The Elephant in the Room

I have many Indian friends, certainly some of them are going to be very unhappy with what I write today. Races often harbour prejudices against each other. India is an old civilisation, who are we to criticise? (Confession: I love Indian food and revere India-origin Buddhist philosophy for its emphasis on compassion and mindfulness, though I do not consider myself a follower! 😎) The following represents only my feedback, nothing more, nothing less. 

I always thought India was proud to be part of the Global South and this pride had been repeatedly demonstrated since the Jawaharlal Nehru days. However, I seem to sense that its present prime minister Narendran Modi thinks otherwise now. I believe he considers India has come of age, and is no longer a member of any lesser world.

Let’s take a look at how the Indian leaders have been telling the world from the following developments: 

          (a) Refusal to sign SCO Defence Ministers’ Joint Communique

At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (comprising China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Iran) Defence Ministers’ meeting in Qingdao China, India refused to sign the joint communique. India claims that the document fails to explicitly acknowledge terrorism, particularly cross-border terrorism. Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh emphasized that the omission to mention the April 22 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir, which resulted in the deaths of 26 Hindu tourists, was unacceptable. India attributed the attack to Pakistan. Their Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar supported Singh's decision, stating that India had proposed including a reference to terrorism in the final document, but this suggestion was blocked by one member country, an obvious reference to Pakistan.

 

Additionally, Pakistan's Defence Minister Khawaja Asif claimed that Singh's refusal to sign was also due to being denied a second opportunity to speak at the meeting, a request that was declined by the Chinese chair.

 

I thought this was a little infantile. The Kashmir attack on Hindu tourists was certainly unacceptable, but it was an internal security issue. To blame it on Pakistan and later to try to strike Pakistan for it was beyond reasons. India must be smarting from the loss of five of their fighter jets, including three Rafales, to Pakistan’s China-made J-10Cs and associated air defence system, to try to undermine the cause of SCO. The communique is meant to reflect that. (Apparently, several defence ministers have tried to persuade India to sign the joint communique without success.)

 

Pakistan itself suffered from such terrorists as well. As recent as June 28, terrorists struck Pakistan again – a suicide car bombing targeted a military convoy in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, resulting in the deaths of at least 16 Pakistani soldiers and injuring over two dozen individuals, including civilians and children. The attack was claimed by the Hafiz Gul Bahadur group, a faction of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

 

Additionally, Pakistani security forces thwarted another potential terrorist attack in Peshawar on June 29, 2025. During an intelligence-based operation, two suspected militants planning a large-scale attack were killed.

 

Pakistani terrorist had also targeted Chinese engineers in recent years. Appendix 1 gives some notable incidents.

 

These incidents highlight the security challenges faced by Chinese nationals working on various projects in Pakistan, particularly in regions with active separatist movements. Both Pakistani and Chinese authorities have expressed concerns and are working collaboratively to enhance the safety of Chinese personnel and interests in the country.

 

Modi thinks India can act like US! 

(b)Acceptance of an Ajak-ajak ayam to G7 Summit in Canada

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was an “ajak-ajak ayam” – A Malay saying, literally translates to "chicken invitation," but it idiomatically means an insincere or half-hearted invitation. It's like when someone invites you out of politeness, but they don't actually expect you to accept – to attend the summit held in Alberta, Canada from June 15 to 17. This marked Modi’s sixth consecutive participation in the G7 summits. Two usual guests, Mexico and Saudi Arabia, did not bother to attend.

 

He is said to have in an outreach session on June 17 emphasized the priorities of the Global South, highlighting issues such as clean energy leadership, ethical technology governance, and a strong stance against terrorism. He underscored India's commitment to representing developing nations on the global stage.

 

But in effect, he was trying to repair India’s strained relationship with Canada. (We all know there were some diplomatic tensions between the two countries - stemmed from the assassination of a Sikh Canadian in British Columbia where former Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau accused the Indian government of involvement.) He held bilateral talks with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, leading to an agreement to restore ambassadorial relations between the two countries.

 

But G7 is essentially a rich men’s club, and for that matter, a White men’s club, save for an honorary White, which is Japan.

 

     (c)Lack of enthusiasm in BRICS’s causes

India has been dragging its feet on many BRICS initiatives. India sees the expansion of BRICS as a challenge to its core strategic and economic priorities. While it supports the inclusion of new members, India vetoes those whom it thinks will make the bloc from becoming overly influenced by China and being too anti-Western.

 

India has also rejected the proposal for a unified BRICS currency. While other members advocate for reducing reliance on dominant global currencies. India's participation in BRICS other initiatives like the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) has been largely lukewarm.

