Advertisement
Opinion | Raisina Dialogue: India’s lofty ideals make clear it’s a Quad misfit
- India favours multipolarity and democratisation of the global space, while opposing Cold War thinking and spheres of influence
- It’s hard to see the Quad reflected in that kind of outlook – Brics is a much better fit
Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
2
The latest Raisina Dialogue, held recently in New Delhi, attracted global leaders and scholars in a display of India’s position in the world and the clout it wields – not just across the Indo-Pacific but among the Global South.
Advertisement
It also showed that India is a much better fit for groupings such as Brics, or even I2U2, than for the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which launched a think tank forum on the sidelines of the dialogue. Brics’ members include Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, while the I2U2 bloc comprises India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the US.
At the dialogue, eyes rolled when British Labour politician Peter Mandelson called for “anti-colonial solidarity” across the Global South against the “imperial war in Ukraine”. Some saw this remark as an indictment of India’s neutral stance on the war, in contrast to the rest of Quad, namely, the US, Australia and Japan. The irony of a British peer lecturing its former colony on anti-colonialism was not lost.
In response, Mauritian Foreign Minister Maneesh Gobin said: “Territorial integrity should apply equally to the Chagos Archipelago.” The archipelago is at the heart of a territorial dispute between the UK and Mauritius. The exchange made headlines in India and circulated on social media, feeding a feeling of Western hypocrisy in foreign affairs.
Another instance that reflected India’s misfit in the Quad, ironically, was Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s speech at the inaugural Quad Think Tank Forum.
Advertisement
He claimed the Quad reflected “the growth of a multipolar order”, “post-alliance and post-Cold-War thinking”, was “against spheres of influence”, “expresses the democratising of the global space and a collaborative, not unilateral, approach” and “is a statement that in this day and age, others cannot have a veto on our choices”.
Advertisement