India’s Shrinking Global Standing Amid Gaza, Trump and China’s Rise

We see the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, and the UN system close to collapse, unable to intervene in major crises. How do you see the current situation in the world?

The world has changed completely in the last 20-odd years. I must confess that I am totally outdated now because the situation then and the situation today are vastly different from each other. We now have the great disruptor of all that is sacred in international relations. The man sitting in the White House respects nothing, no traditions, no precedents. He only wants to act the way he feels like acting. There was a time when I thought that international organisations like the UN, the superpowers, and other powers were strong enough to prevent a war from happening. And if a war did happen, then they’ll bring it to a close very soon. I was clearly wrong.

You refer to the genocide in Gaza. It’s a horrible thing that has happened in today’s civilised world. And there are major powers which have just kept quiet, including India. We have not condemned Israel for the inhuman activities that they have carried out in Gaza, killing scores of people, hundreds and thousands of people. And the world has just looked on. Similarly, the war in Ukraine has just gone on. Mr Trump has woken up to the situation and is trying to bring peace to both these places. He’s been a real estate man, so he’s thinking in terms of real estate there. But I hope to God that he succeeds in Ukraine, and the senseless killing and destruction which has been going on there for years is brought to an end. In all this, I find that the United Nations [UN] and especially its Security Council has become completely redundant.

On the Security Council’s new resolution creating the so-called international stabilisation force for Gaza, Russia and China abstained. Are countries simply going by their own national interest? Doesn’t it matter that you should do the right thing in international affairs?

Absolutely. There are other areas of conflict—Sudan is an example where the conflict has been going on, and people have been killing each other, and the international community has just looked on. The UN has become toothless. It will adopt a resolution which has been prepared by the US. It will not have a resolution of its own. If it does, then it’s just becoming a copycat of the US and also proving the point that the other countries matter far less than the US does. That’s not a good situation because then we’ll be back to the superpower days. And in today’s world, there is only one superpower, and that country, the US, will dominate everyone. So multipolarity has become a victim. Other countries have ceased to matter.

And I’m particularly sorry about India’s role in all this. India has been just a quiet onlooker. We have not spoken on Gaza, we have not condemned the killings in Gaza, and we had a chance to be a peacemaker in Ukraine, also because we enjoyed some confidence of both sides. But we have just kept quiet. Apart from beating our own drum that we are Vishwa Guru, we have not done anything to show that we really have an international role, which is very sad because India has always had an international role, especially in conflict situations.

India has been silent on Gaza. But Prime Minister Modi also chose not to travel to Kuala Lumpur recently, presumably to avoid meeting Donald Trump. He also didn’t go to Sharm El Sheikh in Egypt. How do you see this?

We started with quoting Trump. We started by telling the world that he was a great personal friend of Mr Modi until somewhere down the line, things got derailed. And Trump has spoken over 50 times now that he has been responsible for bringing the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, as far as that short four-day war or conflict was concerned. Prime Minister Modi has not contradicted it. The government of India may have, but Prime Minister Modi has not contradicted it.

And now, unfortunately, we have come to a situation where Mr Modi is avoiding, clearly avoiding, going to any international meet where Trump is likely to be present. So it is not merely in Kuala Lumpur that he did not go. He also did not go to Sharm El Sheikh. So the impression or the message which has gone to the world and to the US is that Mr Modi will now, in future, avoid any meeting where Mr Trump might be present. He went to South Africa for the G20 when he was convinced that Trump was not coming.

Mr Modi’s domestic projection is of a strong leader. We saw Xi Jinping meeting Donald Trump in Seoul recently with complete confidence. How does Modi’s avoidance marry with his domestic image?

