BRI Summit: India has scored own goal against China, writes top Indian Author Kulkurni
Shares
Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs better advice on China. Look at the self-goal India has scored by boycotting the Belt and Road Forum summit, convened by the Chinese president Xi Jinping on May 14 and 15. As an unofficial Indian delegate at what was undoubtedly this year's most significant global event, I was fervently hoping to see my Prime Minister standing side by side with the Chinese statesman at the opening ceremony of the summit in Beijing. Here was an opportunity for India, and for Modi personally, to be seen as a major leader bringing India's wisdom to an initiative that Xi has audaciously, and without much exaggeration, called the "Project of the Century".
Sadly, in the eyes of the over 100 countries represented at the conference, including 29 heads of state or government, India was the proverbial "elephant in the room" - conspicuous by its absence.
India did not even send a high - or low-level official representative to the summit. More bafflingly, going beyond a boycott, the Modi government issued a statement that read like outright opposition to the very concept of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). True, India has some genuine concerns about BRI. Several thoughtful Chinese experts I spoke to concede that it is natural for India to have differences. Indeed, some non-Chinese speakers at the summit expressed their own differences. Germany, for example, asked China to provide a level-playing field to foreign companies, besides commenting that China cannot be the sole centre of BRI.
It is bad diplomacy to equate bluster with strategy. What to say, when to say, how much to say and how to say it in an overall cost-benefit matrix are essential determinants of how a nation expresses its displeasure, especially in a relationship that presents big gains and risks. India's statement was untimely, un-nuanced and, quite simply, undiplomatic. Its purpose seemed to be to displease China, just as China in the recent past has acted in an extremely unfriendly manner meant to upset India.
Modi's advisors should have known that attendance at the Beijing forum did not automatically mean full endorsement of China's BRI vision, or the specific projects under it. Both USA and Japan sent their representatives to Beijing. Does it mean Washington and Tokyo have embraced BRI in toto?
India did not even send a high - or low-level official representative to the summit. More bafflingly, going beyond a boycott, the Modi government issued a statement that read like outright opposition to the very concept of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). True, India has some genuine concerns about BRI. Several thoughtful Chinese experts I spoke to concede that it is natural for India to have differences. Indeed, some non-Chinese speakers at the summit expressed their own differences. Germany, for example, asked China to provide a level-playing field to foreign companies, besides commenting that China cannot be the sole centre of BRI.
It is bad diplomacy to equate bluster with strategy. What to say, when to say, how much to say and how to say it in an overall cost-benefit matrix are essential determinants of how a nation expresses its displeasure, especially in a relationship that presents big gains and risks. India's statement was untimely, un-nuanced and, quite simply, undiplomatic. Its purpose seemed to be to displease China, just as China in the recent past has acted in an extremely unfriendly manner meant to upset India.
Modi's advisors should have known that attendance at the Beijing forum did not automatically mean full endorsement of China's BRI vision, or the specific projects under it. Both USA and Japan sent their representatives to Beijing. Does it mean Washington and Tokyo have embraced BRI in toto?
Author: Sudheendra Kulkurni
