RIC vs reality: Why India is cautious of a troika with China and Russia

First Post

2 days ago

Perhaps India should privately share its concerns with the Russian leadership and tell them that for the moment, Delhi sees Brics and the SCO as providing enough scope for trilateral cooperation between Russia, India, and China read more
'If a diplomat says yes, he means maybe. If he says maybe, he means no. If he says no, he's not a diplomat.'
I was reminded of this old saying by the remarks made by the Official Spokesperson of India's Ministry of External Affairs in the context of the revival of the Russia-India-China (RIC) troika.
Russia's deputy foreign minister, Andrei Rudenko, had said recently that Moscow wants the resumption of the RIC format and is negotiating on this issue with Beijing and New Delhi. He said, 'We are interested in making this format work, because these three countries are important partners, besides being the founders of Brics.' He added that 'in this regard, we expect that these countries will agree to resume work within the framework of the RIC'.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Asked for his reaction to Rudenko's comments, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian expressed support for Russia's initiative and said, 'China-Russia-India cooperation not only serves the respective interests of the three countries but also helps uphold peace, security, stability, and progress in the region and the world.'
On the other hand, India responded to the Russian proposal in a cautious manner. Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), said that the RIC is considered a valuable platform for discussing global and regional issues of shared interest, and India's decision to resume the dialogue hinges on finding a 'mutually convenient manner' for all three nations involved.
Thus, without responding negatively to the Russian proposal, India's response is akin to saying 'maybe' in a skilful and diplomatic manner.
It is important to note that the RIC framework has been largely inactive in recent years, primarily due to the military tensions between India and China at the Line of Actual Control (LAC). While Russia and China have publicly expressed strong support for revitalising the group, India's stance reflects the need to navigate the delicate balance of its relationships with both countries, particularly in light of unresolved border disputes with China.
It would be recalled that speaking at a Conference on Security and Cooperation in Eurasia in the city of Perm in the Ural Mountains on May 29, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had also conveyed Russia's interest in reviving the Russia-India-China Troika (RIC).
Lavrov had said, 'I would like to confirm our genuine interest in the earliest resumption of the work within the format of the troika—Russia, India, and China—which was established many years ago on the initiative of (ex-Russian prime minister) Yevgeny Primakov and which has organised meetings more than 20 times at the ministerial level since then, not only at the level of foreign policy chiefs but also the heads of other economic, trade, and financial agencies of the three countries.' He also said, 'Now that, as I understand, an understanding has been reached between India and China on how to calm the situation on the border, it seems to me that the time has come to revive this RIC troika.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Contrary to what Lavrov had said, tensions remain high along the India-China border, particularly in eastern Ladakh, despite recent agreements and de-escalation efforts. While both sides have shown a willingness to engage in dialogue and reduce the potential for clashes, the underlying territorial disputes and the buildup of military forces continue to fuel concerns about potential escalation. In essence, while there have been some positive steps towards de-escalation, the India-China border situation remains complex and potentially volatile, with the risk of future clashes and escalation as long as the underlying territorial and strategic issues remain unresolved.
Increased infrastructure development and troop deployments along the border by China in recent years have further exacerbated tensions. The 2020 Galwan Valley clashes and ongoing border disputes have continued to strain the relationship between India and China. As General Upendra Dwivedi, the Indian Army Chief, said earlier this year, India will not reduce the number of its troops deployed along the Line of Actual Control with China anytime soon, asserting there is still 'a degree of standoff' persisting between the rival armies and the two countries need to rebuild trust to de-escalate overall tensions. General Dwivedi's statement makes it quite clear that there is a lack of trust for China.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The India-China territorial dispute stems from differing interpretations of the border, with China continuing to dispute India's claims over regions like Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. China has issued maps showing Aksai Chin—an area of India's state of Jammu and Kashmir mostly controlled by China since the 1962 war—and the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh within Chinese territory.
As recently as May 14 this year, China has reasserted its territorial claims in Arunachal Pradesh. Despite professed claims about efforts to improve diplomatic ties with India, the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs published its latest names for places in Arunachal Pradesh, which China calls Zangnan and says is part of the Tibetan autonomous region. The renaming of 27 places covered an array of geographical features: 15 mountains, five residential areas, four mountain passes, two rivers, and one lake. India rejected the new Chinese names for places in Arunachal Pradesh as a 'preposterous' attempt to alter the 'undeniable' reality that the state 'was, is, and will' always be an integral part of India.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It is, in fact, an old Chinese habit to periodically issue lists of new names for locations in Arunachal Pradesh. India describes the names as 'inventions' by China and has consistently and unequivocally dismissed them. China's renaming of places in Arunachal Pradesh is a strategic move to assert unilateral claims, which India firmly rejects, emphasising Arunachal's integral status. Strengthening infrastructure, military deterrence, and global alliances is crucial for India to counter China's tactics and safeguard sovereignty.
There are important geopolitical considerations that also need to be taken into account. China supports Pakistan against India through various means, including providing military equipment, intelligence, and economic assistance. This support is often seen as part of a strategic alliance aimed at countering India's influence in the region.
Consequently, India feels that the China-Pakistan axis, characterised by strong military and economic ties, poses a strategic challenge for India. This axis is working against Indian interests, particularly due to China's support for Pakistan in regional disputes. China is a major supplier of military equipment and technology to Pakistan, further strengthening their relationship but escalating mistrust with India. China has emerged as Pakistan's largest arms supplier, accounting for almost 81 per cent of Islamabad's weapon systems inventory. Among the weapons supplied by China to Pakistan are fighter jets, missiles, drones, radar systems, warships, and submarines. China has also been implicated in assisting Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Following the Pahalgam terror attack, China moved swiftly to arm Pakistan. Reports suggest Beijing delivered advanced PL-15 air-to-air missiles to Pakistan's air force within days. Debris from one such missile, found undetonated in India's Punjab, points to Chinese involvement in Pakistan's latest assault. Pakistani jets used in combat were also Chinese-made. During the recent clashes with India, China reportedly provided Pakistan with air defence and satellite support, including adjusting satellite passes to monitor Indian troop movements.
China's support for Pakistan, particularly in the context of terrorist groups, further fuels India's concerns. China and Pakistan reportedly objected to the inclusion of The Resistance Front (TRF) and its parent organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in a UN Security Council statement condemning the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack. This aligns with a past pattern where China has blocked India's attempts to designate Pakistan-based terrorists and outfits under the UN's 1267 sanctions regime. China had blocked India's proposal at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to ban five Pakistan-based terrorists who carried out terrorist acts against India. These five terrorists are Abdul Rauf Asghar, Sajid Mir, Abdur Rehman Makki, Talha Saeed, and Shahid Mehmood Rehmatullah, who have been involved in several terror attacks in India, including the 26/11 attacks, the 2019 Pulwama attacks, the 2016 Pathankot attack, the 2001 Parliament attack, and the IC 814 hijack. India wanted to get them designated by the UN Security Council as global terrorists, but China blocked this effort.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In conclusion, it needs to be said that the state of the bilateral relationship is not yet such that we should let ourselves be drawn into a closer embrace of China, whose policies are harmful to us beyond doubt. India's approach towards China needs to be a cautious blend of security, economic, and geopolitical considerations. While both countries recognise the benefits of economic engagement, India must remain wary of China's intentions and its policies aimed at undermining India's strategic interests and regional standing. Perhaps we should privately share our concerns with the Russian leadership and tell them that for the moment, we see Brics and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as providing enough scope for trilateral cooperation between Russia, India, and China.
The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD