On October 16, 2024, India’s External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar, addressed the 23rd Meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Council of Heads of Government in Islamabad. His speech, while framed in diplomatic niceties and highlighting the significance of the SCO, is layered with contradictions that reflect India’s broader geopolitical ambitions. It is evident that the speech serves not just as a call for cooperation but also as a carefully crafted narrative aimed at promoting India’s interests, often at the expense of sincere dialogue with neighboring countries, particularly Pakistan.
Surface Diplomacy: Acknowledgment of Pakistan’s Presidency
Dr. Jaishankar began with a congratulatory note for Pakistan’s presidency of the SCO, a gesture that could be interpreted as a step toward improving bilateral ties. However, this acknowledgment is a mere surface diplomacy. The historical context of strained relations between India and Pakistan, especially regarding regional disputes, casts doubt on the sincerity of such commendations. The lack of substantial diplomatic engagement between the two nations raises critical questions about the intent behind such statements. Is this an authentic acknowledgment of Pakistan’s role, or merely a symbolic gesture aimed at maintaining the decorum of multilateral engagements?
Unilateral Focus on Terrorism: A Thinly Veiled Critique
One of the most striking aspects of Dr. Jaishankar’s speech is his emphasis on combating the “three evils”: terrorism, separatism, and extremism. This framing has long been associated with India’s portrayal of Pakistan as a source of cross-border terrorism. By spotlighting terrorism as a primary concern, India seeks to externalize its internal challenges, particularly regarding extremism and separatism in its own territories, such as Kashmir and Manipur.
This is an attempt to divert attention from pressing domestic issues within India. The insistence on blaming external actors without acknowledging the complexities of internal strife not only undermines India’s credibility but also indicates a reluctance to engage in introspection. A more holistic approach, addressing both internal and external dimensions of extremism, is essential for genuine cooperation.
Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: A Critique of CPEC
Dr. Jaishankar’s insistence on cooperation being based on “mutual respect and sovereign equality” serves as a thinly veiled criticism of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), an initiative critical to Pakistan’s economic strategy. India’s historical opposition to CPEC reflects its broader apprehension about Pakistan’s strategic connectivity initiatives, which it perceives as a challenge to its regional influence.
This selective criticism raises significant questions about India’s commitment to regional connectivity. While India promotes its own connectivity projects, its opposition to initiatives like CPEC highlights a contradictory stance that seems more about isolating Pakistan than fostering genuine regional collaboration. By framing its position as a defense of sovereignty, India appears to overlook the broader benefits of regional integration that CPEC and similar initiatives offer.
Multi-Polarism and Rebalancing: Strategic Posturing
In advocating for a multi-polar world, Dr. Jaishankar’s rhetoric contrasts sharply with India’s alignment with exclusive alliances like the Quad. While he emphasizes the need for rebalancing, this appears more as a strategic maneuver to consolidate India’s influence rather than a genuine commitment to a multipolar order.
The contradiction between India’s calls for multi-polarity and its engagement with Western-led blocs raises concerns about its sincerity in promoting a genuinely inclusive regional framework. This as an attempt by India to position itself as a dominant regional power while sidelining key SCO partners like China and Russia. The duality in India’s approach exemplifies a broader strategy aimed at securing its geopolitical interests rather than fostering balanced regional relations.
Idealism of Honest Dialogue Amid Tensions
Dr. Jaishankar’s call for “honest conversations” among SCO members seems overly idealistic, especially considering the persistent and unresolved tensions between India and Pakistan, particularly over Kashmir. The insistence on dialogue is commendable, yet it rings hollow in the absence of meaningful engagement between the two countries.
Given India’s historical reluctance to engage in direct dialogue with Pakistan, questions arise about the efficacy of the SCO as a platform for conflict resolution. If India remains unwilling to address bilateral disputes sincerely, how can it expect to foster an environment conducive to cooperation within the SCO? This apparent disconnect underscores the challenges of achieving regional harmony in the face of entrenched geopolitical rivalries.
Economic Collaboration: Contradictions in Policy
While Dr. Jaishankar outlined several areas for potential regional cooperation—such as trade, MSMEs, and climate action—India’s restrictive trade policies and refusal to engage in regional initiatives like SAARC starkly contradict this vision. This selective approach undermines the potential for genuine collaboration within the SCO framework.
India’s policies reflect a form of selective regionalism that prioritizes its interests while sidelining collaborative efforts that could benefit the region as a whole. This dissonance between rhetoric and action raises doubts about India’s commitment to fostering an environment conducive to economic growth and regional integration.
UN Security Council Reform: Aimed at Exclusion
India’s push for comprehensive UN Security Council reform is closely aligned with its aspirations for a permanent seat. However, this ambition often overlooks the potential implications for smaller states like Pakistan, which fear that such reforms could exacerbate inequalities in global governance.
By advocating for reforms that could marginalize middle powers, India risks alienating key regional partners and reinforcing perceptions of its desire for disproportionate influence on the global stage. This strategy may serve India’s interests but raises questions about the inclusivity and fairness of proposed reforms. Pakistan’s advocacy for equal representation in multilateral institutions underscores the need for a more balanced approach that accommodates the voices of smaller states.
SCO Leadership in Global Reform: A Contradiction
Dr. Jaishankar’s call for the SCO to take the lead in advocating for global reforms appears contradictory when viewed alongside India’s alignment with Western-led initiatives. This duality compromises India’s ability to effectively lead within regional organizations, raising questions about its commitment to the collective goals of the SCO.
If India seeks to champion reformative efforts within the SCO, it must first reconcile its involvement in exclusive geopolitical blocs that often sideline the very nations it wishes to engage with. This inconsistency not only undermines India’s credibility but also reflects a broader strategy of pursuing its national interests at the expense of regional cohesion.
Overemphasis on Soft Power: A Façade
Dr. Jaishankar’s emphasis on India’s soft power initiatives, such as promoting Yoga and digital infrastructure, raises concerns about the disconnect between symbolic diplomacy and pressing regional challenges. While these initiatives may enhance India’s image, they do little to address the fundamental issues of terrorism, conflict resolution, and economic inequality within the SCO framework.
The reliance on soft power as a diplomatic tool may serve as a façade, masking India’s unwillingness to engage with the more complex and contentious issues that permeate regional dynamics. This overemphasis on symbolic initiatives detracts from the need for substantive dialogue and action, reinforcing the notion that India’s approach to regional cooperation remains insufficiently robust.
Summing Up
Dr. S. Jaishankar’s speech at the SCO serves as a complex amalgamation of diplomatic posturing and selective narratives that reflect India’s geopolitical ambitions. The contradictions inherent in his remarks underscore the challenges of achieving genuine cooperation within the SCO framework, particularly in light of unresolved tensions with Pakistan.
For India’s calls for collaboration to resonate meaningfully, it must address its bilateral disputes with neighbors sincerely, especially with Pakistan. In contrast, Pakistan’s commitment to regional connectivity initiatives positions it favorably within the SCO, highlighting the potential for collaborative growth in an increasingly multipolar world. The path forward will require a departure from selective regionalism and a genuine commitment to fostering inclusive cooperation among all member states.