You can’t compare China and India. China is far ahead of us in every way. And therefore, when President Xi met Trump, he met Trump as an equal, and Trump also met him as an equal. This is a great change which is taking place in international relations because China and the US are coming closer. India had relevance in the past because India was looked upon by the Western world as a counterpoise to China in Asia and elsewhere. Now that the advantage seems to be slipping out of our hands because the US and China are making up. In fact, they’re also talking in terms of a G2 that they will be dominating the world. India is nowhere in this picture.

When I was in the External Affairs Ministry, I had travelled to Brasilia in Brazil, where the Foreign Ministers for India, Brazil and South Africa had met, and we had created an organisation called IBSA—India, Brazil, South Africa. After a very long time, I found that this time, when Mr Modi was in South Africa, a meeting of IBSA had taken place. Why was IBSA created? IBSA was created because we wanted another grouping which was not burdened by being too large, but a small grouping of transcontinental important countries, each of which claims a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, coming together and, apart from furthering relations between themselves, also playing a role at the international level. Why couldn’t IBSA play a role as far as Gaza is concerned? Why couldn’t India take the initiative in IBSA to do this?

Because India is today completely married to Israeli policies. We have Israeli Ministers visiting India at a time when the genocide is going on.

That’s the saddest part. Where do we stand? I don’t know. But clearly, India is not playing the role internationally that it had played in the past, and was supposed to play in today’s world.

A lot of emphasis has been put on our relationship with the US. Donald Trump has put tariffs on us at 50 per cent, while Pakistan is at 19 per cent. How is it that Pakistan’s star has really risen with the US in the last 8, 10, 11 months, while India’s star is going down?

I consider as a major failure of our diplomacy in recent months. Pakistan had the best of relations with China. And in the four-day war, you are aware of the role which was played by China. In fact, our army people are saying that it was China we were fighting and not Pakistan so much. But surprisingly that Pakistan, almost a failed state controlled by Field Marshal Munir—now that Pakistan has become the darling of the US. Munir has been invited to the White House twice, and it seems that he’s getting along very well with President Trump.

So, here we have a situation where Pakistan is close to China. Pakistan is also now very close to the US, and both these superpowers are helping Pakistan in every way. And we seem to be isolated. It was our policy that, moving from the Cold War era, we would also have a good relationship with the US, and when Mr Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, we actively followed that policy with good outcomes. And when Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister, then we had the nuclear deal and all that. But in this Trump era, we have lost that direction. And we have unfortunately come to a situation where the leaders of these two countries, especially India, are avoiding meeting Trump.

Trump’s repeated claims of brokering the May ceasefire underline a sharp imbalance in the India–US equation, exposing Delhi’s reluctance to counter his narrative and revealing a deeper strategic drift.
| Photo Credit:
REUTERS

After Pahalgam, the Prime Minister repeatedly said we are going to do something. But now, after the recent bomb blast in Delhi, in which 10 to 12 people were killed, the government has played these two incidents very differently. The Cabinet resolution talks of anti-national forces—there is no reference to Pakistan. Why has the government changed tack?

The reason is obvious because you will recall that after Pahalgam, we had said to ourselves, to our own people and to the world that any act of terror now will be treated as an act of war against India. And if there is an act of war, then you go to war against the perpetrator. You punish the perpetrator. And in Pahalgam, we clearly established or told the world that it was Pakistan which was behind this.

In the case of Delhi, we have not used the P word. So if we use the P word, and this is in the heart of India, in the capital of India, in Delhi, where such a horrendous act of terror has taken place, and we recognise this as an act of terror, then we have to go to war. And who do we go to war with? We go to war with Pakistan with its consequences. So, actually, if you look at the whole episode, India is withdrawing from that position which Prime Minister Modi had taken after Pahalgam and tried to prove to India and to the world that he is a strong person and he will not tolerate any act of terror. Now, we have an act of terror in the capital city of the country. And we are just avoiding calling it an act of terror or blaming Pakistan for it.

We saw India buying a lot of oil from Russia. Now purchases are coming down. Is this a sign of independence that, in defiance of the US, we continue to buy Russian oil? Or at the first sign of bullying by Donald Trump, have we given up?

