Spotlight

New Delhi, 1 August 2026

Beijing’s White Paper

HOW THE REGION SEES IT

By Maciej Gaca

(Centre for International Relations, Poland) 

Since China’s new white paper “More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China’s Principles, Proposals, and Actions,” was published this June, full responses from regional think tanks are still to come. However, previous studies of Xi Jinping’s four major initiatives,2021 Global Development Initiative, 2022 Global Security Initiative, 2023 Global Civilisation Initiative, and 2025 Global Governance Initiative, consolidated into one initiative provide a consistent picture. 

The white paper summarises key elements of Xi’s project, gives them a common vocabulary, and presents China as a country uniquely equipped to lead the world through a period of instability. Beijing positions itself as a defender of the UN, globalisation, development, and the voice of Global South. Further, it protects its own political model from external scrutiny, narrows the universal dimension of human rights, and embeds the CCP’s interests within the notion of global stability. 

In Taiwan, the Institute for National Defence and Security Studies assesses that Chinese foreign policy is shifting from a competition for resources and influence to one over institutions, norms, and language. Beijing treats Global South as a platform for political mobilisation. China presents itself as a representative of developing countries, strengthens BRICS, and invests in infrastructure, attempting to transform diverse countries into a group exerting collective influence. However, Taiwanese analysts emphasise that Global South doesn’t form a unified bloc. Individual states have differing security interests, varying relationships with the US and Europe, and their own regional ambitions. 

The National Defence and Security Research study on Chinese security policy indicates Global Governance Initiative adopts universally held concepts—sovereignty, rule of law, and multilateralism—and interprets them in accordance with the logic of the Chinese system. The development of regulations in the areas of cyberspace, data, and AI is intended to provide China with a favourable interpretative space and legitimise a control model based on “digital sovereignty.” 

In Japan, the National Institute for Defence Studies sees the Global Security Initiative as a global version of Xi Jinping’s comprehensive national security concept. External security policy is therefore linked to protecting the CCP’s power, political system, and ideological security. The Japan Institute of International Affairs, in turn, emphasises the synchronisation of Chinese mediation, BRI investments, and security cooperation. Mediation provides Beijing with access to conflicting parties, strengthens its political position, and creates conditions for economic presence, even if it does not lead to a lasting resolution of disputes. 

The South Korean Asan Institute interprets the GGI announcement at SCO summit as a signal of China’s intention to use its influence in international organisations to reshape global governance in its favour. From Seoul’s perspective, China’s criticism of alliances is particularly significant. Beijing may link references to UN Charter with attempts to weaken security relations between the US and its Asian partners. 

In Australia, a Lowy Institute analysis shows that China is reforming the UN from within, promoting the primacy of states and weakening the importance of universal values. The results are mixed: large financial contributions, staff presence, and diplomatic activity do not always translate into acceptance of the Chinese language. The Australian Institute of International Affairs, meanwhile, describes Xi’s system as “flexible authoritarianism”: the party leadership sets broad strategic goals, while the administration, state-owned enterprises, and other contractors are given freedom to operate within clearly defined boundaries. This helps explain how Xi’s broad slogans can be implemented by multiple, seemingly independent institutions. 

Indian analyses go further, sometimes too far toward an intelligence-securitisation approach. Their usefulness, however, lies in pointing out that China’s global initiatives don’t operate in isolation. Development, security, civilization, data, training, international organisations, and new regulatory domains create an infrastructure of influence where the soft rhetoric of cooperation intersects with the hard interests of the party-state. ORF describes the GGI as a fourth pillar alongside the GDI, GSI, and GCI, and as a shift from public diplomacy to the restructuring of norms and institutions. Its harsher language should be treated with caution, but the observation about the convergence of tools is apt. 

In France, Alice Ekman of IFRI has been emphasising for years that China’s increased commitment to multilateralism has an ideological dimension. Beijing wants to counter the influence of liberal democracies, expose their weaknesses, and promote its own model. The Institut Montaigne links China’s external ambitions with centralisation of power, pervasive control, technological self-sufficiency, and the primacy of national security. 

