Emerging Economies, Immigration Policies, India, International labour demands, Writing

Making the case for global workforce migration: A strategic blueprint to harness India’s demographic dividend

Global labour migration has been instrumental in shaping how societies are formed and how economies function. Since the establishment of ancient trade routes to present day, labour migration has been an important factor in defining global geopolitical dynamics and shaping the socioeconomic fabric. Though labour migration is typically influenced by employment opportunities and earning potential, factors such as economic stability, geopolitical dynamics, national security concerns and the pursuit of higher living standards are also gaining prominence in influencing the workforce’s decision.

Global workforce, therefore, stands at a crossroad where global labour migration landscape is dotted with multiple challenges and requires a unified policy framework, coordinated international support and efforts for aiding labour migration flow across the world and to leverage human capital for global growth and prosperity. The key challenges that the world is witnessing today in the context of labour migration are multidimensional, spanning across policy and regulatory hurdles, including lack of adequate social security mechanisms, inadequate skill recognition and skill mismatch, short-term employment contracts and low social, cultural and political receptiveness.

Against this backdrop, this paper attempts to provide a comprehensive understanding of the global labour migration landscape with a focus on the underlying economic frameworks and cross-country evidence of evolving labour migration patterns, its socio-economic implications and how India’s demographic dividend can be leveraged in this context.

The first chapter looks at the dual role of labour – a crucial production factor and a demand driver – and its complementary relationship with technology in augmenting economic output and sustainable growth. The chapter enumerates the evolution of global labour migration patterns shaped by social, economic, political and technological factors as well as the structural shifts in labour migration patterns in the recent decade driven by technological advancements. It also examines the challenges and opportunities related to global labour migration, setting the context for a detailed discussion in the later chapters.

The second chapter looks at the evolution of labour migration theories, driven by factors like population changes, differential wages and technological changes. It explains the tenets of a fundamental model of global labour migration and talks about both the economic and social benefits of global labour migration, including skills transfer, entrepreneurship, innovation, remittances and higher gross domestic product (GDP) growth.

The third chapter highlights the evolving labour migration trends, with an analysis of immigration policies in key destination countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United States (US). It also looks at frameworks like ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (AQRF) and European initiatives like the Europass which aids labour migration across the world. The fourth chapter discusses the key challenges to labour migration, ranging from cultural and social barriers to institutional impediments like the absence of bilateral and multilateral diplomatic agreements. The chapter also highlights concepts like the ‘lottery of birth’,1 encapsulating the inherent advantages or disadvantages migrants face due to their birthplace. The fifth chapter focusses on India, underpinning its crucial position in the global labour migration landscape and identifying trends in Indian labour migration, while also detailing the country’s public and private sector initiatives aimed at facilitating international labour mobility.

The sixth chapter looks at the convergence of labour economics and international relations, highlighting the need for institutional arrangements to attain an equilibrium in global labour supply and demand. Furthermore, it enumerates how Indian labour markets can assume an important role in the global workforce landscape by aligning with global policies and institutional frameworks to fully leverage the economic potential of labour migration for both the domestic and global economy.

The seventh chapter maps global labour opportunities, emphasising India’s role in addressing workforce shortages in mature economies like Germany, Japan, and Canada. The section highlights how barriers such as skill mismatches, regulatory complexities, and qualification recognition persist and can be mitigated by strengthening skilling initiatives, aligning certifications with global standards, and leveraging AI-driven training platforms. Lastly, the concluding chapter on policy recommendations highlights how a sustainable workforce mobility framework necessitates robust alignment between domestic skill development initiatives and evolving international labour demands. A dynamic, future-ready labour mobility strategy can position India as a leading global talent supplier while maximising reciprocal economic benefits.

Read the report here.

international affairs, International Diplomacy, Raisina Dialogue, Writing

Raisina Files 2025 -The Reckoning: Regression or Renaissance?

Ed Samir Saran and Vinia Mukherjee

Editors’ Note

“later that night i held an atlas in my lap ran my fingers across the whole world and whispered where does it hurt?

it answered everywhere everywhere everywhere.”

~ Warsan Shire

That there can be no peace without development is a universal truism. The two, perhaps the loftiest and noblest of human aspirations, are perpetually interdependent: Conflict impedes progress; and the lack of economic opportunity can contribute to conflict. Today, as humanity’s excesses wage a war on the planet—causing extreme weather events, food insecurity, threats to health, and massive displacements—both peace and development will be the casualties unless we turn around.

The Reckoning: Regression or Renaissance? confronts the many obstacles that come in the way of our pursuit of peace, progress, and sustainable development, and offers insights into our choices. It is indeed a moment of reckoning, and this collection of essays engages with the debates that are crucial to the decisions that we will have to make.

As if climate change has not been enough to bring the world to its precarious state, there is more. There is still no end in sight to either the war in Ukraine or the conflict in Yemen, and tensions continue to simmer in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the biggest setback in poverty reduction in decades, economic inequities persist in many places, and demographic shifts and ageing populations are giving birth to even newer challenges.

Genevieve Donnellon-May sets her sights on the Pacific, which is facing the dual challenge of navigating great-power competition and addressing pressing domestic concerns. Ensuring economic development, security cooperation, and environmental sustainability will be keys to peacebuilding in the region.

If peace is the aim, one region that has long been haunted by its absence is Africa. Davis Makori reminds us not just of this fact—that, following a brief period of optimism, armed conflict continues to be the scourge of the continent—but more importantly, that it is the civilians who bear the brunt of the constant state of war. The imperatives for Africa are early-warning systems, community-focused protection mechanisms, and UN reform to address the fundamental imbalance in the global peace and security architecture.

Europe is another theatre of conflict, and the domestic nostalgia for a glorious era of peace and prosperity, now lost, has become more intense. Velina Tchakarova lists a litany of challenges impeding Europe’s rediscovering of its old self: declining birth rates and an ageing population; dependency on other countries for energy supply; and growing security threats.

Agatha Kratz tackles the subject of Europe too, this time in the context of its relationship with China. Brussels and other member state capitals are showing a “newfound activism” against China, including launching trade defence cases and tightening investment rules. In the coming days, while EU-China relations could stabilise, there will still be no meaningful change in bilateral ties.

Kate O’Shaughnessy, in her piece, writes about the Indian Ocean region and how it looks much more unstable than it did only a decade ago. For the international community to engage meaningfully in the region and create an impact, it must include the voices of island states and address the issues that matter most to them—climate change, maritime domain awareness, regional economic integration, and human capacity building.

Listening to what small and developing states have to say will be critical, because in many ways, the Global South will be the fulcrum of change.

In global governance of healthcare, for example, the year opened with pivotal shifts as the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization, provoking uncertainty about global health security, disease control efforts, climate resilience programmes, and pandemic preparedness. Ayoade Alakija, however, in her essay, sees the opportunity: the disproportionate power the US is ceding may now be re-distributed, and emerging economies of the Global South should increase their agency and autonomy.