I look at it as a sign of capitulation to Trump. We have clearly capitulated to Trump. We were buying cheap crude oil from Russia. Russia has been a consistent friend of India, and it has provided cheaper oil. There was no reason why we should not. And our purchases of Russian crude went up from around 1 per cent to 40 per cent of our total crude purchases. And it was cheap, though it’s another matter that the benefit was not passed on to the consumers, to you and me. But the fact remains that we are buying cheaper crude oil from Russia.

Now, the US has imposed sanctions on two of our firms. But consistently, Trump was putting pressure on India publicly and telling us, “Don’t buy Russian crude.” And ultimately, we capitulated. Ultimately, we have stopped buying crude from the major Russian companies which were supplying the crude to India.

If India, such a big country, capitulates to Trump’s bullying, what hope is there for other countries? The rest of the world is watching how India is dealing with the US now.

We are in a difficult situation, and I think we should use all our diplomatic resources to get out of this situation, because it cannot go on. You can’t have a situation where Pakistan is close to China, close to the US. Now, Russia and Pakistan have been coming closer. So we seem to have, compared to Pakistan, no friends. And when Operation Sindoor took place, there was not one country which stood with India and condemned the Pakistanis for their terror attack, not even the countries in our neighbourhood, except the Taliban in Afghanistan.

So if you ask me quite clearly, I find that India today, despite all our past efforts and propaganda, we seems to have been completely isolated.

Two Taliban Ministers have visited Delhi—their Foreign Minister and Industry Minister. They were the only ones who supported us. How do you see this change—a hardline Hindu government having this kind of dalliance with the Taliban?

Two very fundamentalist groupings coming together. That’s how I would look at it. Here you have Hindu fundamentalism, there you have Islamic fundamentalism, and the two are getting along beautifully with each other. But having said that, I’ll also say that it’s always been India’s policy to cultivate Afghanistan. It’s also been our policy that we will deal with the regime in place in the country with which we are dealing.

When I took over in the External Affairs Ministry, one of the earliest trips that I made was to Afghanistan. And I had a very successful visit there. And I realised how much goodwill we enjoyed with the people of Afghanistan. So that is something which we should keep on cultivating. Afghanistan was always important for us. And we are not looking at the kind of regime which has taken over in Afghanistan. If the Taliban is in power there, we’ll have to deal with the Taliban. If the military is in power in Myanmar, we’ll have to deal with the military in Myanmar. So that’s been our policy.

But going back to what we were discussing, the Taliban in Afghanistan was the only government which had supported us during Operation Sindoor. Nepal did not. Bhutan did not. The Maldives did not. Sri Lanka did not. There’s no question of Bangladesh supporting us now.

Mr Modi’s projection of himself as a strong man has international baggage attached to it. He’s selling himself as Vishwa Guru. We had the G20. Are people so gullible that they don’t see Mr Modi actually looks very weak internationally?

There is a great deal of difference between the sky and the earth as far as the projection of Mr Modi as a leader is concerned, especially at the global level, and the reality. Now there is a huge perception problem there. And I’ll also admit that lots of people in this country are influenced or impressed by the fact that Mr Modi is a world leader because this is how he’s projected. It goes to the ridiculous level, as you’ll recall, of a meeting taking place with global leaders and Mr Modi walking in front and the BJP going great guns about it and saying, Look at our leader. He’s become the leader of the world because he’s walking in front.

So, there are uninformed people who think it’s all true. And Mr Modi’s Vishwa Guru image may not be relevant in the Vishwa, but it is potent here in India.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Narendra Modi shake hands after an agreement signing ceremony in Jeddah on April 22, 2025. From Gaza to China to Pakistan, the discussion shows how India’s claim to leadership struggles to match a world moving faster than its diplomacy.
| Photo Credit:
AFP

We are isolated in the subcontinent, and also isolated in West Asia. Other than Israel, we don’t really have allies. How does India deal with this situation now?

