G20 chair: How ‘neighbourhood’ disquiet can upset India’s plans

Even as India is settling down to the responsibility of chairing the G-20 global grouping for the next 12 months, comes the reports about China and Iran, the latter in the extended neighbourhood, easing on protestors fighting for the larger ‘liberal’ cause in their respective nations. It is not as if India did anything to ease the situation in either country, but it did not say or do anything, unlike many western members of the grouping, that could have upset their respective governments.

The two nations have been facing protests in recent weeks, about massive enforcement drives. It was against pandemic curbs in China, where thousands of workers have lost their jobs and earnings for three years now, as much owing to the government’s ‘Zero-Covid policy’ as the pandemic itself. The nation was losing out on the economic front, but the government of President Xi Jinping obviously did not want to take ‘chances’ after the West came to blame China for creating and spreading the pandemic.

But there is a difference. The protests had caused the world to discuss the possibility of a Tiananmen Square repeat , a reference this to the anti-government students’ protests in 1989, when the liberalised, post-Mao leadership of Deng Xiaoping came down heavily on those demanding democracy. That was also when ‘New China’, as was evolving at the time, drew the line between economic liberalism and political conservatism, the latter a continuance of the Mao era.

Going slow on curbs

The decision of some Chinese city administrations to go slow on Covid curbs , which included sealing out homes and apartment buildings, may help bring down street protests, both in numbers and severity. Still, there is an appreciation for the government’s concern about the further outbreak of the pandemic, if the curbs were eased further, or if the people do not cooperate with what has become enforced Covid tests and quarantine. The ‘voluntary’ part of the nationwide effort is missing, given the ‘Chinese characteristics’ and also the way the government began enforcing the curbs when it hit the nation on its face, giving it no time for preparation or mass education.

Likewise, Iran has reportedly abolished ‘morality police’ and is preparing to ease ‘hijab rules’ for women, who had valiantly protested through the country, opposing stricter enforcement of the Islamic diktat for them to cover themselves from head-to-foot in public and to be denied certain kind of jobs. In a way, it is a continuation of the pent-up wider schism between the rulers and the ruled, this one over a just and popular cause, all of it dating back to conservatism dating back to the Islamic Revolution of 1978.

It remains to be seen if the respective governments have announced only tactical withdrawals, to hit back harder and at times selectively, in the coming weeks and months – against which there is nothing much that the ‘liberal’ world could do. Or, if they institutionalise the continuation of the processes that they have now set in motion, to address the protestors’ larger concerns, which again are centred on democracy and liberalism.

It is also equally difficult to predict if the protestors in the two countries, or even one of them, would be satisfied with minor concessions over their just cause. There is the distinct possibility of the mass protests in the two cases taking up larger causes, for democracy, freedoms and liberal socio-constitutional outlook – rather a likely repeat of the ‘ Orange Revolution’ , yes, in Ukraine, 2004, followed by the ‘Arab Spring’ mass protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.

Bolstering Modi’s image

Any further eruption in China and Iran, and the respective governments can be expected to blame the West, especially the US, as ‘perpetrators’ of the protests. If protests revive and the governments persist with their charges and also follow them up with renewed high-handedness against their people, then it could mar the environment for a peaceful and focussed discourse at the multiple G-20 conclaves, reflecting in the final participation and outcome of the summit.

Of the two nations, Iran is not a G-20 member, but its neighbourhood presence has its own impact on India’s affairs. If nothing else, New Delhi cannot continue to shut its eyes to ground realities in the Islamic Republic for the whole year of India’s G-20 chair, be it about any revived protests, or the government’s handling of the international community in the matter, and return to reclaim its positions after the chair is not more India’s.

China is not only an immediate neighbour and a historic adversary. It is also a member of G-20 and also the Shanghai Cooperation Council (SCC), which again India has got to chair in the coming year. It is noteworthy that official India did not celebrate the former as much as the latter, given the inherent characteristics of them both. There is also the inherent hurdle to a successful year for the new chair.

