
The world's most explosive rivalry just turned strategic
Jaishankar, who since 2019 has represented the moderate and pragmatic wing within India's foreign policy establishment, continues to advocate for cooperation with China and broader engagement in multilateral institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. His presence in Beijing was emblematic of India's effort to rebalance its approach to its complex relationship with its northern neighbor.
The relevance of Sino-Indian relations extends far beyond bilateral dynamics. China and India are the world's two most populous countries, belonging to fastest-growing economies. Both are ancient civilizations and increasingly influential actors in the rising Global South. As such, their ability to manage tensions and cultivate areas of cooperation carries profound implications for regional and global order.
Recently, there have been meaningful achievements in the bilateral relationship. Political dialogue and high-level engagement have resumed, contributing to greater border stability through new measures. Exchanges in various sectors and regional connectivity initiatives have intensified. Economic interdependence remains strong, and coordination between the two countries in multilateral platforms such as the SCO and the United Nations has become more robust.
A landmark event occurred in October 2024, when Chinese President Xi and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met in Kazan. This meeting marked the beginning of a new phase of engagement. Notably, the positive trajectory of relations was not disrupted by the India-Pakistan conflict in May – a testament to the growing political will on both sides to deepen ties.
Economic interaction also continues to flourish. In 2024, China reclaimed its position as India's top trading partner, surpassing the United States after a two-year hiatus. Bilateral trade reached $118.4 billion, a 4% increase from 2023. These figures underscore a deepening interdependence that provides both leverage and incentive for sustained dialogue.
From Beijing's perspective, the deterioration in relations over the past few years is seen as abnormal. Chinese officials have consistently promoted the idea of improvement across multiple dimensions. India is frequently described in Chinese discourse as a fellow ancient Eastern civilization, and the bilateral relationship has been metaphorically referred to as the 'dragon-elephant tango,' a symbolic framing that seeks to capture the potential harmony between the two powers.
China sees India as an indispensable actor in the Global South and advocates for a bilateral relationship that is not directed against any third party – mirroring the same language used in reference to China's strategic partnership with Russia. Both China and India promote the vision of a multipolar world, multilateralism, and economic globalization. In this context, parallels are drawn between Xi's vision of 'a community with a shared future for mankind' and Modi's concept of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' ('the world is one family'), which is rooted in ancient Indian philosophy and emphasizes harmony and interconnectedness. The Chinese-launched Global Civilization Initiative also seeks to revive pre-modern cultural frameworks and plurality of civilizations, aligning conceptually with similar trends in India.
During his meetings in Beijing, Jaishankar reiterated India's principle of strategic autonomy and its independent foreign policy – an approach that resonates with China's own diplomatic posture. He described India and China as development partners rather than rivals, countering dominant Western narratives that frame China-India relations largely through the lens of competition and threat.
The triangular dynamic involving the US complicates the picture. Current pressures from Washington – particularly the shared risk of a trade war and the volatility of US foreign policy – act as a common concern for both New Delhi and Beijing. India, China, and other BRICS nations are facing increased scrutiny from the White House and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who have threatened secondary sanctions over continued economic ties with Russia. These external pressures may inadvertently bring China and India closer together, as both seek to safeguard their strategic autonomy and development trajectories.
Historically, the US has sought to exploit gaps between India and China in a bid to prevent closer cooperation. That strategy may be less effective in an era where both Beijing and New Delhi are increasingly conscious of the need to define their relationship on their own terms.
Despite these positive trends, substantial challenges remain. Chief among them is the unresolved boundary dispute, which remains the most sensitive and complex issue in the bilateral relationship. The Galwan Valley clash in 2020, which resulted in around two dozen fatalities, caused a severe deterioration in ties. However, the June 2025 visit of Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh to China signaled a renewed willingness to seek a permanent resolution.
Trade-related frictions also persist. India faces restrictions on the import of rare earth magnets from China, which are crucial for strategic and industrial sectors. Intermittent Chinese export controls disrupt Indian manufacturing and deter Chinese foreign direct investment. Conversely, India restricts Chinese investment citing national security concerns, has banned several Chinese apps, and conducted raids on Chinese companies.
Geopolitically, the competition for regional influence continues to strain relations. China's growing presence in South Asia and the Indian Ocean clashes with India's strategic interests, especially in countries like Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. India has consistently refused to join the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), largely due to its opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which runs through contested territory. Plans for massive infrastructure projects such as the construction of the world's largest dam on the Yarlung Zangbo river, which flows into India, remain points of tension.
To move beyond these obstacles, it is essential to build a stable and effective border trust mechanism. Restoring strategic dialogue platforms and enhancing multi-level security cooperation are indispensable steps toward creating a mature and resilient bilateral relationship. What is required is long-term, sustained, and measurable interaction supported by enduring political will, pragmatic consultative frameworks, and – above all – mutual respect for each other's core interests.
At a more practical level, the two countries could reconsider the potential of the China-Nepal-India Economic Corridor (CNIEC). Proposed by Beijing in 2018 and backed by Kathmandu, the CNIEC envisions greater connectivity and economic integration across the Himalayan region. Though India has so far rejected the proposal, revisiting it could offer shared economic and strategic benefits.
Another concrete step would be the restoration of military exercises, which were launched in 2007 but suspended after 2019. Renewed military cooperation would enhance strategic trust and transparency. Additionally, greater coordination in hydro-political domain is vital. Seven major rivers originate in China's Xizang region and flow through India. This creates both risks and opportunities for the two nations.
While a full normalization of China-India relations may still be distant, the latest developments point toward a cautious but real shift. In a global context marked by uncertainty, polarization, and geopolitical realignment, the two Asian giants have much to gain from pragmatic engagement and mutual respect. The dragon and the elephant may still step on each other's toes, but their carefully choreographed tango is once again underway.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump modifies global tariffs hours before deadline
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order, unveiling a modified global tariff schedule just hours before a self-imposed August 1 deadline. The sweeping measure adjusts tariffs for dozens of countries, with some seeing increases, while select nations secured last-minute reprieves. In a Thursday night statement, the White House said the action reflects whether countries have 'agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments.' Nations that failed to engage in talks or that offered terms which 'do not sufficiently address imbalances' were hit with elevated tariffs. India will face 25% tariffs after Trump announced additional penalties on Wednesday over its continued trade with Russia. He said the tariffs were imposed partly because of India's membership in BRICS, and partly due to what he called a 'tremendous' trade deficit with New Delhi. There appear to be some discrepancies in the list, with Brazil facing a 10% tariff – even though Trump had hiked it to 50% the day before, claiming the country poses a threat to 'the national security, foreign policy, and economy' of the US. Trump also previously threatened an additional 10% tariff on all BRICS nations, accusing the bloc of trying to 'destroy the dollar as the global standard.' Trump also abruptly raised tariffs on Canada to 35% from 25%, citing Ottawa's 'continued inaction' in curbing fentanyl trafficking into the US. Tensions between Washington and Ottawa escalated in recent weeks, after Trump criticized Canada for supporting Palestinian statehood, saying it would 'make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them.' Meanwhile, Mexico avoided a tariff hike after reaching an agreement with Washington earlier on Thursday. The White House confirmed that the 25% tariff on certain Mexican goods will remain in place for another 90 days, postponing a planned increase to 30%. The EU, South Korea, and Japan are facing a 15% rate after securing trade agreements with Washington in recent weeks. Some of the highest adjusted tariffs include Syria (41%), Laos and Myanmar (40%), Switzerland (39%), Iraq and Serbia (35%), and Algeria, Libya, and South Africa (30%). The White House said the 'universal' baseline tariff for goods entering the United States will remain at 10% for countries with a trade surplus, and 15% for countries with which the US has a trade deficit.