Mr Modi was in Saudi Arabia when Pahalgam took place. And he has been cultivating Saudi Arabia. But it has not led to anything. And the recent moves by Saudi Arabia will clearly show that, like Turkey, they’ll be more with Pakistan than India in case there is a conflict between these two countries. So all our efforts, or Mr Modi’s efforts to cultivate Saudi Arabia, have fallen flat on its face.

So, we don’t have friends there. We don’t have friends in the Gulf, we don’t have friends in East Asia, in ASEAN, in our immediate neighbourhood, in the wider world. As I said, even Russia is looking more at its interests than at India’s interests. And if it suits Russia to deal with Pakistan, they will.

We haven’t mentioned China so far. Trump speaks reverentially about China, and they’re talking of a G2. With India, we’ve had conflict. When the Vajpayee government was in power, efforts were made to improve relationships. How do you see India-China relations? Does the rise of China have implications for India?

It has huge implications for India. There was a time when the world used to look upon India and China almost as equals. And they were looking at India all the time as a counterpoise to China in Asia. I think all that has become a thing of the past. China has left India far behind as far as economic power is concerned. They are far ahead of us. And because of the economic power, their military power is far ahead of ours. So whenever they want, they can give us a bloody nose on our borders. This is what we saw in Galwan when 24 brave hearts were killed.

And China is continuously needling India. China is also continuously improving its infrastructure along the Sino-Indian border. China is a huge, huge threat to India going forward. And China and the US coming together is bad news for India because we lose even more of our international relevance if these two countries come together. And that little advantage that we had as a counterpoise to China in Asia, that we will also lose.

So, the rise of China has been singular. Unfortunately, India has not been able to keep pace with the rise of China as much as we would have liked to. And today, they are a global power compared only to the US. There is no other country in the world which is closer to China as far as economic and military power is concerned. So that is China’s position. We are nowhere compared to that.

My last question is on India-Pakistan relations. You were External Affairs Minister when Mr Vajpayee made that celebrated visit to the SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation] summit, and a comprehensive understanding was arrived at. Today, we have no contact with the Pakistanis. There are no road links, no rail links. Diplomacy is in a complete freeze. How does India need to deal with Pakistan?

There are two ways in which we can deal with it. One is the Vajpayee-Manmohan Singh way. As Vajpayee said, you can change your friends, you can’t change your neighbour. So you have to have friendly relations with Pakistan. It is in the interest of both countries if we want to progress economically. If you want to give a good life, a decent standard of living to our people, then we can’t continue to have a hostile relationship. This was the premise, the basic premise on which Vajpayee worked. And Vajpayee was, of course, a BJP Prime Minister of this country. The first one.

Now we seem to have drifted away from that model. The other model was to just keep Pakistan at a distance, not have any relationship with Pakistan. The Modi government has opted for the second model. But this model will succeed or will have any relevance if we were able to stop cross-border terrorism, if we made ourselves so strong that we would not allow any terrorist act to take place sponsored by Pakistan on our territory. But we have not achieved that. We are vulnerable. Maybe we are even careless. So this model, the second mode, is not working and will not work as long as we are not able to stop terrorism. If we want, therefore, to stop terrorism, we have to make peace with Pakistan. That’s as clear as daylight.

Do you think your voice would be an isolated voice in today’s India?

It will be. At the present time, it will be an isolated voice. You talked about my visit to Pakistan in January 2004. But after that, as a member of Parliament and as just an activist, I have gone to Pakistan many times. And all the time, the effort was that we should be able to bring peace between the two countries. There have been track two and all that is completely over. Track two, track one and a half, all this is over. Nobody is talking to anyone in Pakistan because the government doesn’t want anyone to talk to Pakistan. So it is the responsibility of the government of India, therefore enhanced responsibility to ensure that Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism does not succeed.