The Global South will also need to step up in the area of international trade, where South-South cooperation can help these countries compete on equal footing with the Global North. For Kekeli Ahiable, expanding access to markets will create growth that in turn can pull over 700 million people in developing economies out of extreme poverty.

Part of the trade imperative for the Global South is to gain access to low-carbon technologies to accelerate the energy transition—a task that is complex, as Lydia Powell writes. Efforts to nurture a low-carbon future must balance the emphasis on mitigation with the adaptation needs of the Global South, while considering their right to human well-being, often neglected in North-led prescriptions for climate change.

Mannat Jaspal also examines themes around energy transitions, and writes that, while the proportion of fossil fuels in the energy mix will decline, they will not disappear entirely even in net-zero scenarios. A key to decarbonising is technology—and there’s the rub: The gap between the required deployment of low-carbon technologies and current patterns is significant, and of the technologies that need to be deployed by 2050, the best results so far are primarily in less complex and more commercially viable applications.

Technology is also key in the domain of quantum research, the subject of a contribution by Linda Nhon and Andreas Kuehn, written in the context of the race between the United States and China. As the new Trump administration prepares to define policies that will shape the US science and technology leadership trajectory in the next four years and beyond, it needs a clear vision of how the country can reach quantum superiority.

Technological imperatives are similarly present in the domain of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the subject of an exposition by Trisha Ray. She notes that building and deploying AI at scale requires capital, infrastructure, and manpower that right now, only highly centralised entities like tech giants and rich governments can marshal. She gives us four models for how states will likely nurture ‘sovereign AI’, or AI that uses a country’s own resources.

While the subjects of quantum computing and AI may be relatively new, what we have been tackling for some years now are the challenges posed by the proliferation of social media and its use for malicious activities. Anulekha Nandi and Anirban Sarma discuss the perpetual dilemma in the governance of social media—once not too long ago heralded as the ‘public sphere’ ideal: finding the sweet spot between free speech and security.

This same dilemma finds its place in the gargantuan task of counterterrorism. Naureen Chowdhury Fink, in her essay, explores the intersection of technology, gender, and counterterrorism. She uses the case of ISIS and how it used gendered narratives in its search for legitimacy during the years of building its ‘caliphate’, and underlines the importance of considering this nexus when crafting sustainable and effective prevention and response strategies.

Two other geographies that we cover in this volume are Latin America and the Arctic. Dawisson Belém Lopes writes that even as China’s economic footprint may be expanding across Latin America, US hegemony remains palpable. More importantly, however, countries in the region are navigating the US-China power struggle “with pragmatic ambivalence” while maintaining their diplomatic approach.

And what of the so-called “great game” in the Arctic—home to vast reserves of energy sources and rare-earth minerals as well as important trade routes? Alexander Sergunin and Valery Konyshev surmise that the Arctic players, motivated by their common interests, will likely work to resolve their tensions not by force but through negotiations and arbitration.

We close the journal with the question of how we can have meaningful reforms in current international financial institutions. Karim El Aynaoui, Hinh T. Dinh, and Akram Zaoui argue that what is needed is a “paradigm shift” in the relationship between these institutions and developing countries. Rather than relying primarily on international assistance, developing nations should leverage technical expertise to mobilise private capital—both foreign and domestic—for development. In turn, IFIs must prioritise technical assistance, institution-building, and private capital mobilisation to help countries achieve sustainable and resilient growth.

Each of the 16 essays in this volume gives us enough to mull on where we want to head next. The reckoning will not just be about who gets to mine the Terbium in the Kvanefjeld plateau of Greenland, or whether or not China succeeds in claiming the Scarborough Shoal. It is about entire island states that will disappear; the millions in Africa who have been dependent on UN humanitarian assistance for 20 years. Our sound judgement is being called upon not just for the ‘great games’ but for the every single day: Do we keep hurting and wither, or do we create a new era?

Read the journal here.

BRICS, India, India-Russia, international affairs, world order, Writing

5 ways in which India-Russia relationship will shape the world in 2025

The ability to partner with nations that are deeply divided by geopolitics has been a feature of Indian diplomacy since Independence. The India-Russia relationship serves not just the two countries in question, but the world

Foreign policy trends in 2025 will be shaped by shifts in great power relationships. A new administration in the US could upend its relations with old allies in Europe and intensify rivalry with China. In an uncertain world, India plays a leading role in maintaining balance. The global community is watching New Delhi’s efforts to restore stability to its troubled relationship with China, and wonders whether the Indo-US dynamic will recapture the energy that characterised it in Donald Trump’s first term. In spite of all this, the most consequential bilateral relationship in 2025 will be between India and Russia.

The strength of ties between New Delhi and Moscow matters to both countries. It touches core mutual areas: Trade in energy, technological co-development, and strategic interests. Russia remains India’s most accommodating partner when it comes to high-tech supplies. While the West — France and the US in particular — are relaxing rules for trade with India in dual-use tech, there is still a long way to go before New Delhi’s undersea and long-range requirements are satisfied by the West. This is where Moscow steps in.

The global community is watching New Delhi’s efforts to restore stability to its troubled relationship with China, and wonders whether the Indo-US dynamic will recapture the energy that characterised it in Donald Trump’s first term.

What some overheated commentary on the India-Russia relationship misses is that it is of deep importance for the West as well. The BrahMos missile, co-developed by India and Russia, has been given to the Philippines to fend off the Chinese. In other words, it is only through India that Russian technology can be used to preserve the rules-based order. And it is only because it is India that no Chinese veto is permitted by Moscow on such sales.

This is but one example of the unique nature of the relationship between India and Russia. Their closeness will have deeper implications in 2025, a year in which it will be recognised as a global public good. Here are five ways in which this relationship is vital for the preservation of global order.

First, it serves as a bridge between the rest of the world and a Russian polity that has been alienated by, and has set out to further alienate, the Western ecosystem. India’s commitment to multilateralism and the global order anchors Russia, its close partner, to a system that it otherwise seeks to disrupt. India can do this because it is not seen as agitating for any one political or geopolitical position. It is a boundary nation that transcends systems, and provides an ability to connect — even integrate — separate universes.

Second, the India-Russia relationship prevents the Russian bear from totally entering the dragon’s den. A Russia locked into servitude to Beijing’s interests would be profoundly inimical for the world order, the West in particular. India’s outstretched hand grants Russia the ability to manoeuvre and allows it to avoid capitulating completely to China’s demands. It has become increasingly clear — at BRICS and elsewhere — that avoiding becoming a junior partner to its giant neighbour is a priority for Moscow. Russia expects a partnership of equals. India provides one, China does not. Europe must realise that when peace eventually returns to the continent, it will be with Russia as an equal of the European Union, and not subordinate to it.

India’s outstretched hand grants Russia the ability to manoeuvre and allows it to avoid capitulating completely to China’s demands.

Third, trade between India and Russia in fossil fuels is designed to be compliant with sanctions meant to limit Russian profits. This too provides broader benefits to the world. It brings valuable price stability and predictability to energy markets, which is vital for the West and for Europe in particular. It is no exaggeration to say that the energy trade component of the Indo-Russian relationship prevents Europe from slipping further into political disorder.