The Finnish FIIA presents the most balanced position. Chinese initiatives contain constructive proposals for cooperation, the representation of developing countries, and reform of international organisations. Their weakness lies in the lack of a precise implementation roadmap. “True multilateralism” also implies a limited role for the West, and the initiatives remain linked to the protection of the PRC’s sovereignty and the CCP’s authority. Jyrki Kallio warns against the possibility of externally combining the language of humanitarian leadership with hegemonic instruments. 

Norwegian Institute of International Affairs adds an important correction regarding Global South. The claims of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa to speak for the entire group are weak. These countries often pursue their own interests and compete with each other. Membership in BRICS does not automatically mean joining the Chinese bloc. 

The Global South appears in the white paper almost like an electoral college for Chinese legitimacy, although no one has given Beijing a mandate to represent such a diverse part of the world.The best way to evaluate the document is to examine its principles when they conflict with Beijing’s direct political interests. 

The Chinese project has real appeal. Many countries have experienced Western double standards, conditional aid, military intervention, and marginalisation in financial institutions. Beijing appeals to genuine grievances and frustrations. It offers infrastructure, market access, credit, training, and the language of dignity and sovereignty. 

Criticism of the Chinese project should be based on questions about definitions, procedures, and practice. Who represents “the people”? Who evaluates the results? Can social organisations operate independently of the state? Does the law also apply to a great power when the outcome is unfavourable to it? Can civilisational diversity justify violence against individuals? Does a developing country retain the ability to reject China? Does Taiwanese society have the right to define its own identity? 

The June 2026 white paper contains little institutional specificity. It lacks a plan for reforming international organisations, decision-making procedures, oversight principles, and accountability mechanisms. Its significance lies primarily in clarifying the language China uses to describe the crisis in the international order. 

It would be a mistake to dismiss this white paper as empty propaganda. A vast financial, diplomatic, and institutional network operates around these ideas. China possesses the resources, personnel, partner organisations, market, and patience needed to gradually shift norms. 

Equally risky would be to accept the Chinese narrative without perspective. Contributions to global governance do not entitle one to monopolise its definition. Portraying one’s own interests as the interests of the entire Global South remains a pretence, and civilisational heritage does not constitute a source of international political legitimacy.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 30 July 2026

A New Superpower

THE CASE FOR INDIA

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof of Practice, Institute of Management Bhubaneshwar) 

The 21^st century will not have one superpower. It will have several centres of power.  In that multi-polar world, the question is not “Can India become a superpower?” The question is “What kind of superpower will India be?” 

To answer that, we must start with assets, not aspirations. India already has five unique assets that no other country can replicate. If we leverage them with intent, the world will have to make space for an Indian century. 

Democracy: The World’s Largest Experiment. India is called the “largest democracy.” The Economist Democracy Index often calls it a “flawed democracy.” So is the US. So are many others. There is no universal textbook definition. Democracy is not a machine you import. It is a culture you grow. 

Take the basic parameters: regular elections, free press, independent judiciary, functional legislatures. On all counts, India passes. There are one billion voters and peaceful transfer of power every five years. Yes, our institutions face pressure from traditional societal structures. Caste, community, money, muscle — they all try to bend the system. We have to be wary of such pressures. 

But this tension exists in every developing democracy. The answer is not to copy the West. The answer is to strengthen institutions in alignment with Indian culture.  We need faster courts, not imported courts.  We need local self-government with funds and functionaries, not just elections.  We need a free press that is also responsible.  

A flawed democracy that delivers is better than a perfect democracy on paper. India’s democracy is noisy, messy, and alive. That is the asset. In a world tired of authoritarian efficiency, the world is watching if democracy can deliver development. If India proves it can, we become a model. 

Diversity: Unity in Complexity: Almost every country is diverse today. But India is diversity in its purest form. One nation, 28 states, 22 official languages, 1000+ dialects, 6 major religions, every major cuisine and every kind of geography. Europe was monolithic for 300 years — one race, one religion, one language. Globalization is now forcing diversity on them, and they are struggling - riots in Paris, debates in Berlin, populism in Rome. 

India has been managing diversity for 5000 years. Not by erasing differences, but by accommodating them. Some time ago, a multi-party delegation from Sweden came to India on my invitation to study how we manage multi-culturalism. They were stunned. Not because we are perfect, but because we have not broken. 