 

India’s stances in BRICS are a direct result of the fact that China is seen as the driving force behind BRICS.

Besides common memberships in SCO and BRICS, India is also a member the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) of which China is the leading investor. In these platforms, India often pushes back Chinese initiatives.

India is also in QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) which is supposed to collaborate to promote a free, open, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region, but in reality, the gun is trained at China. India also participates in several other regional and global groupings or forums where China is seen as a strategic competitor or adversary. (Appendix 2)

 

     (d)Pro-Israeli stances

We also notice India’s reluctance to directly condemn Israeli genocidal actions in Gaza. Israel is one of India’s top defence suppliers, providing critical technology, weapons, surveillance systems, and counter-terrorism training. Both countries share intelligence on Islamist terrorism, particularly concerning Pakistan and militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or Hamas. Israel aids India’s agricultural sector with drip irrigation, arid farming technologies, and water management, especially in BJP-ruled states.

 

Under Modi, India has moved away from its traditional non-alignment and pro-Palestinian stance. He visited Israel in 2017 – the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel. Moral positioning in global conflicts takes a backseat. Apparently, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) espouses a Hindu nationalist ideology which often aligns ideologically with Zionism—both presenting themselves as civilizations under threat from Islamic extremism.

 

Vocal support for Palestine may not align with the BJP’s core voter base, which often views Israel as a model for hardline national security policies.

 

Therefore, although India officially supports a two-state solution and has not withdrawn recognition of Palestine, the support is often muted, expressing “concern” over humanitarian suffering without directly blaming Israel.

Explicit condemnation of Israel could hurt its ties with Western allies, especially the U.S., who are Israel’s strongest backers.

After decades of conflict with Pakistan-based jihadist groups, India is wary of appearing supportive of any group (like Hamas) that could be portrayed as “terrorist”. Indian media and government often frame Gaza conflicts through a security-first lens, focusing on Israeli civilian deaths from Hamas attacks.

Yes sir yes sir three bags full
Most geopolitical observers say that the Indian government under Modi will only do things that benefit India. It does not even bother to treat its neighbours as equals and client states well. But with the US or the Whites, it is always yes sir yes sir three bags full. (I do not mean to be racist, but many of us in Malaysia and Singapore had this adage to share: Count yourself unlucky if you have an Indian boss; count yourself lucky if you have Indians as subordinates.)

Modi is a Hindu zealot. Remember before when he was the chief minister of Gujarat, he faced a U.S. visa ban for being responsible for severe violations of religious freedom in the 2002 riots in the state. However, Modi was never formally charged or convicted in connection to the riots. Once Modi became Prime Minister in 2014, the U.S. quickly reset diplomatic relations, and he was invited for official state visits. 

The way he dresses speaks volumes of his ultra-nationalism/Hinduism. In international engagements, Modi consistently wears traditional Indian attire – a kurta paired with a Nehru jacket or bandhgalas. Sure, we cannot fault him for taking pride in India’s civilisational and cultural identity. By dressing traditionally, he projects himself as a leader rooted in Indian values, appealing to both domestic audiences and the diaspora. I suppose he is also branding himself internationally – easily recognizable and associated with his leadership, like Mahatma Gandhi’s use of khadi loincloth or Nehru’s jackets.  

I believe Indians think that Modi’s refusal to adopt Western suits in international engagements subtly asserts India’s equal footing in global affairs. 

(On the other hand, Chinese President Xi Jinping almost always wears Western-style suits in international engagements — usually a dark business suit with a white shirt and tie. This sartorial choice is deliberate and serves several strategic and cultural purposes – international, modern, serious and pragmatic. It focuses on diplomacy, not dress to avoid cultural exoticism to international audiences. 

While Xi mostly wears suits, he sometimes incorporates Mandarin collars or Tang-style jackets during Chinese-hosted events or festivals. These are symbolic gestures meant for cultural diplomacy, but they’re used sparingly to maintain China’s modern image.

I do not mean to compare the two, really. Everything boils down to one's concept of himself or herself.) 