Fourth, the relationship allows for new possibilities in the crucial Arctic region. Without India’s increasing strategic presence in the Arctic, in partnership not just with Russia but also with European and Nordic friends, a new Russia-China axis would have shaped the region’s future. This would have spelt disaster for the ecology and security of global supply chains. India’s growing role instead opens better options. A Chennai-Vladivostok corridor, co-owned by Russia and India, might be a first step towards a more effective and inclusive connectivity and governance architecture for the region.

Finally, India’s presence in groupings with growing power and influence like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ensures that these are not weaponised against the West. As External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has put it, India is non-Western, it is not anti-Western. This moderate and reasonable attitude shapes the actions and positions of such groupings. The entry of New Delhi’s candidates — and Western friends — such as the UAE, Egypt and Vietnam into BRICS as either members or partners has further moderated that grouping. The presence of these countries, and India’s leadership, ensures BRICS serves more as a complement to legacy, Western-led multilateral groupings than as a challenge.

India’s presence in groupings with growing power and influence like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ensures that these are not weaponised against the West.

The ability to partner with nations that are deeply divided by geopolitics has been a feature of Indian diplomacy since Independence. It is only now, however, that this ability will be revealed as essential to prevent the fracturing of a stressed global order. The India-Russia relationship serves not just the two countries in question, but the world. The policy community in both India and the West is keenly aware of this relationship’s pivotal importance. Scepticism in the West’s Russophobic media and think tank ecosystem does not change that reality.

Source : The Indian Express, December 20, 2024

Global Governance, Global order, international affairs, Writing

Global Dynamics in a Year of Domestic Contestation and Political Shifts

Karim El Aynaoui, Paolo Magri, Samir Saran

Foreword

In 2024, two devastating conflicts intensified: the war in Ukraine, and the escalating crisis in Gaza. In Ukraine, the conflict reshaped global alliances, with NATO reclaiming a pivotal role as Europe reexamined and bolstered its defence and security strategies. In the Middle East, the crisis in Gaza expanded to involve Lebanon, exacerbating an already dire humanitarian situation as blockades and military operations worsened civilian suffering. Both conflicts underscored the fragility of international norms, the challenges to achieving lasting resolutions, and the interplay between local grievances and broader geopolitical rivalries. Together, they emphasise the urgent need for diplomatic engagement, humanitarian relief, and sustainable frameworks for peace.

The year also marked the largest election year in modern history, with millions of people across Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas going to the polls to elect their representatives and leaders. In Latin America, at least six countries have voted in 2024, while in Africa, nearly 17 nations have already held or are about to hold elections at the time of writing.

In the African continent, these high-stakes elections have been accompanied by a troubling resurgence of military coups. While some nations achieved peaceful democratic transitions, others grappled with contested outcomes and coups d’état amid ongoing security crises, economic hardships, and climate challenges.

In India, home to the world’s largest electorate, the elections resulted in a broad continuity of leadership, albeit with a diminished mandate for the ruling party. In neighbouring Bangladesh, widespread post-poll protests overthrew Sheikh Hasina’s regime and upended the country’s stability. In the United Kingdom, elections ended 14 years of Conservative reign and brought the centre-left Labour Party to power. In France, the elections resulted in a closely contested outcome, leaving the ruling government with a fragile parliamentary majority and the daunting task of navigating a fragmented political landscape.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s decisive election victory in the United States threatens to undermine multilateral governance structures that are already under immense strain. Just as the US election results poured in, Germany’s coalition government collapsed, leaving a complex political situation that will likely take months to resolve. As the West looked on, the expanded BRICS grouping, fraught with internal divisions, held its 16^th summit in October. Amid these shifts, regional actors are stepping in to reshape global governance by addressing critical gaps, both nationally and collectively. Morocco’s Atlantic initiatives and Africa’s broader cooperation schemes exemplify the rising impact of complementary frameworks in driving innovative solutions to global challenges.

Such domestic shifts will impact policymaking across the globe, in areas ranging from climate change to trade and security policy. With protectionist tendencies in vogue and the imposition of tariffs dominating the economic toolkits of nations, new leaderships are slated to recalibrate trade policies. At the same time, key global actors such as India, the US, and the EU are working to reduce their dependencies on the Chinese market. In Europe, far-right surges are impacting mainstream parties, which are tempted to adopt parts of the far-right agenda to appeal to voters, in the process potentially compromising sections of the ambitious European Green Deal. The advent of digital technologies, while increasing citizen engagement, has also exacerbated the threat of disinformation undermining elections. Meanwhile, migration remains a pivotal issue for many regions, including Europe and Africa, frequently used as a convenient scapegoat for deeper socio-economic and political challenges as countries navigate the complex implications.

Against this challenging global backdrop, the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI, Italy), the Observer Research Foundation (ORF, India), and the Policy Center for the New South (PCNS, Morocco) combined their efforts to produce the second edition of their Annual Trends Report. This report, framed in the overarching theme of ‘Global Dynamics in a Year of Domestic Contestation and Political Shifts’, aims to encapsulate the consequences of electoral outcomes and domestic contestations and what these might mean for the delivery of key global public goods—whether combating trends of disinformation, bringing peace in Ukraine and Gaza, advancing global climate action, or pursuing economic growth.

This edition divides these global public goods into five areas: global governance; security; economy and development; energy and climate change; and new technologies and digital transition. Each of these policy areas is examined by scholars from the three institutes, offering their diverse perspectives from three different continents. As countries adapt to fresh domestic (and global) realities, it is our hope that this collaborative effort will shed light on how political shifts across continents are impacting key policy areas, and enable policymakers to better navigate and prepare for their impact.

On a broader note, the ISPI-ORF-PCNS tripartite initiative aims to propose solutions to pressing global challenges through joint research, strategic deliberations, and engagement, supported by the pooled expertise of over 400 experts across three continents. To this end, our partnership involves a range of initiatives, from cooperation during our Flagship Forums to annual inter-staff dialogues and Young Fellows Exchange Programs that aim to shape the leaders of tomorrow.

In a world beset by divisions and competition, we hope that our effort epitomises a revival of international collaboration and connection.

We extend our deepest gratitude to Dr. Harsh V. Pant, Vice President, Studies and Foreign Policy at ORF and to Antonio Villafranca, Vice President for Research at ISPI for their scientific leads on the first two editions of this report. We also thank Shairee Malhotra, Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Programme at ORF, for her critical contribution and Oussama Tayebi and Nassim Hajouji at PCNS and Matteo Villa at ISPI for their vital efforts in coordinating the 2024 edition. This report reflects the strength of our partnership and shared mission.

Read the report here.

Economic Challenges, Geopolitics, international affairs, Writing

5 geopolitical questions for 2025

In 2025, leaders will grapple with a range of geopolitical challenges.
Various dynamics and questions should shape the geopolitical agenda next year.
Here are five key questions that leaders will need to address.

If 2024 was the year of elections, 2025 will be the year of questions.

The start of the year will see governments across the world at the beginning of new terms, forced to respond swiftly to mounting economic, social, security, environmental and technological challenges. These issues would be difficult to address at any time, but today they come amid a turbulent geopolitical context—one that is seeing a disintegration of the post-war international order.

As a result, leaders will not only need to address specific challenges but do so while finding agreement to build a global framework for promoting peace and prosperity in place of the aggression and economic uncertainty we are now experiencing.

What, then, are the dynamics that should inform leaders’ actions?

What 3 dynamics should inform leaders’ actions in 2025?

First, leaders must account for a growth in seemingly irrational responses among their constituents and counterparts. Leaders can no longer assume domestic and global stakeholders will be guided by identifiable interests because polarized domestic and global politics may lead to decisions that appear counterproductive to external audiences. Indeed, some of the forces shaping these decisions are the result of not just deepening polarization but rising levels of misinformation.

The effect of geography on consciences is plainly visible in divergent responses to Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan.

Second, leaders need to be ready for a growth in inconsistency. External commitments are made based on a state’s location and domestic interests. The effect of geography on consciences is plainly visible in divergent responses to Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan. Acceptance of double standards around the application of human rights and the responsibility or desire to protect are now more normal than the aspiration to universal values, such as those espoused by the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Lastly, leaders need to be ready for a growth in influential voices. Leaders will have to reckon with and listen to new actors, from business leaders to social influencers to rising states, many of who are unwilling to adhere to the status quo. The postwar ‘liberal’ consensus is being challenged as much from within as without—even those states that were the bulwark of post-war order contain strong domestic political forces that now contest it.

With these dynamics as a backdrop, what are the most pressing geopolitical questions leaders will need to answer in the year ahead?

Here are five questions for 2025:

How to advance security within a fragmenting global order?

Global cooperation is at a low point and conflict is escalating. Traditional leaders and institutions, such as the WTO and UN, have recently proved ineffective in delivering broad global consensus, or serving as a platform to resolve disputes. Countries and emergent blocs from across the Global South have not yet clarified whether they will serve as a salutary check on a declining West-led global security order, or simply play a disruptive role. Balancing this dynamic will also be Beijing’s task, given that it is at the centre of multiple new geometries—such as the proposed Global Security Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) and a possible Russia-Iran-China axis.

Traditional leaders and institutions, such as the WTO and UN, have recently proved ineffective in delivering broad global consensus, or serving as a platform to resolve disputes.

The two most divisive conflicts in 2024—Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza—emerged from long-standing frictions. That these conflicts suddenly inflamed, signals that the global security order is too fragmented to either maintain or negotiate peace.

In this context, when adherence to universal values is an impossibility and the existing order is disintegrating, leaders will be forced to acknowledge the limitations to their influence and the constraints of their alliances.

Leaders will have to ask: What are ways to reach across divides to prevent further conflict? Is it possible for leaders to accept more limitations on their power and take on the task of peace-making? What are the minimum areas of agreement that can generate progress and counter retrogressive action?

How to understand sovereignty in the contemporary world?

The ideal of a rules-based order, painstakingly preserved since 1945, is further away from being practiced now than it has been over the past eight decades. Without shared norms, strong institutions, and a commitment to international law, it is difficult to shape a stable, peaceful environment. However, defenders of the rules-based order have come to realize that for many countries, the role and stability of national political institutions and arrangements are essential. While armies crossing physical borders is an obvious affront to sovereignty, perverse economic measures, manipulation of political systems and regulating access to markets, trading arrangements and payment systems potentially violate the UN Charter and can infringe on the most important aspects of sovereignty.

Without shared norms, strong institutions, and a commitment to international law, it is difficult to shape a stable, peaceful environment.

In recent decades, it was seen as vital that countries cede sovereignty and the ability to make independent decisions on certain policies to global governance institutions, in order to build a “cohesive” global order. Illiberal challengers to this order have long stressed the importance, as they see it, of maintaining sovereignty as the building block of international relations. Now, even defenders of a global order often understand that rules cannot be designed or enforced in a world where state sovereignty is not respected. Because without strong states that can speak for their populations and defend their rights, how can a rules-based order flourish?

In 2025, therefore, leaders will ask: Can the independence of the state be addressed and revitalized in parallel with the strengthening of trans-national structures that offer security for their populations?

Looking ahead

In 2025, leaders across the world will have to search out answers to these five questions. Their answers need not be identical; but the chances are that, if they are in sharp dissonance with each other, then the problems the world seeks to address will be magnified. Amid irrationality, inconsistency, and an abundance of voices, finding a fragile consensus is more important than ever.

This essay first appeared on the World Economic Forum.

climate change, Global Security, multilateralism, T20 Brasil 2024, Writing

Task Force 06- Strengthening Multilateralism and Global Governance : Toward a New Global Security Paradigm

Samir Saran with Luis Gomez Echeverri, Maja Groff, Heide Hackmann, Mauricio Antonio Lopes, Pradeep Monga, Pratik Patil, Elena Rovenskava

Amidst increasing global connectivity and accelerating global change, the global security framework has become insufficient, contributing to a crippling dysfunctionality in international cooperation. The current security framework, focused almost exclusively on a narrow notion of military security, is insufficient to address escalating ‘threats without enemy,’ such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, which increasingly endanger the lives and dignity of all populations. This policy brief recommends a global social-ecological security framework, rooted in the science- informed understanding of social and biophysical realities, to address the evolving needs and challenges of the 21st century.

Our recommendations to operationalise this paradigm include: a reinvigorated commitment to multilateralism and peace as a pre-requisite; public participation in shaping the new inclusive international governance framework; development aid and green finance as key levers; a focus on building resilience (especially food security); and, strengthening anticipation of and response to interconnected global shocks. We propose a G20-initiated formation of a high-level working group to catalyse the creation of this new framework. Such a process must involve relevant stakeholders, leveraging new possibilities afforded by technological tools (such as AI).

Implementing this ambitious agenda will be challenging, but continuing on a business- as-usual trajectory is a ‘lose-lose’ spiral likely to trigger social and ecological crises. Bold leadership from the G20 is needed more than ever to reinvent multilateralism and thus ensure sustainable well-being for all.

‘Moving Horizons’: A Responsive and Risk-Based Regulatory Framework for A.I.

Samir Saran with Anulekha Nandi and Sameer Patil

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) capabilities constantly evolve, its regulation can no longer remain simply an exercise in optimisation and mitigation—or maximising innovation opportunities and minimising the risk of harm. AI’s intersecting socio-economic and legal implications require dynamic governance arrangements to identify, respond to, and anticipate continually shifting regulatory imperatives. This report makes a case for a framework that not only anticipates, recognises, and assesses risks, but also responsively manages them. Such a framework would open up pathways for harmonising sovereign imperatives of building national competencies while fostering multilateral cooperation on developing globally accepted standards to facilitate the responsible deployment of AI innovation.

