• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "C. Raja Mohan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie India"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Asia",
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "East Asia",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie India

Delhi Seems Ready to Compete With Beijing Where it Must and Cooperate Where it Can

Modi has turned the previous UPA government’s China policy on its head.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Apr 16, 2016

Source: Indian Express

As the Indian public discourse on China continues to oscillate between unmitigated romanticism and unreasonable hostility, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has settled down to a pragmatic engagement with Beijing. The NDA government’s three-way dialogue with the Chinese leadership next week, involving External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, is likely to reflect some of this new realism.

The UPA government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh struggled to overcome many of the traditional weaknesses of India’s China policy — the temptation to mask real differences, hide deep resentments in soaring rhetoric on friendship, pretend great convergence on global issues, and resist the natural expansion of India’s economic cooperation with China.

Modi has begun to turn this policy on its head. Delhi now acknowledges the enduring contradictions between the interests of the two countries at the bilateral, regional and global level, seeks to manage those responsibly, refuses to limit its relationship with other countries by looking over its shoulder at Beijing, and rolls out the red carpet for Chinese capital.

If the UPA believed a solution was at hand after multiple rounds of negotiations, the NDA government is quite sceptical. Modi is conscious that China’s rise over the last three decades put Beijing in a higher league than Delhi. He is aware that China is under no compulsion to make the kind of territorial concessions that India would need to to make a boundary settlement work.

Delhi also knows there is greater prospect for tension as India begins to match the Chinese modernisation of infrastructure on the long and contested border. Modi is, therefore, building on the mechanisms devised during the UPA years for better management of the border. The frequency and intensity of border incursions appear to have come down since President Xi Jinping visited India in September 2014.

Delhi is also conscious of the need to manage the broader impact of China’s rise on the subcontinent as a whole. There is sufficient realism in Delhi to recognise that India can’t build a Great Wall against China’s growing economic penetration into the subcontinent. After all, China is the world’s second-largest economy, the subcontinent’s neighbour. If India itself is more open to Chinese investments, it can hardly object to deepening economic links between the rest of the subcontinent and China. This sobering recognition has shaped India’s response to China’s grand “Belt and Road” initiative, which is moving massive amounts of Chinese capital into the subcontinent and improving overland and maritime connectivity with South Asia.

While the accusations from Rawalpindi that Delhi is “actively sabotaging” the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor may be a reflection of General Raheel Sharif’s paranoia, Delhi has certainly objected to Chinese investments in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. After all, China does the same, objecting to economic investments in India’s Arunachal Pradesh that it claims is part of China. But India has not opposed other elements of the Belt and Road initiative — for example, the so-called BCIM corridor that seeks to connect southwestern China with Myanmar, Bangladesh and eastern India.

For Delhi, the real challenge is not about taking a “diplomatic position” on the Belt and Road initiative. It is about getting India’s own act together on building infrastructure projects on and beyond its borders. It has no option but to compete with China for economic influence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. The Modi government is finally taking some steps in that direction. Delhi is also now ready to work with other countries, especially Japan and the US, to offer alternatives to China’s regional connectivity projects.

For India, the challenge is more demanding in the security domain. Over the decades, India has neglected the development of defence diplomacy with its neighbouring countries, ceding much space to China. What began as Beijing’s special relationship with Pakistan now extends to all of India’s neighbours. China’s arms and influence are seeping all across the subcontinent.

For Delhi, the answer can’t lie in objecting to China’s security cooperation with smaller neighbours. It must be more sensitive to the political concerns of the South Asian nations and offer attractive terms for military partnerships. Modi has lent greater energy and intensity to some of the regional security initiatives unveiled by the UPA government.

The Modi government’s most important departure from the past is in the framing of the China question itself. In the security domain, Modi is betting that creating strategic leverage is more effective than meekly deferring to presumed Chinese opposition to India’s relations with third countries. If the UPA government consciously limited its defence cooperation with the US for fear of upsetting China, Modi’s wager is that expanded cooperation with Washington and Tokyo could eventually help alter China’s calculus on matters of concern to India, especially Beijing’s all-weather partnership with the Pakistan army.

Modi’s approach is not very different from that of Beijing, which always had a keen appreciation for power politics. Even as he plays geopolitical hardball with China, he woos Chinese investment with unprecedented vigour. The UPA government allowed security considerations to trump practical economic cooperation with Beijing. Modi has calculated that as its economy slows down, China needs reliable foreign destinations for its capital. The prime minister hopes that by raising Chinese economic stakes in India, he might improve Delhi’s overall terms of engagement with Beijing.

All this is very different from the sentimentalism, political posturing and a deeply defensive attitude that long coloured India’s China policy. What we now have, instead, is a self-assured Delhi that is ready to compete with Beijing where it must and cooperate where it can. Although China’s absolute power in relation to India has dramatically risen in the last two decades, Modi is demonstrating that a nimble India has much room for manoeuvre.

This article was originally published in the Indian Express.

About the Author

C. Raja Mohan

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India

A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership

      C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +1

      Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
Foreign PolicyAsiaSouth AsiaIndiaEast AsiaChina

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good Reasons

    The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.

      Marc Pierini

  • Article
    Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the New Geopolitics of Connectivity

    The U.S.-sponsored TRIPP deal is driving the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process forward. But foreign and domestic hurdles remain before connectivity and economic interdependence can open up the South Caucasus.

      • Areg Kochinyan

      Thomas de Waal, Areg Kochinyan, Zaur Shiriyev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?

    Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Time to Merge the Commission and EEAS

    The EU is structurally incapable of reacting to today’s foreign policy crises. The union must fold the EEAS into the European Commission and create a security council better prepared to take action on the global stage.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Russia’s Imperial Retreat Is Europe’s Strategic Opportunity

    The war in Ukraine is costing Russia its leverage overseas. Across the South Caucasus and Middle East, this presents an opportunity for Europe to pick up the pieces and claim its own sphere of influence.

      William Dixon, Maksym Beznosiuk

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.