India hosts the G20 summit on September 9-10. It is the most significant multilateral gathering after the 1983 NAM summit in India. On both occasions Indian prime ministers used summitry for domestic and international image-building. Indira Gandhi had regained power in 1980 and was restoring her image after sullying it by Emergency declaration in 1975 followed by electoral defeat in 1977. For Narendra Modi it is the final step to banish the stigma of decade-long international demonisation over the Godhra massacre of Muslims.
Both leaders also saw the value of successful event-management to raise India’s global standing. Similarly, China used the hosting of the 2008 Olympics to declare its arrival as a global power. But as China is discovering that its current economic difficulties cannot be alleviated by past sports spectacle. Eventually reality catches up. The absence of the presidents of Russia and China at the Delhi summit underscores the international fissures which will hamper positive outcomes.
International media is also not entirely taken in by the Indian proclamations of a new dawn in global diplomacy. The Economist weekly concludes that it may not be a leap forward for global cooperation, as China, Russia and even Saudi Arabia may stymie agreement on a communiqué, but would succeed as “a vehicle for the personality cult for Mr Modi domestically”. The BJP, however, is not content with this indirect image building. It has chosen partisanship, by not inviting the president of the Congress, the biggest opposition party, to a dinner for the summit attendees. Furthermore, BJP commenced an unnecessary debate over the name of the nation, which visiting dignitaries may see as quizzical. The New York Times went further by asking in its headline: “Can India’s Global Ambitions Survive its Deepening Chasms at Home?”. Their correspondents went to Nuh, the site of communal violence just weeks ago, as G20 Sherpas met close by at a golf resort to finalise a statement.
As US President Joe Biden emplaned for India, his national security adviser Jake Sullivan told the media that the Delhi summit shall “be an important milestone for global cooperation at a critical time”. The US insisted that the Ukraine war and reform of multilateral lending institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were on their agenda. The first will provoke Chinese and Russian opposition and stalemate. The second targets China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), backed by Chinese commercial lending for infrastructure development in developing countries. With many BRI projects causing debt-traps, even China has scaled back further investment. In 2020, China’s new lending to Africa has been $2 billion, the lowest since 2004.
This is also why India proposes for the African Union a permanent membership of G20. The US also backs it. The aim being to ramp-up financial assistance for infrastructure development in countries of the Global South in order to offer China competition.
India has used its privilege as the G20 chair to broaden the traditional agenda, which evolved over the last 15 years from macroeconomic issues to global health and pandemics and then, post Ukraine, food and energy security. India has explored multiple themes through scores of meetings of subgroups i.e. empowerment through Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI); women-led development; traditional medicines; millet growing; disaster risk reduction etc. Prime Minister Modi in his interview to the PTI talked of human-centric development and a “sustainable, equitable and inclusive” world. This sounds like an overly ambitious agenda, and much may fritter away in future as new challenges emerge. Although UAE hosts COP27 later this year, when climate issues get addressed, this summit cannot sidestep it with devastation caused globally by unprecedented heat, fires and flash floods in past months.
The slogan chosen by India is “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” or “World is One Family”. The high moral tone, meant to project India or its leader as a Vishwaguru or Global Mentor, goes ill with BJP’s cynically majoritarian, opposition-bashing and institution-debasing politics at home. A special session of parliament called at short notice, days after the G20 summit concludes, has generated debate over the government's motives or agenda. Especially cogent is why debate has been started over the name of the nation days before the summit. Clearly the BJP is happy to simultaneously display statesmanship when dealing with the world and crass partisanship in domestic politics.
This two-track approach assumes that India’s important western interlocutors are equally cynical and will ignore this paradoxical stance for two reasons. One, that India is crucial for their China containment policy. Two, the Indian economy and demographics promise rewarding returns. PM Modi also can tilt the Indian diaspora’s electoral weight, important in tight elections. But it ignores the fact that the India-story can lose shine quickly if domestic harmony is endangered. Much of India will watch the summit proceedings on television. The past teaches that the theater of the G20 summit may have a transitory effect, like a T20 cricket match. Perhaps that is why BJP is not content to give its domestic agenda a break.
KC Singh is former secretary, Ministry of External Affairs