The challenge is to keep different social segments in harmony. That requires two things: respect for multiple identities and equality of opportunity. If we get this right, India will teach the world the most needed skill of the 21^st century: how to live together differently. Diversity is not a burden. It is a social good. It makes us creative, resilient, and globally relatable. That is soft power no superpower can buy. 

Demography: The World’s Skill Capital: People are the ultimate asset. And India has them. We are now the most populous country. More important, we have the world’s largest youth population. 65% of Indians are below 35. While China, Japan, Germany, and Korea are ageing, India is getting younger. The world knows this. That is why Germany, Japan, UAE, and others have signed MoUs with India for skilled manpower. This is our moment to become the world’s “Skill Capital.”  Not just IT engineers, but also nurses, welders, teachers, caregivers, semiconductor technicians, green energy workers. 

But demography is not destiny. It is a choice. If we don’t skill them, this dividend becomes a disaster. So, we must invest in three things: Education: NEP implementation with industry linkages, skilling: 1 million apprenticeships every year, Mobility: Safe migration, social security agreements, dignity abroad. If India can supply talent to the world with quality and character, we will have friends in every parliament and boardroom. That is real power. 

Market: From “Terrible” to Vibrant: a senior Alcatel official once said: “India has wonderful people, but a terrible market.” That line haunted me. Because it was partly true. Today, India is the 5^th largest economy. By 2030, we will be 3rd. Our market size is next only to China. But unlike China, we are young, open, and democratic. China’s credibility took a hit post-Covid. Its population is ageing. Investors are looking for “China+1.” India can be that +1, but only if we fix the market. 

What does a vibrant market need? Capacity: World-class manufacturing, logistics, ports; Culture: Ease of doing business, contract enforcement, predictable policy; Consumption: Rising incomes, digital payments, aspirational youths; PLI – (Production Linked Incentives) schemes, Digital India, UPI, and GST are steps. But we must go further.  Make it easy to start and close a business. Make Indian standards global standards. Make “Made in India” mean quality, not just cost. When the world’s companies can make money in India and with India, they will back India geopolitically too. Markets create allies. 

Peace & Non-Violence: Gandhi for a world at War: The world is on fire - Ukraine, West Asia, Taiwan Strait, and Africa. In this chaos, where is the voice for peace? The world knows one Indian name for peace: Mahatma Gandhi. Unarguably, Gandhi is not just India’s Father. He is the world’s Apostle of Non-Violence. Yet, it is a pity that India has not taken a visible lead in brokering peace. 

We donate medicines. We send troops for UN peacekeeping. But we don’t lead peace processes. The 21^st century needs a new non-violence. Not just absence of war, but presence of justice. India can champion this. On climate, we talk of “climate justice.” On tech, we talk of “digital public goods.” On conflict, we must talk of “dialogue first.” We must revisit Gandhi at home — in schools, in policy, in conduct. And then take Gandhi abroad — as our doctrine for conflict resolution. The world doesn’t need another superpower with aircraft carriers. It needs a superpower with moral authority. That space is vacant. India can fill it. 

Culture: The Spirit of Synthesis: This is India’s rarest asset. The dominant Western framework is binary: black or white, right or wrong, friend or enemy. India offers a third space. Our culture is not about conquest. It is about synthesis. We absorbed Greeks, Mughals, British — and still remained Indian. We have Advaita (unity of human beings). We have Bhakti and Vedanta. We have multiple truths. 

Swami Vivekananda said it best 130 years ago: “Germany gave Marx. Russia gave the October Revolution. Britain gave Magna Carta. France gave Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. USA gave Free Enterprise. If India has to offer anything to the 21^st century, it is the culture of synthesis.” That is what the world needs today: Synthesis between growth and sustainability, synthesis between tradition and technology, synthesis between national interest and global good. 

