth. PM Modi rebutted instantly.

Also Read | “Every MP’s Right”: Rahul Gandhi Questions Expunging Of Parts Of Speech

References in Rahul’s speech to to Hinduism and violence, two prominent industrialists, the Agnipath scheme, and NEET, were expunged. The LoP subsequently wrote to the Speaker questioning the decision and demanding the restoration of his remarks in parliamentary records.

Modi’s Address

On Tuesday, PM Modi delivered the concluding remarks on the Motion of Thanks in the Lok Sabha. His speech, lasting around 2.5 hours, was a scathing attack on the Congress and Rahul. Throughout his address, the opposition shouted slogans, prompting Modi to use headphones to counter the noise. Despite the interruptions, Modi’s speech, though not entirely audible, gave enough hints of the things to come in the next five years.

Modi criticised the opposition’s maturity level, noting that while the treasury benches listened to Rahul’s speech with interjections rather than shouting slogans, the opposition did not afford the same respect to the Prime Minister. Expressing displeasure at the sloganeering, Modi referred to Rahul as “balak buddhi” (childish) and mocked how a party celebrating 99 out of 543 seats was acting as if it had won 99 out of 100. He criticised the Congress party’s promise of transferring Rs. 1 lakh to women’s bank accounts, highlighting the public’s scepticism about similar promises made earlier.

Modi accused Rahul of resorting to drama to garner sympathy, pointing out his bail status in alleged financial misconduct.

Overall, the debate was disappointing for both the opposition and the ruling party. BJP leaders neglected discussion around their agenda for the next five years, while the opposition failed to engage in constructive criticism and effectively address issues like NEET. Both sides instead resorted to mudslinging, seemingly forgetting that the elections were over.

The session’s outcome suggests the potential for more disruptions and chaos in Parliament. Both sides must reconcile with the electoral mandate and strive for a fresh start in the upcoming Budget session.

(Amitabh Tiwari is a political strategist and commentator. In his earlier avatar, he was a corporate and investment banker.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

London is known for its open intellectual climate, where no idea is off-limits. But even in this dynamic city – and indeed in Washington too – it’s almost blasphemous to suggest that Russia and the West can be partners, or that the US and China can coexist as global powers. Recently, Nigel Farage, the Reform Party leader in the UK, faced a storm for urging the West to negotiate sensibly with Russia over Ukraine, calling the war a ‘complete stalemate’. People accused him of “echoing Russian propaganda”.

In India, we often hear that we don’t cultivate a society where all ideas are welcome. But let’s hope that suggesting a new chapter of “Hindi-Cheeni bhai-bhai” (India-China brotherhood) isn’t seen as blasphemy. The strong anti-China sentiment after the Galwan Valley clash in 2020 seems to have subsided. We’re buying more Chinese goods now than ever. In 2023, our bilateral trade hit over $136 billion. Hopefully, even those who burnt Chinese products in Gujarat and Delhi following the border skirmishes are more open to the idea now.

Sure, it might sound crazy to suggest that India and China should become trusted partners like the US and India, or Russia and China. But, it’s not entirely out of the question.

Sure, it might sound crazy to suggest that India and China should become trusted partners like the US and India, or Russia and China. But, it’s not entirely out of the question.

Major Geopolitical Shifts

India’s rise to become a global power is unstoppable; even China knows that. Talking to Chinese academics and journalists, you get the sense that they’re open to establishing long-term ties based on mutual respect. They like India, they want more people-to-people interactions, and one of them even wondered recently why India does not try to cast its spell over the dragon through its soft power of Bollywood  

Both countries have the responsibility to lift millions of their combined 2.8 billion people out of poverty. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged to make India a developed country by 2047, which is a huge task. There are challenges, but if India and China team up and leverage each other’s strengths, it could be a major geopolitical shift, with far-reaching implications for global politics. 

Read | Modi-Hasina Should Worry About China, But Not Too Much

The US and its allies might be shocked and deeply concerned by a close India-China partnership. The West has benefited from the rivalry between the two countries as it aligns with their strategy of counterbalancing China’s rise. A partnership between these two Asian giants could undermine the West’s strategic interests in the region. Kishore Mahbubani, former Singaporean ambassador to the UN, has often said that most of Asia would cheer if this were to happen.