Elitist Indians’ self-exaltation tendency

Recently, I came across one or two panel debates or discussions where one of the guests was Victor Gao, a vocal defender of Chineseness and Chinese policies. You could see the blatant rudeness of the host or moderator, who is a fairly young Indian. His sweeping refutes to Gao was outright condescending and obnoxious. Gao was quick to return fires with facts and figures. However, Gao, like most Chinese scholars, are not great with debates in English or under-the-belt assaults. The host has obviously taken a left from those sickos in BBC’s Hardtalk series – Stephen Sackur and Tim Sabastian in particular – and Gao inadvertently fell into his trap and became defensive and unnecessary harsh albeit not undignified in his rebuttals. I see that this host epitomizes the ills of many Indians – zero sense of humility. In Malaysia and Indonesia, we call such a behaviour “kurang ajar”, or lack of proper upbringing. That is not a trial, where lawyers will do everything to intimidate witnesses or the opposing parties. It is a fact that Indian elites are generally eloquent; few can outtalk them! Humility, however, is obviously not in these people’s vocabulary. (However, I must not generalise too much; there are many ethnically Indian scholars, podcasters and commentators who are very objective in their geopolitical views.) 

India has always said they are the largest “democracy” in the world, and now that its population has surpassed China’s, it can truly claim to be the No. 1 crown in this score in the world. It has also overtaken Japan as the fourth largest economy in the world. Soon it will overtake Germany’s to become the third largest in the world. 

Many of the world’s CEOs, top scientists and experts are Indian; they also have many billionaires. When I was attending university and graduate business school, the top students are also Indian.

Regardless, many see China as their bogeyman, hence their attitudes in BRICS etc. 

Zero-sum business approach

Many foreign firms have reported facing injustices or difficulties in India, ranging from regulatory hurdles and legal challenges to retrospective taxation and contract disputes. Appendix 3, which is obtained from ChatGPT, is a list of some notable instances where foreign firms alleged or experienced what they considered unfair treatment or injustice in India. 

Xiaomi’s case in India reflects a mix of legal, political, and geopolitical factors. The Indian authorities frame it as a clear case of financial misconduct, but to observers, Xiaomi was facing disproportionate scrutiny and punitive actions, likely tied to rising India-China tensions. Several Chinese firms have also faced serious difficulties in India, especially since mid-2020, after the India-China border clashes in Ladakh (Galwan Valley). These troubles span bans, regulatory crackdowns, tax investigations, and security reviews. 

And plenty of hot-air balloons
The following is a picture I cropped from the South China Morning Post. Its caption reads: Meet India’s answer to Pakistan’s Chinese jets: the AMCA fifth-generation stealth fighter. The writer is Junaid Kathju (Guess what the name suggests?) writes a great deal of its capability. It is not even a prototype.

 

And the two pictures below from Facebook. The left reads: “India’s Road Network Now Becomes World’s Second Largest After U.S.”? You believe that? And the right one – Isn’t it a Melbourne tram?

            

Do Indians need to do all these? In our Malaysian jargon, "No need, lah!"

End

 _______________________________________________________________________

Appendix 1

(Source ChatGPT)

Terrorist Acts in Pakistan

1. March 26, 2024 – Bisham, Shangla District

A suicide bomber rammed an explosive-laden vehicle into a bus carrying Chinese engineers en route to the Dasu Dam project. Five Chinese nationals and their Pakistani driver were killed in the attack.

2. October 6, 2024 – Near Karachi International Airport

Two Chinese engineers were killed, and 17 others injured, in a suicide bombing near Karachi's Jinnah International Airport. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) claimed responsibility for the attack, which targeted a convoy of Chinese engineers working on a power project.

3. August 13, 2023 – Gwadar, Balochistan

A convoy of Chinese engineers working on infrastructure projects in Gwadar came under attack by Baloch militants. The assailants detonated a roadside bomb and opened fire on the convoy. Fortunately, no Chinese nationals were harmed, and the attackers were killed by security forces. 

4. April 26, 2022 – University of Karachi

A female suicide bomber targeted a van near the University of Karachi's Confucius Institute, killing three Chinese academics and their Pakistani driver. The BLA claimed responsibility, stating it was their first attack carried out by a female suicide bomber. 

5. July 14, 2021 – Dasu, Upper Kohistan District

A bus carrying Chinese workers to the Dasu Hydropower Project was attacked, resulting in the deaths of nine Chinese nationals and four Pakistanis. The Pakistani Taliban were identified as the perpetrators. 

6. August 20, 2021 – Gwadar, Balochistan

A suicide bomber targeted a convoy of Chinese workers on the Gwadar Expressway project. While the Chinese nationals escaped unharmed, two local children were killed, and three others injured. The BLA claimed responsibility for the attack.

Bottom of Form

Appendix 2

(Source: ChatGPT)

 

India’s Anti-China Armours:

 

1. Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF)

·       Members: USA, India, Japan, Australia, South Korea, and several Southeast Asian nations.

·       Purpose: Promote trade, supply chain resilience, clean economy, and fair economy (anti-corruption, taxation).