A superpower is not defined only by GDP or aircraft carriers. It is defined by the problems it can solve for the world. The world has problems of democracy, diversity, demography, markets, conflicts and war. India has experience in all six. If we leverage these assets with clarity and confidence, the 21^st century will not just have an Indian economy.  It will have an Indian idea.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 31 July 2026

National Government or National Consensus

By Inder Jit

(Released on 23 July 1974) 

Parliament’s Monsoon session has expectedly got off to a sorry start. The Opposition seems determined to exploit the sharply deteriorating economic situation to its maximum political advantage. The Prime Minister’s meeting with the Opposition leaders on Sunday virtually misfired. The Opposition is agitated and bitter and regards Mrs. Gandhi’s renewed call for cooperation to face the national crisis as “yet another exercise in rank hypocrisies and talk”. If the Prime Minister is really serious about cooperation, Opposition leaders say, she should not have insulted them and Parliament by promulgating ordinances on the eve of the session, a practice which, though not barred by the Constitution, has left successive Speakers unhappy. Unprecedented inflation, it is emphasized, has been a continuing problem for months. The heavens would not have, therefore, fallen if the Government had waited a little longer and first consulted the Opposition and, more important, Parliament before launching fresh measures to combat inflation. 

The opposition leaders concede that the nation today faces an economic crisis which in its gravity is no less than any external threat faced since independence. They also agree with Mrs. Gandhi’s broad proposition, as put forward at Bangalore, that the need of the hour is for India to do what every nation does in war-time: mobilize all its resources and forget all differences to defeat the enemy. But they ask: “What will be the basis and form of cooperation? Is Mrs. Gandhi willing to accept the cold logic of the situation? A national crisis can be tackled only by a national will and a national will can be forged only by national Government. Is Mrs. Gandhi willing to form a national Government?” The opposition leaders seek specific answers and do not wish to be taken for a ride again, as during the 1971 war with Pakistan. They then gladly and patriotically offered every cooperation to Mrs. Gandhi who in turn, agreed to put off the impending elections to the State Assemblies by a year and even had a bill drafted for the purpose. But once the war ended, they allege, the agreement was conveniently forgotten... 

Opinion on the desirability and practicability of a national Government at present is sharply divided. The opposition leaders, especially those in the Congress (O), feel that a national government is not only advisable but feasible – and that it alone can effectively deal with the crisis. Mrs. Gandhi, they suggest, should form without delay a government to put through a one-point programme: to wage war on inflation and save the country from chaos. Such a Government, it is further suggested, should be chosen by Mrs. Gandhi on the basis of proven competence and known integrity of individuals. “You cannot allow in black money and hope to fight inflation”, asserted one leader. But ruling Congressmen are equally clear that a national government is impracticable; it would undermine the effectiveness of the administration and accelerate the drift to chaos through confusion and compromises. Acidly remarked a Congress leader: “How do you fight inflation? Surely, there are more ways than one. Which will the national government follow?” 

Most intellectuals and students of parliamentary democracy, who too have been participating in the quiet debate, are inclined to go along with Congress thinking on the subject. They feel that the British parallel does not hold good in our multi-party system. That the country needs today is a strong Government which knows its mind clearly and functions decisively. The proposed national government, they fear, would lack badly-needed cohesion and might only end up in making matters worse. Consequently, they would like Mrs Gandhi to give herself not a national government but a new and effective government. They would also like the Opposition to play its due role in a parliamentary democracy and not turn into drummer plays for the ruling party, and desired by some Congressmen. Parliamentary democracy implies an open and honourable struggle for power. It is, therefore, part of the democratic game that the Opposition should expose Government failures and exploit the situation to its advantage. 

This does not, however, rule out the scope for cooperation and consultation between the Government and the Opposition. Indeed, Parliament provides the proper constitutional forms for such consultation. The great pity is that even after 27 years of freedom there is inadequate understanding of the sensitive mechanism of parliamentary democracy and the fact that it is essentially a government by consultation and debate. Few realize that it can function constructively only when the Government and the Opposition are willing to compromise and accommodate. Consequently, the Government, heady with its overwhelming majority, has repeatedly bypassed Parliament and reduced it to a mere rubber stamp, ignoring that it represents only 45 per cent of the votes polled in the 1971 general election. Even the Congress Parliamentary Party finds itself reduced almost to a big zero. It is seldom consulted and now meets generally twice mainly to hear the leader – on the eve of a session and just before it concludes. 

Most of Parliament’s time is taken up in discussing insignificant matters. Vital or important issues are pushed through without adequate scrutiny or debate. Not long ago, a crucial amendment to the Constitution was rushed through the House in less than a day! Parliament should normally discuss only matters of general policy and leave details to be thrashed out in parliamentary committees. But we have ill advisedly discarded this healthy system. A good few parliamentary committees were set up in Mavalankar’s time. However, these were scrapped and we now have highly-publicised Informal Consultative Committees, which have been debunked as “so much thrash” by none less than Mr. M.N. Kaul, who was Secretary of the Lok Sabha from 1946 to 1964 and, on retirement, was appointed an Honorary Officer of the House in recognition of his services. The informal committees are presided over by Ministers, who usually turn up with a large number of officials and generally give out inane information with an air of great secrecy. No minutes are drafted. 

Thinking people feel that the present economic crisis provides a good occasion for a thorough reappraisal of Parliament’s functioning. If the sovereign Parliament is to exercise vigilance continuously and effectively, we must revive parliamentary committees and adopt a new course to promote meaningful debate. It will, for instance, not be enough to have a general discussion on the three ordinances promulgated to combat inflation. Instead, the Government should in the best traditions of parliamentary democracy come forward with a white paper on the grave economic crisis, spelling out the problem in all its magnitude and putting forward its own ideas and concrete solutions. The white paper should next be discussed by Parliament and finally referred to a special committee representing various parties. This committee would then go into the subject in detail and report back with concrete suggestions for final and approval of Parliament. 

Simultaneously, steps need to be taken to constitute Parliamentary Committees for external affairs, defence, economic affairs, food and agriculture and other subjects. These committees, which would be under the control of Parliament, would enable Parliament at once to exercise vigilance and provide scope for consultations. Such committees are functioning well not only in the U.K. but also in the Soviet Union, visited recently by the Lok Sabha Speaker, Dr. G.S. Dhillon and the Secretary-General. All matters go before these committees which then report back to Parliament. Some reports even feel that India would stand to benefit if the committee system was honestly adopted and Parliament met only two days in a week during the session to discuss matters of general policy and devoted the rest of the week to committee work. Parliament would then utilize its time more usefully. Its control over the executive would tighten. The Government would no longer be able to get away with vague replies and bypass Parliament. India would then get the benefit of at least a national consensus, if not a national government in times of crisis. –INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary                                                                                                                 

New Delhi, 28 July 2026

Batons And Ballot

GEN Z SHOWS WAY

 By Poonam I Kaushish 

“Jhukti hai duniya, jhukane wala chahiye.” The dust, grime and blood of Cockroach Janata Party’s irreverent, fearless, digital Gen Z natives and activist Sonam Wangchuk 37 days sweeping protests that rocked Capital Delhi testified to one simple truth: Equitable, meaningful and quality education. It brought Government to its knees and forced Education Minister Pradhan’s resignation fuelled by NEET paper leaks and little political accountability for breaches that jeopardised future of millions. Reminding Government, that no electoral mandate is a licence for complacency, demanding their haq.

An organic mobilisation far from the rent-a-crowd political spectacle or organisational prowess.  From unemployed, graduate, undergraduate, salespeople to middle aged and old. Youngsters from Arunachal, Dharamshala, girls from UP, boys from Bihar, MP, elite and public universities students mingled amidst the adrenaline of hopelessness or maybe faint hope.

Ladakh stepped out, London rallied, Indore mobilised, Dehradun marched, Hyderabad joined, Mumbai dug-in across geographies for education reforms. Instead they were met with batons, tear gas, pellet injuries, brutal beating and broken trust. What they received from Supreme Court was dismissal: “Don’t waste our time. We are not interested in videos. We don’t have time to see.” Another added, “Don’t drag us into this.”  Sic.

Having spent two days at the protest site, one impression stayed: This was not a gathering paralysed by fear of police intimidation. They did not come seeking charity from the State. They came demanding what they believe already belongs to them: Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Not as concessions dispensed at the convenience of those in power or favours granted in return for political loyalty or silence.

The Government saw a law-and-order problem and offered force. Opposition an opportunity for headlines, offered solidarity and an election issue. After all, nothing unites politicians faster than the smell of a wounded Government. Principles arrive late. Political opportunism never does. In politics, every crisis is somebody else’s opportunity. The Government defended itself. The Opposition discovered its conscience.