So, can India and China find common ground despite tensions over their disputed border? Prof. Mahbubani believes that while the two may never be best friends, they can have a good working relationship. He even says the 21st century belongs to the CIA (China, India, and ASEAN) countries. With US power on the decline, these countries will drive the world’s economic growth.

A Rollercoaster Ride

The idea of India and China being close friends isn’t new. Historically, they’ve acted like quarrelsome neighbours who fight and make up repeatedly. They share a long history of cultural and economic exchange dating back over two millennia. The Silk Road facilitated trade, and Buddhism, which started in India, found a significant following in China. These ancient ties laid a foundation of mutual respect and cultural affinity. During the colonial era, both countries faced subjugation by Western powers, fostering a sense of shared struggle. 

After gaining independence from the British, India faced border issues with China, and they continue to strain their relationship. In the early 1950s, the relationship was marked by camaraderie, epitomised by the slogan “Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai“. However, this period of cooperation was short-lived. The border dispute escalated into a full-scale war in 1962, leaving a lasting scar on bilateral relations. The disputed borders, particularly in the Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh regions, remain contentious issues.

The rivalry between the US and China will continue, and India will remain under US pressure in its effort to manage China. However, India’s strategic positioning between the US and China can work to its advantage.

Before the Galwan incident, Prime Minister Narendra Modi naturally leaned towards engaging with China. As Gujarat’s Chief Minister, he made four trips to the country to attract investment. As Prime Minister, he has visited China twice, and President Xi Jinping reciprocated with two visits to India. Both countries have emerged as major global economic powers, engaging in significant economic competition and areas of cooperation within multilateral frameworks like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

Strategic Rivalry

Strategically, India and China view each other with suspicion. The latter’s close ties with Pakistan, its infrastructure projects in South Asia under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and its military presence in the Indian Ocean have heightened India’s security concerns.

Conversely, India’s growing partnership with the US and its participation in the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) is viewed warily by China. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash exacerbated tensions and highlighted the fragility of the relationship. Despite several rounds of military and diplomatic talks, a comprehensive resolution to the border disputes remains elusive.

Mumbai’s Shanghai Dreams

Many youth in India might not know that not too long ago, India used to compare itself with Pakistan in all spheres. This attitude changed around the turn of the millennium, when the Maharashtra government launched a mega project to revamp Mumbai in 2004, based on the “Vision Mumbai” report by Bombay First, an organisation comprising some of Mumbai’s super-rich stakeholders. The report outlined strategies for transforming Mumbai into “another Shanghai”. While the project to transform Mumbai is still a “work in progress”, it marked the beginning of India’s comparisons with China. Today, China sees India as its great rival, at least in Asia.

Read | China Is Revamping Its Military, And India Must Not Take It Lightly

Projections show that the Indian economy will surpass Germany and Japan’s to become the world’s third-largest one by 2027. Currently, however, India’s economy is only 19% the size of China’s, even though it feeds nearly the same number of people. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India’s nominal GDP in 2023 stood at $3.5 trillion, compared to China’s $18.2 trillion. India’s per capita income was $2,411, while China’s was $12,720. China’s exports last year exceeded $3.38 trillion, while India’s exports were $778 billion.

Collaboration Possibilities

Since China opened its economy in 1978, it has lifted 800 million people out of poverty – a feat that hasn’t been matched by any regime in history. India has also succeeded in reducing poverty significantly. Both nations have many more millions to help. Collaborating in economic development, technology, infrastructure, environmental initiatives, healthcare, cultural exchange, and geopolitical stability can benefit both countries and the world. Overcoming historical tensions and building trust through consistent dialogue will be crucial.

The intense rivalry between the US and China will continue, and India will remain under pressure from the US to stay a reliable partner in its effort to manage China. However, India’s strategic positioning between the US and China can work to its advantage. Ultimately, New Delhi’s strategic interests are best served by a balanced approach that navigates the complex dynamics of US-China relations while advancing its own national objectives. 

India knows that neighbours with shared borders may fight at times, but they can still continue to believe in the ‘love thy neighbour’ dictum.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The inherent strength of India-Bangladesh relationship was once again in evidence as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, decided to visit New Delhi days after attending the swearing-in ceremony of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The ease with which the top leadership in Delhi and Dhaka now interact and engage each other is a tribute to the manner in which Modi and Hasina have managed to build this important partnership over the last decade, often under very difficult circumstances. If Modi had to contend with the opposition at the state level in West Bengal, where the ruling party decided to veto the Teesta Pact, Hasina had to face the anti-India constituency in Bangladesh. Despite this, both leaders stood firm in their belief that building resilience in this partnership is important for not only bilaterally but also regionally.