 

This platform is seen as a US-led effort to reduce reliance on China-centric supply chains and offer an alternative economic order in the Indo-Pacific.

 

2. Malabar Naval Exercise

·       Core participants: India, USA, Japan, Australia (QUAD members).

·       Purpose: Naval cooperation and interoperability.

 

it's seen as a maritime counterbalance to China’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific and South China Sea.

 

3. India–France–UAE Trilateral / India–France–Australia Trilateral

·       Purpose: Strategic maritime cooperation, especially in the Western and Southern Indian Ocean.

 

It aims to strengthen presence and coordination in regions where China has been expanding influence (e.g., ports and bases in the Indian Ocean).

 

4. Global South and Supply Chain Resilience Initiatives

·       India, Japan, Australia): Launched in 2020.

 

Aims to diversify supply chains away from dependence on China.

 

5. India–US 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue

·       A high-level diplomatic and defence platform between India and the US basically with countering China in mind – on border issues, maritime surveillance, satellite intelligence, etc.

 

6. India’s Strategic Partnerships with potentially China-adversarial States like Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and even Taiwan

·      India has been building security and energy ties with these nations, particularly in the South China Sea—where China has territorial disputes.

 

·       While maintaining the One-China policy, India allows expanding trade and technology ties with Taiwan, irking Beijing.

 

7. Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC)

·       Partners: India and Japan.

·       Purpose: Infrastructure development in Africa and Asia as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The partnership reflects India's desire to offer an alternative to China's dominance.

 

Appendix 3

(Source: ChatGPT)

1. Vodafone Tax Dispute (2007–2021)

• Issue: India’s tax authorities claimed Vodafone owed capital gains tax after it acquired Hutchison Essar in 2007 via an offshore deal. 
• Injustice Alleged: Vodafone claimed the transaction happened outside India and shouldn’t be taxed. 
• Retrospective Taxation: India later changed tax law retrospectively, prompting international backlash. 
• Outcome: Vodafone won an arbitration case at The Hague in 2020; in 2021, India scrapped the retrospective tax law and settled the dispute. 

2. Cairn Energy Tax Dispute

• Issue: Like Vodafone, Cairn was hit with a large tax bill under retrospective taxation. 
• Claim: The Indian government seized assets, including dividends and shares. 
• Arbitration: Cairn won a $1.2 billion award at an international tribunal in 2020. 
• Outcome: In 2021, India repealed the law and offered to refund the tax if the firm dropped legal claims. 

3. Devas Multimedia-Antrix Case

• Background: Devas Multimedia, a Mauritius-based firm, signed a satellite deal with Antrix (ISRO’s commercial arm) in 2005. 
• Cancellation: Indian government cancelled the deal in 2011, citing “national security.”
• Legal Fallout: Devas shareholders pursued international arbitration and won over $1 billion in awards (including U.S. and Dutch courts).
• Indian Response: India challenged these awards and later wound up Devas, calling the company “fraudulent.” 

4. Walmart’s Difficult Entry and Restrictions

• Issue: Walmart faced numerous regulatory barriers and political opposition while entering India’s retail sector.
• Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules: Restrictions on multi-brand retail delayed or limited foreign participation.
• Outcome: Walmart finally entered via wholesale and e-commerce (Flipkart), not full-fledged retail. 

5. Amazon & Flipkart Antitrust and FDI Issues

• Allegations: Indian authorities accused both Amazon and Flipkart (majority owned by Walmart) of violating e-commerce FDI rules.
• Injustice Alleged: Firms argued they operated within the law but were targeted due to pressure from domestic traders.
• Investigations: Ongoing scrutiny and tightening of e-commerce rules created an uncertain business environment. 

6. Dow Chemical (Union Carbide) – Bhopal Disaster Legal Burden

• Issue: After Dow acquired Union Carbide, the Indian government demanded further compensation for the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.
• Injustice Alleged: Dow claimed it had no liability as the disaster predated its acquisition.
• Status: India continues to seek additional reparations in Indian courts. 

7. Telenor Exit from India

• Background: Norwegian telecom company Telenor entered India in 2008.
• Issue: Its licenses were canceled in 2012 by the Supreme Court during a telecom corruption scandal (2G spectrum case).
• Injustice Claimed: Telenor claimed it was an innocent investor caught in a broader scandal.
• Outcome: The firm eventually exited India after losses. 

8. Sistema (Russia) – 2G License Cancellation

• Similar to Telenor, Sistema’s licenses were cancelled by the Supreme Court.
• Losses: The Russian firm reportedly lost over $1 billion.
• Diplomatic Fallout: Russia strongly protested India’s handling of the matter. 

