The SCO Summit ended with a joint declaration condemning Jaffar Express, Khuzdar and Pahalgam terrorist attacks. China and Russia went one step further in offering the Global South a 'global governance' system that would "take a clear stand against hegemonism and power politics, and practice true multilateralism". The Global North, however, is resisting any possibility of 'global governance' led by Russia and China.
Israel has struck Yemeni capital Sanaa, killing Prime Minister Nasser al-Rahawi and several ministers; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite severe opposition from the Israeli public, has declared a 'decisive stage' in the Gaza War; American naval forces have reached Venezuelan shores to start a new, seemingly long, war of attrition; the Ukraine War is yet to abate; and there is a constant threat that Israel will strike Iran again. All this is the North's resistance!
In such a volatile global environment, and in such a humanitarian situation where 1% of human population controls around 40% global wealth, and 50% of humanity lives on just 2% of global wealth; and wherein over a billion people, according to WHO's latest findings, are living with mental health conditions now; is humanity looking for a path to peace, progress and equality? Or is it looking for more wars?
So, when China talks of a Global Security Initiative, and Russia of a Eurasian Security Concept, they are actually talking of a minus-US global security framework, which has been despised by so many states around the world for its unilateral hegemonic policies. If the Global South, with its increasing economic clout, can integrate into a single framework, it can easily overweigh the Global North. However, there is one Elephant in the room that is trampling on the framework — India!
The problem is that in spite of Russia's and China's continuous efforts to woo India into the RIC (Russia, India, China) framework, the Modi government has successfully kept itself alienated from its regional neighborhood. India's strategic closeness with the US, its being part of QUAD and the I2U2, and the US proclaiming India as the net security provider of the Indo-Pacific region were all meant to encircle China and impede its rise. And within this equation, India had harboured the dream of its own rise in opposition to China. Therefore, when SCO talks of a multipolar world, India has been talking of a multipolar Asia, one where India would be recognised as equally on a par with China and Russia — a wish that cannot be just given away, but has to be earned.
India cannot understand these simple stats because of its unilateral stance on major issues, just like its best buddies — the US and Israel. India's genocidal policies with the people of Occupied Kashmir, its oppressive quashing of dissent in the seven-sisters, its persecution of the Sikhs — all point to the fact that the Indian state mentality is egoistic, despotic and non-collaborative; it wants to think of itself as the master of South Asia not a disciple of China!
So, when US President Donald Trump threatened India with over 50% tariffs and more tariff for buying Russian oil, and with halting Indian visas, besides seemingly throwing all the strategic ties behind, India made its advances in the SCO and BRICS. But only with a half heart.
Last year in Kazan, President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi had signed a disengagement agreement that ensured peace on the Actual Line of Control. This time, at the SCO, instead of talking about integration, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar put forth his need for 'de-escalation', meaning all Chinese forces withdraw from their forward positions in Ladakh. Problem in this is that China deems the security of Pakistan as a matter of its concern, and needs to maintain its position in Ladakh both to secure its One China Policy and Pakistan's sovereignty and its waters. India's recent attack on Pakistan, does not guarantee India's interest in the stability and peace of the region, rather all signs indicate India's want for superiority and power-show. And the risk of partnering with old friends for these reasons remains.
So, India's softening towards the SCO and BRICS is for one reason — it wants China's and Russia's support for its 2026 BRICS presidency. It has no interest in regional peace! It refuses to enter into dialogue with Pakistan; it has backed off from regular 'strategic communications' with China; and it vies against BRI projects in its neighborhood.
With Moscow, though post-2022, India has multiplied its oil and fertilisers imports from Russia, but it is not like Jaishankar would say that Russo-Indian ties are "one constant in world politics", rather they have been varying. Especially since Soviet Union broke in the aftermath of the Russo-Afghan War, and India left the socialist camp for the capitalist one. Between 1991 and 2024, Indian trade with US went from $5 billion to $128 billion, out of which over $20 billion has been in defence.
India left the Russian MiG series for the French Rafale; and the Russian diesel-electric submarines for their French and German variants; and in 2022, India cancelled its orders for Mi-17 V5 helicopters and Ka-31 Airborne Early Warning helicopters. All this puts India in a sticky situation. When all your top-notch weaponry is from NATO partners, you don't have much choice of side-walking their alliance — they have all your kill-switches!
That means that if the Elephant wants to befriend the Dragon, it will need a completely new security architecture — a complete strategic and hardware overhaul that would cost India a lot, both in terms of its monetary and diplomatic investments over the decades. It also means the Elephant cannot trample all over South Asia anymore and has to learn to live with the tribe, wherein each elephant, is an equal elephant, and no one gets to be the big-brother elephant.
As for the Dragon, as of now, it is not spewing fire, rather it is fluting a tune of peace, harmony and cooperation. And everybody is being invited to the party, especially the United Nations, so that the same ink can be used to write a new world order — an order where everybody can get its part, except those who don't want to leave old grudges behind, which is not good, because they would risk permanent banishment from the party.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