“Trusted Friend”

On her first official overseas visit to any country since she returned to power earlier this year in January, Hasina underlined: “India is our major neighbour, trusted friend and regional partner. Bangladesh-India relations are growing at a fast pace.” Modi reciprocated by highlighting the special nature of this visit: “Because she is our first state guest after our government returned to power for the third term.”

Also Read | “Unilateral Discussions…”: Mamata Banerjee To PM On Bangladesh Talks

The visit saw the signing of 10 Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), which covered areas as diverse as digital and green partnerships, maritime cooperation, and, notably, the ‘Shared Vision for India-Bangladesh Rail Connectivity’. The joint statement outlined a shared bilateral and regional vision for peace, prosperity and development, driven by connectivity, commerce and collaboration. In that spirit, some important new initiatives were announced, including e-visa for patients from Bangladesh, new train and bus services, joint technical committee for Ganga Water Treaty, visit of an Indian technical team to Bangladesh for a mega project to conserve and manage the Teesta river, export of 40 MW of power from Nepal to Bangladesh through Indian grid, and training of Bangladeshi police officers. Building Bangladesh’s defence capability has also emerged as a priority, with the two nations deciding “to explore defence industrial cooperation for modernisation of the Armed Forces of Bangladesh”.

Identifying Opportunities, Counterbalancing China

Hasina will be visiting China in July. It is a sign of a new maturity in India-Bangladesh relations that the two nations continue to work closely together even as they develop their ties with other nations. New Delhi has not stopped Dhaka from its engagement with China but it has some concerns that Hasina has always ensured are addressed. Since 2020, China has been regularly expressing an interest in the $1 billion project to develop the Teesta river. Last year, Beijing submitted a formal proposal.

Also Read | Tripura Chief Minister Gifts 500 Kg Of Queen Pineapples To Bangladesh PM

For Bangladesh, this has been a long-standing priority. The Manmohan Singh government had an agreement in place in 2011, which could not be taken forward due to the opposition from the Chief Minister of West Bengal. For Hasina, the situation had become unsustainable, with the opposition clamouring for a response amidst moves by the Chinese. Her visit before going to China was a wise move to ensure that New Delhi had a chance to respond, and India has done well to respond to the initiative. The decision to send an Indian technical team to Dhaka for talks on the conservation and management of Teesta river is an indication that New Delhi is not willing to cede its strategic space in the neighbourhood despite domestic challenges. The decision to commence technical negotiations for the renewal of the 1996 Ganga Water Treaty is also a timely move to respond to the concerns in Dhaka on an issue that is a priority for the Hasina government.

Rock-Solid Ties

For India, the importance of Bangladesh cannot be overstated as New Delhi seeks to emerge as an Indo-Pacific player with the Bay of Bengal as the regional epicentre. For Bangladesh, a partnership with India remains key to realising its full potential as a critical economic and strategic player in the region. As the two nations become more ambitious in defining their strategic outlooks, their bilateral partnership will continue to be a key enabler in shaping their behaviour.

The China factor, while important, should not be overstated. India-Bangladesh ties today stand on their own merit. Hasina and Modi have ensured that by focusing concrete tangible outcomes for the people of both nations, they have redefined the contours of what an ideal partnership between two neighbours should look like. Mutual respect, mutual interest and mutual sensitivity have made this relationship an exemplar for all others.

[Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies and Foreign Policy at ORF.]

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

English poet Alfred Tennyson, in one of his famous poems, captures the mighty but mortally wounded King Arthur acknowledging in his dying moments the universal truth that “the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfils Himself in many ways, lest one good custom should corrupt the world”.

Tennyson believed that change is the law of nature and that the domination of one power, one culture, and one custom is harmful to the world. This idea is highly relevant in today’s political landscape, dominated by the US and Western powers. As the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7) met in Italy for their annual summit on Thursday and Friday, it underscored the need for global governance to adapt and embrace emerging nations’ voices, ensuring a dynamic and equitable international order.