Originally published by ORF Website. Read the report here.

international affairs, Quad, Raisina Dialogue, Strategic Studies, Writing

Two Decades of the Quad: Diplomacy and Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific

Quad countries are home to a combined 1.9 billion people—or 24% of the world’s population— and represent 35% of the world’s GDP and 18% of global trade^[1]

The Quad, initially known as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, is a strategic diplomatic partnership composed of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. The group’s origins can be traced back to December 2004 when these four countries first came together as an ad-hoc grouping to provide humanitarian aid and assistance to countries affected by the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Despite the end of the humanitarian relief operation in January 2005, a push for a more formal partnership continued. In 2007, the group held its inaugural, albeit informal first meeting on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum in Manila, the Philippines. However, the initial iteration of the Quad was short-lived, as concerns about the group’s impact on diplomatic relations—particularly with China—led to its informal dissolution in 2008.

The Quad regained momentum in 2017, driven by shared concerns regarding the assertiveness of China in the Indo-Pacific region, the need to further promote cooperation and strategic consultations between its members, and a desire to uphold peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. Senior officials from the four countries met on the sidelines of the 2017 East Asia Summit in Manila, signaling a renewed interest in collaborative efforts. Over the next few years, the Quad focused on policy coordination and the provision of public goods in the Indo-Pacific, both bilaterally and through regional institutions. In the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic beginning in early 2020, the Quad gained further relevance as the grouping shifted its focus to vaccine diplomacy, health security, and economic recovery, evolving from a senior officials’ dialogue to leader-level summits. Since 2019, Quad foreign ministers have met seven times and the Quad Leaders have met five times. Although there have been no stand-alone meetings of Quad defense ministers, the Raisina Dialogue, which is held annually in New Delhi, India, has been a venue for panels of Quad naval chiefs to meet and discuss.

Quad Member Participation in Trilateral Partnerships

Since regrouping in 2017, the Quad has announced the creation of six working groups which focus on a variety of policies and initiatives. During the inaugural Leaders’ Summit held virtually in March 2021, the group announced a Quad Vaccine Partnership—later renamed the Quad Health Security Partnership—alongside the establishment of a Critical and Emerging Technologies Working Group and a Climate Working Group.^[5] A Space Working Group was established later that year during the first in-person Leaders’ Summit held in Washington, D.C., the United States.^[6] As Quad activities continue to evolve beyond traditional security concerns, the grouping now includes progressive partnerships such as the Quad Cybersecurity Partnership, the Quad Partnership for Cable Connectivity and Resilience, the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness, and the Quad Partnership on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.

As the Quad strengthens its internal mechanisms, it simultaneously deepens its ties with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other regional bodies, aligning its goals with broader regional strategies. As ASEAN Dialogue Partners, the Quad countries are committed supporters of ASEAN centrality and ASEAN-led regional architecture. Quad countries have also made strides in strengthening cooperation with the Pacific Islands Forum—of which Australia is a member—aligning Quad priorities with Pacific initiatives such as the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.^[7] In the Indian Ocean, the Quad seeks to support the regional leadership of the Indian Ocean Rim Association, of which India and Australia are both members. In 2023, Quad countries took on leadership roles including Japan’s G7 presidency, India’s G20 presidency, the United States’ hosting of APEC, and Australia’s bid to co-host the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change COP31 in 2026.

This report is co-published by the East-West Center: www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/two-decades-quad-diplomacy-cooperation-indo-pacific.

Read the report here.

India, international affairs, Politics / Globalisation, Raisina Dialogue, Writing

Raisina Chronicles: India’s Global Public Square

S.Jaishankar | Samir Saran

The Raisina Dialogue has become a feature today in the calendars of leaders around the world. It is a must-attend for all who seek to move the needle, disrupt the status quo, defend their beliefs, and create what shall be. India’s flagship conference on geopolitics and geo-economics enters its 10th year. In that time, it has emerged as a global, inclusive, and wide-band forum of international importance, transcending borders and ideologies, ages and agendas, hashtags and echo chambers. It is India’s ‘global public square’—located in New Delhi, incubated by the world. Its purpose is to preserve and promote the often-challenged art of dialogue and of working through differences. In keeping with Indian Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi’s vision of delivering public goods for the benefit of all humanity, it is indeed a platform that serves this planet.

Raisina has been crucial in propelling discourse, nurturing collaboration, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility. It is a venue for celebrating diversity in all its shapes and forms: of thought, of approaches, of beliefs, of politics. It has captured the age-old Indian premise that within us all lies a desire and power to do good. Each view must be heard, and each suggestion must be considered. Pluralism, confabulation and heterogeneity is what makes us resilient and anti-fragile; and what drives the evolution of individuals and of societies. This is India’s own story as well; an enormous diversity that rests on a powerful timeless unity. or this reason, Raisina provides a rare opportunity for leaders and diplomats, scholars and policymakers, journalists and academics, teenagers and seasoned thinkers, business folks and civil society—to all come together to debate, deliberate, disagree, and discover shared futures and common pathways.

Pluralism, confabulation and heterogeneity is what makes us resilient and anti-fragile; and what drives the evolution of individuals and of societies.

On this occasion, we celebrate the Raisina Decade: a period during which the Dialogue has helped build regional partnerships and transcontinental collaborations, while responding to global challenges. For three days every year, it has brought a fractured and polarised world together. This volume chronicles this journey, and reflects on its unique strengths and attributes. And this is best done by bringing together how it is perceived by eminent participants from different parts of the world. These are the thoughts of those who have themselves experienced Raisina and have contributed ideas, who have listened and spoken there and who appreciate the difference it has made.

The Making of Raisina

The imperative of dialogue in polarised times is self-evident. And it has gained salience precisely because the promise of globalisation has been visibly broken. Most have lost faith in the once-inviting prospect of a world where different customs and cultures are welcomed, where different perspectives are appreciated, and where different interests are accepted. This came about because a few were able to ultimately control the process of globalisation at the expense of the many. Global realities were recast in the image of these narrow circles, to suit their interests and needs. What was meant to usher in a brave new world—more diverse and inclusive than the one before—became instead an instrument for manufacturing consent. This has prompted multiple pushbacks. Some intellectual and others political. Its cumulative result is apparent to all today when we see how the global landscape has fragmented.

The flipside of the predicament is the extraordinary concentrations of manufacturing technology and capabilities that emerged to partner these interests. With the passage of time, every aspect of this new dominance is being leveraged. So, it should not come as a surprise that global conversations have also felt its impact. Hierarchies and architectures that had receded with history have resurfaced. And along with them, a different form of discourse and messaging.

The guardians of the international order and the established multilateral frameworks repeat outdated mantras that lack credibility.

The influence on mindsets has also been profound. Anxieties about quality of life and reliability of supply chains have made many societies looking inward. Domestic priorities understandably prevail over international cooperation; individual interests supersede collective endeavours. Meanwhile, the guardians of the international order and the established multilateral frameworks repeat outdated mantras that lack credibility. The truth is that the self-appointed custodians of the world of today are divorced from its continuance. These original architects have also lost the wherewithal to convene all stakeholders and shapers. It was therefore important for new protagonists to step in, contribute and gather. This is why India, under the leadership of its Prime Minister, felt it necessary to invest in a global arena for ideation and deliberation. At the Raisina Dialogue, panels are hosted by leaders in politics, business, media, and civil society. Heads of state and foreign ministers sit next to aspiring engineers and business studies graduates. It is a space where the East and the West, the North and the South, and countless regional competitors can—and do—share a stage. Patience is prioritised over polemic, understanding over assertion, and balance over subjectivity. It is a truly global public square with an Indian postal code.

