The G7 and India: Modi's Balancing Game An Interview with Qian Feng

August 22, 2024

About the author:

TIO

The 2024 Group of Seven (G7) summit was held in June in Italy. Generally speaking, how would you evaluate this summit?

Qian

Firstly, many observers in the West, including the United States, believe that this G7 summit could be considered a gathering of "losers," because except for the prime minister of Italy, leaders from the other six countries face various domestic problems. Some Western media even call this summit the "last supper" of these leaders. It is foreseeable that next year's G7 summit will have a completely different lineup. This shows how Western politics is being dragged down by domestic problems, a state of instability at home.

Secondly, when the G7 was established in 1976, these countries accounted for around 70% of the world's GDP. However, as the world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century, the world's economic center of gravity starts to shift from the North Atlantic coast to Asia.

Now, we are witnessing a rise of emerging economies, with China being a prominent example. According to the 2023 International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, if we measure GDP by purchasing power parity (PPP), the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) collectively account for 31.5% of the world's GDP, surpassing the G7, which now accounts for 30.7%. This trend underscores the diminishing influence of the G7.

Moreover, the West, ironically, claims responsibility for aiding developing countries, while simultaneously proposing hollow initiatives, including the Global Gateway initiative. International analysts have calculated that the G7 countries owe developing countries at least 15 trillion USD in unmet commitment, whether in infrastructure or green, low-carbon development.

So, the G7 has become increasingly unacceptable to the rest of the world. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pointed out that the G7 gathering to discuss arrangements for the global order, including the economic order, is outdated.

TIO

We noticed that at this summit, the G7 invited several major players from the Global South. Interestingly, when taking the group photo, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was arranged in the center. How do you interpret this?

Qian

The G7 is aware that their traditional methods alone can no longer guide the international economic order, so it turns its attention to major Global South countries, such as India and Brazil. India, in particular, is playing an increasingly important role, and considers itself the leader of the Global South. With its economy thriving, India has become increasingly active on the international stage, as demonstrated by its invitations to the G7 summit and the NATO summit over the past two years.

For countries like India and Brazil, such platforms offer better connections with the traditional Western economic groups, thereby broadening the scope of diplomacy, increasing the leverage for security, and enhancing economic resilience. However, despite Modi being in the center of the photo, it's more of a symbolic gesture. When it comes to deliberations on critical issues, the West still operates within a small circle. In many ways, even Japan is not fully involved in the most critical discussions within the G7.

TIO

Just before Modi attended the G7 summit this year, he had won the national election and secured another term as Prime Minister. How do you evaluate the results of the Indian election?

Qian

Regarding this election, it is indeed a historic event. Modi has become the second politician in India's history to serve as Prime Minister for three consecutive terms, following the country's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.

However, disappointment emerged after the initial optimism. It had been widely believed that after ten years of Modi's leadership, coupled with the strong network and organizational advantages of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the party would have replicated its victory in 2019. However, the BJP did not meet these expectations and performed far worse than before. It has even lost its absolute majority in parliament, which means that Modi's next term will not be unrestrained. He will have to consider the positions of coalition partners and smaller parties on certain issues.

We saw a shift driven by public sentiment. Northern India, the Hindi heartland, has long been the stronghold of the BJP. However, the BJP surprisingly lost in Ayodhya, the constituency where the Ram Temple is located. This shows that many people are not fully convinced by the BJP's narratives of Hindu supremacy. Despite their extensive propaganda, the BJP has failed to deliver economically. Youth unemployment rates are rising, and while India's GDP remains strong and attracts global attention, the average citizen hasn't felt the benefits. People perceive that the economic development has primarily benefited the big conglomerates and corporations supported by the BJP, rather than the ordinary workers.

Moreover, their agricultural policies have benefited very few farmers, which can explain the significant protests from farmers in Punjab. Meanwhile, the BJP's emphasis on Hindu supremacy has marginalized the 14% Muslim population, making them feel sidelined and that their interests and religious rights are not being protected. Consequently, many Muslim voters chose to support the opposition. All these factors have contributed to the outcome of the Indian election.

TIO

India has always been seen as independent and ambitious, aiming to maintain its influence in the Indian Ocean. However, in recent years, India seems to be leaning toward the West, frequently attending international meetings such as the NATO summit and the G7 summit. What is your comment on such tendency? Will it continue and intensify, or swing back?