The G7 Summit And Global Issues

Unsurprisingly, the summit was dominated by the security of Ukraine. The first day was focused on the US proposal to loan Ukraine 50 billion dollars from the frozen assets of Russia, which was against international law. Much of the second day was spent finding ways to curb China’s exports. There was little time devoted to Israel’s brutal war in Gaza.

America’s leadership style and its position as the number one power in the world are often questioned due to its alleged two-faced foreign policy. With the emergence of right-wing forces across the Western hemisphere, one wonders if the liberal, democratic West-dominated world order would crumble from within.

A Changed World Since 1975

Leaders, academics, and political commentators alike tend to overlook the ground reality that we live in an entirely changed world from the time the world’s most industrialized nations formed the G7 in 1975. The founding members – France, West Germany, the US, the UK, Italy, and Japan – were truly global economic powers. Canada joined them a year later, and Russia was inducted in 1998 but excluded in 2014 after its invasion of Crimea. To complete the dominance of the West, the European Union became the unofficial eighth member of this exclusive club.

At that time, India and China, the two ancient civilisations, lived in relative obscurity and had no global voice. But the world has undergone profound transformations since then. The rise of India and China has shifted the global economic balance. Technological advancements, particularly in digital and communication fields, have revolutionised industries and daily lives in these two countries.

India’s Emergence

India today is ahead of Italy, the host of this year’s summit, in terms of economic, political, and military might. The same is perhaps true of Canada. On their own and without the might of the US, these two countries cannot exercise much power on the global stage. Japan, the odd man out in the old boys’ club, is content being a passive partner. The United Kingdom, once a global force, draws its power mainly from being America’s footman now. The world’s second and fifth largest economies, which are home to a third of humanity, have little or no say in the global world order dominated by the Western powers.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US acquired the keys to global governance and assumed the role of a solo global leader. The G7 has faced increasing criticism over the years for being an exclusive club that predominantly represents the interests of wealthy Western nations. Critics often label the G7 as an “old boys’ club” or a grouping of the “White Western world”, suggesting it is out of touch with the global realities of the 21st century.

Critics from the Global South, with India as a leading force, argue that the G7 perpetuates a neocolonial economic system that prioritises its members’ interests over those of less developed nations. This is evident in the G7’s trade policies, often seen as protectionist and detrimental to developing countries. Additionally, the G7’s approach to global issues such as climate change and health is sometimes criticised for imposing Western values and solutions without adequately considering local contexts and needs.

India’s Rightful Place

The concerns of the West are not whether the world order should be more inclusive. Its chief worry is that the existing world order faces existential threats. Consider French President Emmanuel Macron’s address at the annual conference of French ambassadors last year, where he lamented that “attempts to change the existing world order threaten to weaken the West and especially Europe”. He also warned against the weakening of Western influence on key global institutions, such as the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank.

Reforming the G7 is sorely needed. Indians might ask, why not make India a member and call it the G8? One can understand that the West doesn’t want to include a non-democratic China and an expansionist Russia in this group. But countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa must form part of a new, reformed world order.

India has the right credentials. With a vast population, the fastest-growing major economy, and a strategic geopolitical position, India presents a strong case for inclusion in the G7. Integrating India into the G7 would enhance the group’s legitimacy and representativeness while bolstering global efforts to tackle pressing issues such as climate change, international security, and economic inequality.

As a responsible global actor, India has demonstrated its commitment to multilateralism and international cooperation. India’s active participation in organisations such as the United Nations, BRICS, and the G20 highlights its willingness to engage constructively on global issues. Its inclusion in the G7 would enhance the group’s democratic credentials and strengthen the global coalition of democratic nations working to uphold international norms and human rights.

The US and the West have fought several wars and perpetuated invasions of independent nations. Their track record is replete with wars and violence. India must be given a chance in the new world order because it is capable of fighting for peace. Once again, to quote Alfred Tennyson, “ring out the thousand wars of old, ring in the thousand years of peace”.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

File photo:- Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, left, walks past Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as they take part in a wreath-laying ceremony at Raj Ghat, Mahatma Gandhi’s cremation site, during the G20 Summit in New Delhi, on September 10, 2023.
| Photo Credit: Sean Kilpatrick

The story so far: The current strain in diplomatic relations between Canada and India has raised concerns about the impact spiralling onto commercial and economic spheres of cooperation. Negotiations towards the Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA), which was to serve as an early transitional step towards the larger Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) now stand “paused.” This was widely expected to be sealed in a trade mission that was expected to arrive in India this October — now cancelled. Further concerns relate to the longer-term impact on the larger commercial and economic sphere should relations further deteriorate.

How significant is the trade relationship between the two countries?  

As per the Ministry of Commerce’s TradeStat database, in FY 2022-23, Canada was India’s 35th largest trading partner overall.

Further, as put forth in an earlier joint statement following the sixth Ministerial Dialogue on Trade & Investment (MDTI) in Ottawa in May, Canada-India bilateral trade in goods reached C$12 billion in 2022, growing 57% on a year-over-year basis; of this, the bilateral services trade contributed C8.9 billion to the overall figure.

According to Mohit Singla, Chairman at the Trade Promotion Council of India (TPCI) the trade between the countries is “pretty balanced.” He elaborates that Canada is ranked 14th in imports globally (with a share of 2.3%), but is 32nd in India’s export markets, with a share of 0.9%, currently exhibiting “low potential.” Having said that, he adds that the past two years have seen a sudden upsurge in exports from India at a CAGR of 32%. Other than mineral fuels, categories that have shown strong CAGR in this period include iron and steel, electrical machinery, rubber, nuclear reactors, apparel, pearls, and furniture and plastics, Mr. Singla says.

“This shows a strong surge in confidence by Canadian companies when it comes to sourcing from India across a wide range of categories. Clearly, the momentum has been building as compared to the pre-2020 period, when the overall export CAGR (2013-20) from India to Canada was just around 4%,” said Mr Singla.

From the Canadian perspective, India is a “priority market.” It was the North American country’s 10th largest trading partner. Global Canada (the international diplomacy and affairs department) has also said that “India will be a key partner as Canada strengthens its economic links to the Indo-Pacific under a new, comprehensive strategy for the region.”

How will this impact trade relations? 

India imported merchandise worth approximately U.S.$4.05 billion in FY 2022-23 from Canada and exported about U.S.$4.11 billion worth of goods — indicating a largely balanced trade. India’s primary export items include coal, coke and briquettes, fertilisers, iron and steel, and lentils. On the other hand, India’s major items of export are pharmaceutical products, iron and steel products, organic chemicals and marine products, along with apparel and textiles of varied forms and variants.

The CEPA, which now stands “paused,” was to further take care of “trade in goods, trade in services, rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade and other areas of economic cooperation”.

Mr Singla notes that, from available data, “Equivalent ad valorem tariff for India is high on dairy products, cereals, meat, fish, cocoa, apparel, textiles etc., which would undoubtedly be areas of interest for exporters,” adding that “to that extent, the FTA negotiations would delay possible easing of trade barriers in these sectors.”

On the other hand, as Mr Singla observes, “most of India’s top exports face minimal tariff barriers, with the exception of cereals and apparels, so a delay may not have a substantiative impact on India’s exports to Canada.”  

What about the investment ecosystem? 

As per the National Investment Promotion and Facilitation Agency’s Invest India, Canada is the 18^th largest foreign investor in India..

Several Canadian companies have established their presence in India; this is besides the country’s more important pension funds such as the Canadian Pension Fund (or CPP). As reported by news agency Reuters, CPP increased its investment in the Indian markets to about $15 billion in areas such as real estate, renewables and the financial sector at the end of the previous financial year.

Other big pension funds with sizeable exposure to India include Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) — which has investments of about C$8 billion and the Ontario Teacher’s Pension Plan (OTPP) with $3 billion — both until the end of last year. Observers in Canada believe that in the immediate term, their positions might not be at risk. They argue that the tensions could however cause operational inconveniences, as travel may be an issue.

What about education in Canada?  

As per official statistics, Canada has about 1.08 lakh students from India at present. This accounts for more than 37% of its overall international student pool. Canada- based publication The Global and Mailwrote that the international student tuition (fee) is “several times higher than for Canadian students,” adding that it “has become essential to the finances of many postsecondary schools.” Any strain in the relationship between the two countries would not bode well for them.

In an advisory on September 23, the Ministry of External Affairs in India urged Indian nationals and students in Canada to “exercise utmost caution.”

Jeff Nankivell, President and CEO at the think-tank Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada told BNN Bloomberg that the “single greatest economic relationship between the two countries is the inflow of students from India… and if that is diminished, it would have negative implications not just for educational institutions but also for Canadian communities that are hosts to Indian international students.”