Offering an India Way

This year, while the world gathers in India for the Raisina Dialogue 2024, the relevance of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) is increasingly evident. In today’s fractured world, this mantra is a sorely-needed acknowledgement of the inherent unity of humankind and the impact we have on each other. In this context, the India Story resonates in many corners of the globe because of the similarity of problems and the viability of solutions. The deep and persistent development challenges India is addressing offer a template of action for others to adopt and adapt. It is incumbent on India to be generous with sharing its journey, its experiences and learning, its struggles and solutions.

Through its G20 Presidency, India shared with the world a credible synthesis of nationalism and internationalism. This was based on the conviction that a major nation which effectively addresses the needs of its people can only serve humankind better. Certainly, that has been the case with India, whether we think of it as a First Responder, a Pharmacy of the World, an example of Digital Delivery, a source of trusted talent as well as an innovator, manufacturer and a supply chain link. In each case, progress at home was reflected in greater contributions abroad. By ascending the global economic hierarchy with a view to emerge as third by 2028, India is not only transforming the most populous society but also becoming an additional engine of global growth. This is much needed in an era of fairer re-globalisation that is more focused on strategic autonomy. And the challenge of harmonising the local with the global is one that is addressed by drawing on India’s own heritage and outlook.

Every success and failure, every experience and innovation—have relevance for someone somewhere in the world. Raisina is a platform for such discourse, mirroring the innate pluralism of India.

The Raisina Dialogue reflects the conviction that our journeys must be open to all. It advocates an open architecture for governance, for policy, for story-telling. Every success and failure, every experience and innovation—have relevance for someone somewhere in the world. Raisina is a platform for such discourse, mirroring the innate pluralism of India. Consequently, its annual gathering is a meeting ground for a great variety of people, perspectives, and topics.

Why Bharat Matters

The change that we have witnessed in the last decade has not just been a quantitative expansion. This transformation has been one equally of thought processes, self-confidence and self-reliance. It draws on generations of heritage and culture, thereby creating greater self awareness about our identity. There is a greater seriousness too in realising visions and achieving goals. Not least, a clear sense of what we were and are is essential to decide where we want to go. Mediating effectively between tradition and technology has always been key to the quest for modernity. Today, the ability to delineate our own path and expanding our decisional space are characteristics of our progress. The combination of all of these has helped to make India much more Bharat.

Confronted with an uncertain world, this means drawing on our own experiences and arriving at our judgements in the search for solutions. Conflicting pulls and pressures will press us to take positions that may not always be in our best interest. They could be presented as global norms or natural choices. It is here that independent thinking arrived at through detailed discourse can make a difference. When it came to the Indo-Pacific, we embraced a strategic concept that is clearly to our benefit. And joined a mechanism that promoted both global good and national interest. That such steps were a departure from the past was not a discouragement. Similarly, when it came to the Ukraine conflict, we articulated the concerns of a large part of the world on its economic consequences. By contesting a narrative that served a particular region, we were also able to soften the impact on our own people. Bharat means having the courage to be contrary when needed, contributive when required, and confident at all times.

Confronted with an uncertain world, this means drawing on our own experiences and arriving at our judgements in the search for solutions.

Raisina is the venue where such conversations happen. It is the living, dynamic bridge where the world comes to understand us, and where we communicate with the world. Raisina is the vehicle for this dialogue, where the world absorbs Bharat and Bharat in turn shapes the world.

The Raisina Dialectic

The Raisina Dialogue stands out currently as a broad-based forum that engages freely in debate, discussion, and disputation. The coming together of diverse perspectives in a productive collision often results in new insights and solutions. There are particular reasons for the energy and effervescence that characterises its activities. They emanate from its interdisciplinary nature, inclusive participation, equitable agenda and democratic ethos.

Raisina is designed to reap the dividends that flow from the interactions of different disciplines and methods of thinking. Such cross-sectoral discourse is of utmost importance for breaking down silos and enhancing understanding. Diplomats must speak to scholars and academics, while international relations thinkers should engage business leaders. It is common to see leaders in politics, business, media, and civil society share a stage for discussion. Rigid policy conversations are shaken up with the introduction of freer scholarly interventions. This holistic approach makes discussions more complete, more comprehensive, and ultimately more effective.

Inclusiveness is at the heart of the Raisina spirit. The Dialogue welcomes views from across the globe that have not found space in traditional and established arenas. It allows conversations of a different kind because the voices themselves are different: These are younger; they are more diverse; they are from geographies that are often ignored or from institutions which cannot break into the international pecking order. They are more representative of the way the world actually looks. As a result, Raisina becomes a place for discovering new talent, new ideas, new perspectives, new people. It acts a springboard, a gateway, an all-access pass for these new protagonists and narratives to be allowed entry into the traditional forums.

Diplomats must speak to scholars and academics, while international relations thinkers should engage business leaders.

Concerns of equity and fairness pervade the choice of topics for the panel discussions. Most international forums concern themselves with the first billion people of the world. Raisina is that exception where discussions focus on the interests of the next seven billion. Matters of food security are given as much prominence as the battles between tech platforms. Questions of regional development, energy access, public goods, and employment are as important as concerns of war and peace, anti-trust regulation, and the quest for the ideal liberal society. Past empires are now talking back and demanding their place at the table. The Global South has been noticeable in that regard, be it in its self-perception or its self-confidence. Raisina reflects this reality because it has consciously moved beyond privilege. It is not merely an active gathering but also a very contemporary one.

As a Dialogue that is greater than the sum of its parts, its conversations take place, not merely during the three days of the conference but also in the periods before and after. It is a zone where ideas are incubated; where solutions are assessed and reassessed; where visions clash, compete, contest, cooperate. New sentiments are articulated, and outdated perspectives discarded. Discussion is frank and usually honest; they could be provocative but are always constructive. Through its reputation and impact, this approach is now becoming the new normal.

A Decade of Dialogue

As the Raisina Dialogue enters its tenth year, it is fair to say that we have come a great distance. What started as a hundred people in a room has become India’s premier conference and a forum of international note. This dialogue has captured global imagination precisely because it happens to be in a New India.

The success of Raisina has also been driven by the support, leadership, and commitment of the Indian Government. The Prime Minister himself has made it a point to be present at each inaugural session of the Dialogue since its second edition in 2017 and has delivered an address once in-person and once virtually. By attending the Dialogue but foregoing the microphone, the Prime Minister has reminded the world that many times, to listen is more important than to speak. He has elevated the act of being in a Raisina audience as learning from other experiences, grappling with other perspectives, absorbing the vantage points that others have brought. He has personally demolished the hierarchy between the speaking class on the one hand and the audience members on the other. Raisina is as much about being a listener as it is about being a speaker. It is a reminder that every idea demands careful consideration, that debate is the food for life itself. Where difference is never shunned because it is the basis of working harder to come together.

The Prime Minister himself has made it a point to be present at each inaugural session of the Dialogue since its second edition in 2017 and has delivered an address once in-person and once virtually.

To commemorate a decade of dialogue, this volume brings together essays written by eminent voices from across the world as well as speeches delivered at Raisina by world leaders and heads of states.

Raisina Chronicles opens with a Foreword by Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece. Greece and India, both ancient cradles of democracy, are discovering each other again in the 21st century. Mr. Mitsotakis advocates for open discussion as a means to bridge global divisions, proposing the integration of the Indo-Pacific and the Mediterranean as a path towards greater global unity and cooperation.

In her essay, Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark, discusses the interconnected crises facing the planet, encompassing climate, environment, health, and military conflicts. In such a world, the India-Denmark Green Strategic Partnership exemplifies successful collaboration, addressing climate goals and creating a model for global impact. She stresses the importance of global cooperation and of reinvigorating our commitment to tackle shared challenges. In the next piece, Tanja Fajon, Deputy Prime Minister of Slovenia, reflects on the 2023 Raisina Dialogue, praising its diverse discussions on global challenges. She discusses the urgent need for international cooperation, advocating effective multilateralism and UN reform. Lauding the inclusion of youth and women in Raisina discussions, she expresses optimism about India-Slovenia cooperation.

Penny Wong, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, stresses the importance of forums like Raisina for strategic thinking amidst escalating security challenges. She underscores Australia’s partnership with India, citing shared history and the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, praising collaborative efforts in economic, climate, and educational initiatives.

In his essay, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Saudi Arabia, writes about the deep-rooted cultural ties between India and the Arab world, which have now evolved into a robust strategic partnership. Trade relations have flourished, with India being the Kingdom’s second-largest trading partner. He is confident that the Saudi-Indian partnership promises a prosperous future for both nations. Kwame Owino, CEO of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Jackline Kagume, Constitution, Law and Economy Programme head at IEA, emphasize the African Union’s (AU) admission to the G20 as a significant step for global economic governance. They highlight the AU’s potential for pushing for global institution reforms in an effort to counteract the trend of de-globalization.

Chairman of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Tadashi Maeda touches upon India’s economic growth, its partnership with Japan, and the significance of the Indo-Pacific region. He stresses enhanced India-Japan cooperation amidst global challenges. Admiral Sir Antony Radakin, the Chief of the Defence Staff of the United Kingdom (U.K.), explores the changing dynamics between the U.K. and India in the 2020s and highlights the U.K.’s interest in the Indo-Pacific; to expanding partnerships in maritime, air, and land security; and to promoting defence collaboration with India.

Advocates for targeted strategies to increase the representation of women in leadership, highlighting the systematic barriers and biases women face in entering senior finance roles.

Nitya Mohan Khemka, director of PATH and lecturer at the University of Cambridge, advocates for targeted strategies to increase the representation of women in leadership, highlighting the systematic barriers and biases women face in entering senior finance roles. She concludes: women leading development banks is not just about gender equality but also crucial for efficient and effective development financing. Camila dos Santos, International Relations Advisor at Rio de Janeiro City Hall, discusses the crucial role of addressing gender inequality at the G20 summit, paying particular focus to the disproportionate burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving work borne by women, especially those from marginalized groups. The imperative for comprehensive public policies in support of caregiving is foregrounded.

Admiral John Aquilino, the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, reflects on the significant impact of the Raisina Dialogue in shaping multilateral engagements, particularly in advancing the U.S.-India relationship. According to him, Raisina has played a crucial role in fostering collaboration, leading to milestones such as the Quad’s revival and defense agreements between the two nations. A Raisina regular, General Angus Campbell, Chief of the Defence Force of Australia, and Greg Moriarty, Secretary of the Department of Defence of Australia, emphasise the deepening defense and security partnership between India and Australia and highlight India’s pivotal role in Australia’s strategic vision for the Indo-Pacific. General Yamazaki Koji, former Chief of the Joint Staff of the Japan Self-Defense Force, praises the Raisina Dialogue for its role as an ‘ideas arena’ and emphasises the deepening Japan-India defense cooperation with the end of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.

In their piece, Rosa Balfour and Zakaria Al Shmaly, director of and research analyst at Carnegie Europe respectively, argue that the European Union’s foreign policy reflects double standards, that the Global South’s perception of the EU stands in contrast to the EU’s self-perception, and the EU needs to reform policies to improve its engagement with the Global South. Anirban Sarma, Deputy Director at the Observer Research Foundation, makes the case that India has, over its G20 Presidency, raised a significant level of awareness about digital public infrastructure (DPI) and its transformative potential for financial inclusion and tech-enabled development. He argues that India’s DPI model, the India Stack, has revolutionised public service elivery and serves as a framework whose appeal transcends the Global South.

Amrita Narlikar, President and Professor at German Institute for Global and Area Studies, argues for preserving globalisation by fundamentally rethinking its direction and scale, highlighting its benefits and inherent problems. She critiques the current model’s security, sustainability, and ownership deficits, and proposes “The Bharat Way” as a path towards a more secure, inclusive, and sustainable globalisation.

Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, addresses geopolitical tensions, emphasises the need for global trade agreements, and explores the impact of new technologies, climate change, and global health challenges. He highlights India’s influential role in global discourse, with the Raisina Dialogue serving as a vital platform for fostering diverse perspectives on pressing issues. Scott Morrison, former Prime Minister of Australia, refers to the enduring friendship between Australia and India. Reflecting on the Raisina Dialogue, he underscores the importance of appreciating India’s perspective and aligning Western strategic outlooks with India’s role as a leader in the Global South. Marcelo Ebrard, former Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, shares thoughts on the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region, particularly India, with whom Mexico has strengthened diplomatic relations over 70 years. He praises the Raisina Dialogue for addressing global challenges and promoting dialogue, inclusion, and lasting solutions.

Mohammed Soliman, director of the Strategic Technologies and Cyber Security Program at the Middle East Institute, analyses the Middle East’s complex dynamics, juxtaposing the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict with the stability offered by the Abraham Accords and other minilateral formats.

David Petraeus, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, looks at Raisina as a metaphor for India. He argues that the dialogue encapsulates India’s complex stance, embracing both Quad and BRICS affiliations, reflecting its unique role and evolving identity. As India grows in influence, the Raisina Dialogue becomes an increasingly important global gathering.

And finally, concluding the Raisina Chronicles, is former Prime Minister of Canada Stephen J. Harper, with an essay titled, “India Takes Its Rightful Place in an Evolving Global Order”. Mr. Harper highlights India’s significant global role, emphasising its influence on Indo-Pacific stability, SDG progress, global democracy, and climate change. He commends the Raisina Dialogue as a vital platform showcasing India’s confidence and significance in an evolving world order.

The Raisina Chronicles is not just a compilation of contributions from eminent leaders to mark a decade of dialoguing at Raisina Hill; it is also a report card of a decade of world affairs. The original Essays and selected Addresses delivered at the Dialogue in this publication collectively offer some crucial insights. First, that a dialogue out of India matters, because it brings a unique capability and commitment to the imperative of discussions and deliberations. Second, Raisina’s journey is a reflection of Bharat’s emergence. And as its engagement with the world evolves, we at the Dialogue will have to continue to innovate and upgrade. Finally, now that the Dialogue is a global good in the assessment of many, it will have to enter the second decade of its existence more aware of its wider responsibility.

Read the full volume here.

Global South, Great Power Dynamics, India, international affairs, US and canada, Writing

The US needs a new paradigm for India: ‘Great Power Partnership’

Samir Saran | Kaush Arha

The US-India partnership is unprecedented in its scope. It holds the promise to substantially augment both nations’ security interests and to shape the world to their mutual advantage. The coordination and collaboration between the world’s longest standing democracy and its largest democracy will have far-reaching regional and global implications. This strategic alignment requires sustained forethought and concerted action—as well as a new realist paradigm and lexicon. Prioritizing pragmatic and principled interests and values will lead to the formulation of a novel US-India strategic framework and vocabulary unshackled by past preconceptions.

The era of great power competition calls for Great Power Partnerships. Size matters. As the United States engages in competitive or adversarial relationships with Asian and Eurasian powers China and Russia, it is prudent for it to seek a Great Power Partnership. Conversely, India is engaged in localized hostilities with its neighbors China and Pakistan, and finds its one-time friend Russia reduced to being a dependent of China. Realpolitik calls for the largest American and Asian nations, as democracies, to forge a Great Power Partnership to their mutual advantage.

But the US-India partnership represents a strategic convergence between emerging allies driven by shared interests and values. Both countries realize that they are stronger together in deterring Beijing’s hegemonic designs, which are inimical to both US and Indian interests. India shares the longest disputed land border with China and confronts the hostile China-Pakistan axis along virtually its entire western, northern, and eastern land borders. Meanwhile, China’s major foreign policy goal is to displace the United States as the paramount power in the Indo-Pacific and upend the US-led rules-based international order.

The US-India convergence extends beyond deterring the Chinese Communist Party. It smooths India’s path to achieving its “rightful place” among the world’s leading nations. In turn, the United States has, in India, a partner of size to shape world affairs to their collective advantage. Traditional security assurances and treaty provisions underlie the United States’ closest alliances, including those with NATO nations, Israel, and Japan. India has strenuously shunned alliances over the last seven decades. But realism will compel the two nations to increasingly act in concordance, whether they choose to institutionalize their converging interests into a formal treaty or alliance with reciprocal commitments or not.

The two countries have rightly termed this “the most consequential relationship of the twenty-first century.” US and Indian leaders have also referred to it as a “comprehensive strategic partnership”—the same label the United States uses for Vietnam and Indonesia. India deserves a category of its own: Great Power Partnership.

Areas of collaboration

Both countries are in the midst of a consequential election year, with India’s six-week national vote beginning on April 19 and the United States voting this fall. But these essential ties run deeper than any one administration on either side, even though the continuity of Indian administrations has been critical.

Still, to make this new Great Power Partnership paradigm stick will require more than rhetoric. The two countries need to make rapid advances along four fronts.

Defense co-production. It is in both countries’ interest to help India become the premier naval force and logistics hub across the Indian Ocean, as well as the munitions factory and backstop for a free and open Indo-Pacific. US-India collaboration on co-producing jet engines and armored vehicles should expand to include autonomous weapons with the goal of making the United States and India the bulwarks of the democratic defense industrial value chain.
Space collaboration, development, and exploration. In India, the United States has an ambitious, capable, and complementary partner with technical competence coupled with a cost-effective model for space endeavors. India’s space program will gain greatly in ability and ambition from close collaboration with US public and private actors. India offers scale and affordability to amplify US space investments and share the benefits with the Global South.
Development and governance of the digital economy driven by artificial intelligence (AI). The United States and India, as the world’s preeminent digital start-up nations, share an innovator’s perspective for digital governance. In contrast, a regulator’s perspective is more prevalent in Europe. It is in both countries’ interests to coordinate on shaping international AI digital governance that fosters responsible innovation and application.
Winning the hearts and minds of the Global South. India and China offer diametrically opposing visions for the Global South. China wants to enlist emerging nations into a countervailing bloc against the existing rules-based international order. India wants to enhance Global South representation within the existing international order to better reflect demographic and economic realities. The US-India partnership advances both India’s stature among the Global South and US outreach to the region. It is essential for both US and Indian interests that the Global South embraces and strengthens the rules-based international order. India is well-positioned to lead this effort.

Deepening the partnership

As democracies, the United States and India have a common interest in bolstering and modernizing the rules-based institutions that govern world affairs. Indeed, in the twenty-first century, the United States and India may shape a new international order as the United States and Europe did in the twentieth century. The largest American and Asian countries bear the responsibility to ensure that the twenty-first century international order equitably represents the Med-Atlantic, the Indo-Pacific, and the Global South—reinforcing their shared values of liberty and dignity for all.

The partnership between the United States and Europe is buttressed by cultural affinity and institutional solidarity through shared membership in NATO, the Group of Seven (G7), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and other groupings. The US-India partnership does not yet boast either cultural affinity or institutional solidarity at comparable levels, despite the rising force of the Indian diaspora in US society. In time, it can and should develop both.

India is projected to become the world’s third-largest economy by the end of the decade. The United States should lead the effort of inviting India to become a member of the G7 and the OECD. For their economic security, the United States and India should prioritize binding the Indo-Pacific nations to their collective economies more than that of China.

The United States and India have made great strides in coordination through multilateral institutional arrangements. These include the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology, the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (better known as the Quad). The frequency and scope of joint military exercises and intelligence sharing are also on the rise. US-India strategic dialogues on defense and economic coordination need to expand in depth and breadth to regularly engage functionaries in each respective administrative structure to facilitate greater interoperability and knowledge sharing.

The United States and India should also devote singular attention to advancing stronger institutional solidarity and people-to-people connections. Enhanced engagement between middle America and middle India holds the key. The United States is reinvigorating its domestic manufacturing across digital and industrial sectors while confronting a shortage of skilled technicians. India boasts a surfeit of graduates with technical skills looking for better employment. A US-India science and technology mobility agreement with prescreened skilled individuals from both nations would facilitate greater knowledge sharing and co-development between the two digital economies.

The US-India Great Power Partnership enjoys strong tailwinds, but its success is not inevitable. The relationship requires a considered understanding of the cultural, demographic, and political drivers at work in the two complex democracies. All too often, US-India discourse in bureaucratic circles and media outlets is prone to reflexive skepticism and mistrust. Both sides need a more reflective discernment of each other’s society and political system. In this area, the US and Indian business communities are leading the way with a strong sense of cooperation and comprehension. Overcoming what Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has described as “hesitations of history,” a constructive Great Power Partnership could advance core US-India interests and values going forward.

This article originally appeared in Atlantic Council.