Shockingly, the lathis did more than disperse a crowd --- they exposed a political class that celebrates young people only when they are cheering, never when they are questioning. Every Party extols democracy in Opposition and exercises selective amnesia in power. The slogans change; the instinct to suppress dissent does not.

The message was clear: The State answered demands for educational accountability with force, exposing not only Government’s discomfort with dissent but also an entire political class that treats public anger as electoral capital. The BJP-led NDA sought to contain it, Opposition inherit it while youth simply wanted to be heard.

What struck me even more was Gen Z was not asking for miracles. They wanted Government to explain its decisions, honour their promises and accept responsibility when it fails. That is not rebellion. It is the very essence of democratic citizenship.

Alas, the greatest hypocrisy was not the police action, but the sanctimony that followed. Leaders who preached accountability but rarely practise it. Promising jobs, transparency and opportunity before elections, then treat demands as acts of defiance once in office. For many netas public consultation is a campaign strategy; public criticism an inconvenience.

A Government confident of its record, answers questions with facts, not force. And an Opposition that discovers civil liberties only when out of power is no less guilty of political theatre. India’s youth deserve more than speeches, hash-tags and hollow outrage. They deserve leaders who keep their word, institutions that uphold rights and a democracy that listens before it reaches for the baton.

The real message emerging from the streets: Youth are increasingly rejecting the politics of entitlement disguised as generosity and political culture that often treats Constitutional rights as political gifts and accountability as an optional virtue. They are saying, with unmistakable conviction: Don’t patronize, pacify or lecture us. Respect and listen to us. Govern honestly. Deliver what you promised.

The baton might disperse a crowd, but it cannot extinguish an idea whose time has arrived. When a generation ceases to fear authority, and instead insists that authority remain answerable to  people, democracy is not being weakened—it is being reclaimed.

The irony is impossible to miss. Every Party wraps itself in the language of democracy. Every manifesto speaks of empowering youth, creating jobs, encouraging innovation and nurturing aspirations. Election campaigns are saturated with promises that India’s young are its greatest asset. Yet when these young people gather to ask uncomfortable questions, too many Governments instinctively reach not for dialogue but for barricades, prohibitory orders and police deployment. It is a contradiction that has become depressingly familiar.

Look at the duplicity: Every Party discovers virtues of civil liberties only when it’s in  Opposition. Yesterday’s defenders of police action become today’s champions of democratic rights after losing power. Yesterday’s critics of State repression quietly justify identical actions once they occupy Treasury benches. Governments change. The script never does.

This is not merely hypocrisy. It is political opportunism elevated into a governing philosophy. The tragedy is that youth have become unwilling spectators in this cynical cycle. Gen Z questions: Where are jobs? Why does economic growth not translate into employment? Why is merit secondary to connections? Why is accountability demanded from citizens but rarely from leaders?

Queries are met by leaders questioning the motives and youth anger is reduced to conspiracy. No matter if it deepens public distrust as Government attacks the messenger rather than address the message.

Yet, the protest holds out valuable lessons: Government cannot arrest disappointment or barricade aspiration and indefinitely silence a generation that believes its future deserves more than promises repeated at election time and forgotten once votes are counted.

It is imperative to bring education to centre of governance and political discourse. With three years left, the Government must dial down its self-congratulation and start listening. History will judge whether the State and courts finally wake up or whether Gen Z is left to write the next chapter themselves.

While a stringent law to punish those who leak exam papers is good can the problem be solved only with deterrents? The real fix will require changes to how exams are set and administered. Besides, the education system needs to be revamped as we hurtle into AI age. Education can’t be seen in isolation as it has to meet employment expectations also.

It’s a wake call to our leaders as youth are tired of being told they are the future while being excluded from the present. They don’t seek sympathy but opportunity. They don’t ask for favours, they want fairness. The point is simple: Popularity is not immunity, power is not entitlement and accountability is not negotiable.”

Whether this becomes a turning point in our democracy or merely a warning shot will be decided in the months ahead, but one thing is unmistakable: Popularity is not immunity, power is not entitlement and accountability is not negotiable. No Government, however popular, is beyond public challenge. What gives? ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)