It does not require a crystal ball to predict that overflowing tensions of the Ukraine War, from the previous Bali summit, which Indonesia hosted, has the potential to upset India’s plans for a progressive and productive year, for which it has planned 200 events in 55 cities across the country – and has also begun well on this count. Yes, it may help Prime Minister Narendra Modi to bolster his image as the nation prepares for the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, but an upset show could also dent his image, even if marginally, in the urban centres. There is a lesson to be learnt from the low urban voter turnout in Modi’s native Gujarat assembly elections, whatever be the final outcome.

Addressing Russia’s concerns

Already, substantial time at the Bali summit was taken away by the Ukraine crisis and its immediate fallout, when conflict resolution, peace-building, national rights and democracy issues were not on the G-20 charter or the summit agenda. Apart from the routinely fixed sideline meetings involving global leaders who would want to make the best possible use of their time, when available away from home, there was also a NATO-like consultative summit at Bali, in which Japan too participated.

Yet, there are internal divisions within the respective ranks on the Ukraine War. The West, looked divided between the US and Europe, because of the latter‘s over-dependence on Russian oil and gas. After a gap of months, those divisions seem to be reappearing. French President Emmanuel Macron has since revived the nation’s early-day calls for the ‘ West’ to address Russia’s concerns over the possibility of NATO knocking at its doors if Ukraine were to be given admittance.  He seemed to distance Europe from the US ally/leader, when he addressed his statement to the former, and not the West as a whole.

During a tour of Australia, Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin too spoke about how the Ukraine War has shown that Europe was ‘too reliant’ on the US for its security . She also said that they were equally dependent on China for technology, and wanted greater investments in areas such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

Yet, there is a constant haranguing of India on its oil imports from Russia. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar had one more occasion to ‘educate’ the western world about comparable Indian imports, recently, and he did not miss it out though might have been irritated all the same, as he had to repeat himself, in public and private conversations. In the process, he called out Europe’s double-speak on the issue once more time. Such posturing by either side would not help the larger Indian cause as G20 chair, as it would find itself increasingly dragged into a situation which was not its creation.

That way, yes, India should also be concerned about any unprovoked eruptions along the nation’s borders, whether from China, as in Doklam and Galwan, or Pakistan, as almost always in the past decades. Either or both of them could crowd India’s priorities for the year, and also cloud the global vision of a re-emergent and re-assertive India, after the ‘Bangladesh War era in the 70s.

Retrieving G20 leadership

Whether it is the Ukraine War or any other new flash-points, then some of the intervening G20 joint meetings between now and the summit could be impeded by its shadow(s). Given the nebulous nature of geopolitics, there could be other global issues that could seek more space than thought. There would (have to) be differences from the charter points of the G20, which are confined to development, growth and allied issues such as the environment.

Minister S Jaishankar has clarified that the G20 focus under the nation’s chair would be on issues and concerns of the Global South. From a purely national perspective, this is an opportunity for India to regain the leadership of the Global South, which it voluntarily surrendered with the advent of economic reforms, in the early 90s.

At the time, India’s own economic/forex situation was abysmal and it could not have sought to hold on to the uncrowned position. Today, India’s geopolitical, geostrategic and geoeconomic stature is vastly improved so that New Delhi can comfortably and confidently slide back into the chair that has been lying vacant all through the past decades.

For that to happen, India needs to set its priorities for the G20 chair. Yes, there are not many from the Global South in the grouping but India could be the voice. But there could be a conceptual constraint. New Delhi needs to decide as to where it stands and what serves its larger causes and purposes better – whether to use the G20 chairmanship to strengthen its position in the grouping, where its mind is, or in Global South, where its conscience still is and think and act accordingly.

The writer is a Chennai-based policy analyst and political commentator. Views expressed are personal.

Read all the Latest News , Trending News , Cricket News , Bollywood News , India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram .