The much-anticipated meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping this Wednesday in Kazan marked the first formal dialogue between the two leaders in five years. Their conversation is likely to raise eyebrows in Washington, Ottawa, and other Western capitals, as it signals that New Delhi is not inclined to join the Western bloc in countering Beijing, despite increasing pressure from countries like the United States.
While this meeting doesn’t appear to be the beginning of a full-fledged India-China axis, it does reinforce India’s commitment to its tradition of non-alignment, distancing itself from a confrontational stance against China.
The United States, which has long considered India a key ally in the Indo-Pacific region, may find itself on the back foot following Modi’s outreach to Xi. Dr. Sanjay Ruparelia, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, commented on the longstanding complexity of U.S.-India relations, particularly in light of recent global developments.
“There’s a lot of compartmentalization in the U.S.-India relationship,” said Ruparelia. “Ties have grown even with serious disagreements, particularly over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” He noted that while India’s close ties with Russia raise concerns, the U.S. has continuously expanded its partnerships with India in areas such as defense and emerging technologies.
This year, the U.S. demonstrated its commitment to strengthening ties by hosting Modi at President Joe Biden’s private residence, an honor previously extended to only two other foreign leaders in history. Just last month, the two nations agreed to a defense deal involving Predator drones, signaling a growing military partnership, despite underlying diplomatic tensions related to India’s alleged targeting of dissidents abroad.
India and China’s turbulent relationship has been marked by military stand-offs, most notably the deadly clash in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley in June 2020, where brutal, weaponless fighting claimed the lives of 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers. The incident shocked both nations, serving as a harsh reminder of their long-standing border disputes and escalating tensions.
The Biden administration sought to capitalize on India’s frustrations over the clashes by inviting New Delhi to join a U.S.-led alliance to counteract Chinese expansionism in the Indo-Pacific region. India responded positively by joining the Quad, a strategic dialogue with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, designed to curtail Beijing’s influence in the region. Yet, while India participated in discussions, it remained reluctant to deepen military commitments in the Quad framework.
This week’s meeting between Modi and Xi comes on the heels of an announcement that India and China are nearing an agreement to resolve their border issues, albeit with few public details shared. Modi, in his statement, emphasized the global importance of stable India-China relations, expressing a desire for “mutual trust, respect, and sensitivity.”
Despite the optimism, analysts urge caution. “India hasn’t resolved the border dispute; they’ve only agreed to resume national patrols along disputed areas,” cautioned Ruparelia, underscoring the lack of clarity over whether China has returned control of the territories it claimed in 2020. The unresolved nature of this border conflict hints that while both countries may desire improved relations, tensions could easily flare up again.
The Modi-Xi meeting also highlights India’s unique diplomatic position. Professor Ho-fung Hung of Johns Hopkins University noted that “India is in an enviable position where everyone is courting its support.” India’s continued non-alignment has allowed it to engage both with the West and its historic allies, Russia and China, leveraging this position for its national interests.
India’s stance may cause concern for the U.S., which has invested significantly in cultivating an alliance with India as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy. However, as Hung observes, India’s unique leverage means it likely feels minimal pressure to shift its position under Western influence.
Washington, for its part, has not made significant moves to penalize India, even as Canada and the U.S. raise alarms over alleged assassination plots orchestrated by Indian agents. This incident, involving Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, a dual Canadian-American citizen advocating for Sikh independence, has cast a shadow over India’s relations with North America. However, the allegations have not deterred the U.S. from deepening strategic ties with New Delhi.
India’s engagement with China aligns with its broader foreign policy, which includes maintaining a strong alliance with Russia. In July, Modi made a diplomatic visit to Russia, meeting with President Vladimir Putin—a move that drew a mixed response from the U.S. State Department. Despite global criticism of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, India continues to rely heavily on Russian military imports, underscoring the depth of the two nations’ relationship.
“India’s dependency on Russian military supplies, especially in artillery, means it’s not likely to abandon Moscow’s support anytime soon,” said Hung. Russia supplies more than two-thirds of India’s arms, a strategic consideration that outweighs the diplomatic fallout from the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the eyes of New Delhi’s policymakers.
While the diplomatic world is reeling from allegations against India involving targeted violence against dissidents in North America, Modi’s government remains relatively unfazed, confident in its unique leverage. Pannun’s efforts to establish a Sikh homeland in the Indian state of Punjab have long made him a target of New Delhi’s intelligence community, which regards the Khalistan movement as a national security threat.
In response to a mounting body of evidence implicating Indian operatives, including digital trails traced back to India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the U.S. has pressed Modi’s government to investigate. Although India has taken some symbolic measures, including arresting one official and establishing a commission of inquiry, Ruparelia suggests these actions are primarily aimed at diffusing diplomatic tension without signaling genuine remorse or reform.
In recent months, both Canada and the U.S. have acknowledged India’s role in international assassination plots, yet their responses have been notably measured. The Biden administration, which had already expressed concerns about Pannun’s murder plot, is now placed in the delicate position of managing these diplomatic strains without alienating India.
Washington’s reluctance to impose punitive measures on India, as it might with other nations, reflects a recognition of India’s critical role in countering Chinese influence in Asia. “India has the upper hand right now, and the U.S. has limited leverage to influence its decisions,” explained Hung.
India’s relationship with authoritarian regimes like Russia and China may appear unsettling to the West, but it underscores a diplomatic pragmatism that appeals to Modi’s government. Authoritarian governments do not demand human rights compliance from their partners, a trait India values, especially as it grapples with criticism from democratic allies.
The Modi-Xi dialogue does not represent a complete realignment, yet it’s a calculated move signaling New Delhi’s independence from U.S.-driven agendas. The West’s strategy to pressure India into a closer alignment is complicated by India’s reliance on Russian arms, its territorial disputes with China, and its refusal to be drawn into conflicts that do not align with its own national interests.
Despite the diplomatic intrigue, experts suggest India’s current strategy is less about shifting alliances and more about optimizing its position as an influential global player. As Dr. Ruparelia points out, “India’s geopolitical considerations are likely to trump other issues, allowing it to engage with rivals like China without feeling obligated to conform to the Western agenda.”
India’s stance has caused frustration in Washington, which had hoped New Delhi would adopt a more antagonistic posture toward China and Russia. Instead, India’s diplomatic pragmatism underscores a commitment to autonomy, even if it conflicts with the expectations of its Western allies.