Russia Today
10 hours ago
- Russia Today
BMW reports 29% drop in profits
German auto giant BMW has reported a sharp drop in first-half profits, as US tariffs, weak demand, and mounting competition from China took a toll on earnings. The company posted a profit after tax of €4 billion ($4.6 billion), down 29% from the same period last year, according to a company report issued on Thursday. It marked the automaker's third consecutive first-half decline. BMW said US import duties on cars and vehicle parts, imposed by President Donald Trump in April, weighed heavily on earnings. EU automakers are still digesting the new 15% tariff agreed upon by Washington and Brussels, which is due to take effect in August. The trade deal, signed on Sunday, has sparked backlash across the bloc, with some EU officials calling it 'scandalous' and 'a disaster,' saying it secured no concessions from Washington. BMW didn't disclose how much the US tariffs cost it in the first half but warned that trade-related charges could shave 1.25 percentage points off its automotive margin this year, potentially costing billions. CEO Oliver Zipse welcomed the tariff deal but cautioned that the duties still burden exports and hurt consumers. BMW also flagged intense 'competitive pressure,' particularly from China. Other German automotive giants reported even steeper drops. Volkswagen and Audi saw earnings tumble by over a third, while Mercedes' profits plunged more than 50%. The sector's downturn has fueled fears over the health of the EU's economic powerhouse. Germany endured a recession last year, and the IMF now expects zero growth in 2025, the weakest outlook among G7 nations.


Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
The EU can't make peace
The most dangerous thing about Western Europe today is not just its decline, but its refusal to recognize it. The half-continent continues to posture, continues to lecture, and continues to imagine itself as a pillar of global order. But it has lost the internal resources that once sustained that illusion. What remains is a hollow echo of power, wrapped in a language of values that even those same Western Europeans no longer seem to believe. The region's failure is most visible in its inability to make peace. Time and again, it chooses confrontation – with Russia, with China, with reality itself. Devoid of meaningful autonomy, it now functions as a permanent appendage of the US. It is no longer an actor on the world stage, but a supporting cast member, often unwelcome and increasingly irrelevant. Western Europe's descent has been rapid. Just 10 or 15 years ago, it projected global importance and confidence. Today, the cracks are impossible to ignore. The reasons are many: Elite degradation, political inertia, a population gripped by apathy. But above all, it is the bloc's unrelenting selfishness – its refusal to give, only to demand – that lies at the heart of this collapse. Nowhere was this clearer than in last week's failed EU-China summit. Eurocrats went to Beijing with nothing to offer, only with a desire to extract. China, which has no historical affection for Western Europe, responded accordingly. There was simply nothing to discuss. And then, as if to underscore its strategic drift, the bloc offered a humiliating concession to the US. Faced with the threat of new tariffs, Brussels agreed to purchase American energy and weapons in vast quantities. So much for 'strategic autonomy'. These are not signs of a serious power. These are the actions of a civilization on the back foot, stumbling blindly into dependence. Anyone still speaking of a sovereign EU industrial or defense policy is either a fantasist or a liar. What then does Western Europe have to offer the world? One might say historical symphonic music. But beyond that, its legacy is one of oppression and self-justifying tyranny. Its technical achievements were built to subjugate others. Its political philosophy was designed to defend conquest and exploitation. Fifteen years ago, I sat in a closed meeting organized by Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign policy chief at the time. The topic: Western Europe's new role in the world. The one suggestion they could not accept was that the bloc should offer something to the world without expecting a reward. Their worldview simply doesn't allow for that. Even in climate change – a cause that should unite the planet – the EU has turned the issue into a cynical trade weapon, using green regulations to punish developing countries. The result? Western Europe stands alone. It has lost its power, and with it, its relevance. Worse, it doesn't even seem to understand what it's lost. Can the region still pose a threat? Possibly. But not because it has the strength. Rather, because it has the recklessness. Its politicians lack vision, competence, or restraint. They cannot imagine peace. And so they default to confrontation – especially with Russia. The danger is not that Western Europe is ready to fight. Its people enjoy lives too comfortable to risk. Its defense industry is in disrepair. But wars can begin through stupidity as well as strength. EU elites, betting on regime change in Moscow, continue to pour weapons into Ukraine. Some dream of extending the conflict into the Baltics. Others talk of arming mercenaries to fight Russia directly. The Americans won't die for Europe. That much is clear. But the EU may yet drag the world into catastrophe, simply by being incapable of restraint. If by some miracle a wider war is avoided, what then? What is Western Europe's future? A museum of irrelevance? A vassal of Washington? Already it is falling behind in science, in technology, in global influence. It doesn't know where it belongs, and is incapable of adjusting. It will become a permanent satellite of the US – militarily, politically, and economically. Key industries will be handed over. National elites will lose the power to govern. The Collective West as we know it will vanish. In its place: America, and a few adjacent territories managed by obedient proxies. Perhaps this is what Western Europe deserves. It is certainly the path it has article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.