Qian

In my view, India originally pursued a non-aligned foreign policy and was a leading country in the Non-Aligned Movement. The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, known in Hindi as Panchsheel, were highly valued by India. Why? Because, as a major power, India recognized the need to provide public goods for global peace, development, and stability.

At that time, as newly independent nations, both India and China worked together to implement these principles. Initially, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence guided bilateral relations and benefited neighboring Asian countries. Over time, they gained acceptance worldwide. India took great pride in these principles and was committed to promoting them.

However, India's non-alignment policy has changed over the years. Based on what they call "reformed multilateralism," India now engages in dynamic issue-based balancing coalitions. This shift is particularly evident in its approach to China. In order to compete with and contain China, the US and other Western countries have ingratiated themselves with India in recent years. With strained China-India relations, India has felt the need to leverage external forces to better restrict China. We have seen the US-India relationship grow closer, and this trend is expected to continue during Modi's third term. While India strengthens its relations with the West, it will also try to strike a balance in its ties with other major countries.

India has strong aspirations to be a major power. The founding Prime Minister Nehru's book, The Discovery of India, speaks of India's desire to be a major power with a significant voice. Nehru believed that India would never accept being subordinate to any other country. However, the reality indicates that India's current power is insufficient, and it needs to work more closely with the US and other Western countries, as well as with Russia. India aims to navigate between major powers, leveraging their interests to maximize its own national interests and achieve optimal diplomatic expectations.

TIO

Indeed, one can say that India's balancing act involves weighing the West on one side and Russia on the other. Even in the context of Western countries being at odds with Russia, India continues to maintain close interactions with Russia. How do you view India-Russia relations?

Qian

India and Russia elevated their Strategic Partnership to the level of "Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership."

Politically, there are hardly any conflicting interests between the two sides. In terms of the Kashmir issue, which India values most, none of the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council openly supported India. Choosing to side with India would cause Pakistan to strongly protest. However, Russia has fully supported India on the issue, which India deeply appreciates.

In terms of defense, at its peak, about 70-80% of India's military equipment was from Russia. As to nuclear energy technology, Russia has been a main provider to India. Despite their close cooperation in other areas, economic exchanges between the two countries were relatively limited. Before the Ukraine conflict, the trade volume between India and Russia was only around 10 billion USD.

However, this situation has changed in recent years, with Russian and Indian economic and trade relations growing rapidly. The main reason is that Russia has been selling discounted crude oil to India, leading to a massive increase in Russian oil exports to India. This has boosted the Indian economy, as India has abundant mineral resources but lacks crude oil. It is expected that the economic and trade exchanges between the two countries will be stable in the long-term.

Meanwhile, India can no longer maintain its previously close defense and military relationship with Russia because of the containment imposed on Russia by the US and other Western countries. Therefore, India chose to distance itself somewhat, although it cannot completely disengage from Russia.

For example, India has reduced the scale of its arms purchases from Russia. The latest figures show that India's proportion of arms purchases from Russia has dropped to about 35%, reflecting a cautious approach to not antagonize the US and Western alliances. India's participation in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine and the bilateral meeting between Modi and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the G7 summit signaled some support for Ukraine. Yet Modi's visit to Russia a few weeks later in early July was a supportive gesture to Russians during their difficult times. Such a balancing act is consistent with India's current diplomatic strategy.

India's long-term view regarding the Ukraine conflict, as Modi said publicly and also to Putin, is that this is "not the era for war," implying disapproval of the conflict, though he stops short of outright condemnation.

Also, India calls for both sides to cease fire, and pays attention to the humanitarian issues of the Ukraine conflict, including the food crisis. These statements align with India's foreign policy and are similar to that of many developing countries, including China, Brazil, and South Africa. This shows India's current desire to maintain close relations with other Global South countries.

 

This interview was conducted by Song Xiaofeng, Editor-in-Chief of Taihe Institute.

 

 

Please note: The above contents only represent the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of Taihe Institute.

 

This article is from the July issue of TI Observer (TIO), which focuses on the recently concluded 2024 G7 Summit, examining the global governance dilemmas and domestic political challenges faced by the G7 countries, and discussing their efforts to engage Global South countries. If you are interested in knowing more about the June issue, please click here:

http://en.taiheinstitute.org/UpLoadFile/files/2024/7/31/135526382bbd6aa96-0.pdf

 

——————————————

ON TIMES WE FOCUS.

Should you have any questions, please contact us at public@taiheglobal.org