9. General Motors’ Exit

• Issue: GM accused Indian authorities of blocking payments and creating regulatory hurdles during its phased withdrawal.
• Legal Battle: It was also involved in disputes over compensation and dealer terminations.

10. POSCO Steel Plant Project (2005–2017)

• Issue: South Korea’s POSCO signed a $12 billion steel plant MoU in Odisha.
• Delays: Land acquisition protests, environmental clearances, and bureaucratic delays halted progress.
• Outcome: POSCO finally scrapped the project in 2017, citing policy paralysis. 

Cases Involving Chinese Companies…

1.    Xiaomi

The Chinese electronics giant has faced significant challenges and alleged injustices in India in recent years—particularly relating to foreign exchange violations, asset seizures, and political tensions between India and China. 

• Accusation: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) accused Xiaomi of violating India’s Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
• Claim: Xiaomi allegedly illegally remitted ₹5,551 crore (~$700 million) to three foreign entities under the guise of royalty payments, primarily to Qualcomm USA and Xiaomi China. 

In April 2022, the ED froze Xiaomi India’s bank assets worth the entire alleged amount (₹5,551 crore). Xiaomi challenged the seizure.

Xiaomi claimed that the royalty payments were legitimate, made to Qualcomm for licensed technologies used in Indian-manufactured smartphones. Xiaomi alleged that during interrogations, executives were threatened with "physical violence" and "coercion" to make confessions. Xiaomi argued it was being punished without proper judicial process or findings of guilt.

 

A High Court temporarily stayed the asset freeze, but as of mid-2024, the matter is still under review in courts, with Xiaomi’s Indian business affected by constrained cash flow.

 

Following the Galwan Valley clashes in 2020, where 20 Indian soldiers died in a skirmish with Chinese troops, India has banned over 300 Chinese apps (TikTok, WeChat, etc.) and intensified scrutiny of Chinese investments. Other Chinese tech giants that are being harassed are: 

1. TikTok (Bytedance)

• Action: Banned in June 2020 along with 58 other Chinese apps under Section 69A of the IT Act, citing national security.
• Impact: TikTok lost its largest overseas market (over 200 million users).
• Aftermath: TikTok's parent ByteDance laid off staff and eventually exited India. 

2. Huawei

• Scrutiny: Investigated by India’s Income Tax Department in 2022.
• Allegation: Tax evasion and suspicious accounting practices.
• Telecom Policy Changes:
• Banned from participating in 5G infrastructure rollouts.
• Designated as a "high-risk vendor", effectively blacklisting it.
• Visa Issues: Huawei executives faced visa delays and scrutiny. 

3. ZTE

• Similar to Huawei, ZTE was effectively excluded from 5G trials.
• Reason: National security concerns and pressure from Western partners (e.g., U.S.).
• Government Policy: Telecom equipment purchase restrictions from “untrusted sources.” 

4. Vivo

• Enforcement Directorate (ED) Raids (2022):
• ED claimed Vivo transferred nearly ₹62,000 crore (~$7.8 billion) illegally to China to avoid taxes.
• Multiple bank accounts frozen. 
• Arrests: Executives from Vivo and its partner firms were detained in India.
• Allegation: Money laundering and shell companies being used to launder profits. 

5. Oppo

• Tax Evasion Allegation (2022):
• India’s tax authorities accused Oppo of evading ₹4,389 crore (~$550 million) in customs duties.
• Investigation into alleged mis-declared goods and royalty payments. 

6. Bytedance India

• After the TikTok ban, ByteDance faced:
• Tax investigations.
• Blocked bank accounts.
• Legal challenges over severance packages and data sharing. 

7. Club Factory, Shein, UC Browser, WeChat, etc.

• Banned: All part of the first and second waves of Chinese app bans (totaling 300+ apps).
• Reason: Data privacy and national security.
• Shein attempted a return via partnerships (e.g., with Reliance), but faces consumer backlash. 

Common Allegations Against Chinese Companies

• Tax evasion
• Violation of FEMA/FDI rules
• Data privacy violations
• Unauthorized royalty or capital transfers
• Use of shell companies
• Security risks in critical infrastructure

 

The post-2020 environment for Chinese firms in India has become hostile, driven by:

• Geopolitical tensions (especially the border conflict),
• Data and national security concerns,
• Public and political pressure to reduce dependence on China, and
• A global trend of “de-risking” from Chinese tech.

 

While Chinese smartphones still hold a large market share, the regulatory environment is no longer welcoming, and new Chinese investments are nearly frozen under strict FDI rules.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form