New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent interview with American podcaster Lex Fridman earned an unlikely fan—China.
Experts tell Global Times that Modi’s remarks are a “pragmatic approach” to bilateral relations because they acknowledge that “cooperation and competition can coexist”.
In the article, Modi’s call for strengthening ties with China reflects pragmatic approach: expert, Global Times reporter Liu Xin notes that not only did he underscore that India and China can engage in “healthy and natural competition”, but he also highlighted the deep historical and cultural ties between the two.
“His remarks align with the broader trend of bilateral ties returning to a path of stable and healthy development,” the article says, quoting Tsinghua University academic Qian Feng.
Qian pinpoints the summit in Kazan as the turning point for bilateral relations. There have been “positive strides” since then. Global Times offers an example: in December 2024, India and China agreed to maintain communication through diplomatic and military channels. After years of standoff, the border issue has finally returned to a stable and manageable state, it says.
“At the same time, China and India are at different stages of development, and competition in emerging industries is unavoidable,” experts tell Global Times as a cautionary caveat.
“However, as long as this competition remains fair, constructive, and regulated, it can serve as a catalyst for both countries to strengthen their own growth and development. Competition is not a challenge to avoid but an opportunity to seize.”
Global Times goes on to highlight “contradictions in India’s China policy”: On Sunday, Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi said China’s rise hampers India efforts to position itself as a leader in the “Global South”.
“Dwivedi’s remarks reflect the trust deficit in China-India relations, despite recent positive momentum. They also highlight the contradictions in India’s China policy—while India seeks to expand economic cooperation with China, it remains strategically ambivalent, carefully balancing engagement with geopolitical caution,” Global Times says.
Others, however, haven’t taken so kindly to Modi’s remarks. Pakistan’s ‘FO rubbishes Modi’s ‘misleading and one-sided’ remarks on regional peace,’ Dawn reports.
Pakistan’s foreign office issued a statement regarding the podcast, taking issue with the fact that Modi neglected to talk about the Kashmir dispute while discussing India’s ties with Pakistan.
“The remarks are misleading and one-sided. They conveniently omit the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, which remains unresolved for the last seven decades despite India’s solemn assurances to the United Nations, Pakistan and the Kashmiri people,” the statement said.
The Foreign Office called it a “fictitious narrative of victimhood”, Abdullah Momand reports for Dawn.
“Instead of blaming others, India should reflect on its own record of orchestrating targeted assassinations, subversion and terrorism in foreign territories,” the foreign office said.
The foreign office also expressed frustration at the constant “anti-Pakistan” rhetoric used in India, adding that “it must stop.”
The New York Times writes about another unlikely friendship: between Modi and billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates.
In ‘Nary a Critical Word: Bill Gates’s Close Bond With Narendra Modi,’ Anupreeta Das reports that the two have “developed an unusually warm and high-profile relationship in the past decade.”
Offering reasons for why that might be, the article notes, “India is central to Mr. Gates’s philanthropic work, which makes it essential for the Gates Foundation to stay on the good side of a government that has cracked down on organizations backed by foreign donors. With the vast number of Indians in dire poverty, global development goals cannot be met without progress in India.”
On the other hand, for Modi, an endorsement from Gates is part of the legitimacy he longs for. Gates is the “face of the computer age to many Indians,” and his technological legacy could help seal the Modi government’s digital economy.
“Globally, the recognition from Mr. Gates brings attention to Mr. Modi for his development work rather than his Hindu nationalist politics. Domestically, the relationship has potential political benefits for Mr. Modi,” the NYT reports.
It claims that many political and business leaders have embraced India while turning a blind eye to the Modi government’s “assault on the country’s secular foundations, its demonisation of India’s Muslim minority and its silencing of civil society.” But anyway, Microsoft and India have deeper ties in Satya Nadella.
“Several people with knowledge of the foundation’s affairs said some employees were unnerved by Mr. Gates’s embrace of Mr. Modi, arguing that the foundation could have pursued its goals and aligned with the government’s objectives without Mr. Gates’s becoming a cheerleader for the prime minister,” NYT reports.
The Financial Times reports that HSBC and UBS are expanding their wealth management arms in India after a “listings boom minted a new class of millionaires”.
In ‘HSBC and UBS expand India wealth management arms after IPO boom,’ Krishn Kaushik and Chris Kay report that a record year of IPOs in 2024 created this new class of wealthy Indians, prompting big banks to start offering bespoke services and cater to wealthy households.
Wealth under management is only expected to triple to over $850 billion in the next five years, the report says.
“Global banks view their advantage as serving clients in the Indian diaspora and those interested in overseas investments,” FT says. “Sandeep Batra, HSBC India’s international wealth head, said in January that the bank was ‘aiming to be the preferred international bank for India’s affluent and globally mobile Indians’.”
India’s also a “top investment destination for clients, especially as rules only allow Indians to invest up to $250,000 outside the country,” FT reports.
“Demand for multifamily offices is growing across the country,” one expert told the FT.
“It’s unbelievable,” another expert said. “There is so much activity that you will feel bad for not being there.”
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: Jaishankar’s ‘icy tongue’ on a changing world order & his take on US foreign policy
It’s really sad to note that it’s a Hindu (Ms. Anupreeta Das) who talks negative about the Hindutva ideology and it’s flag bearers.
Ms. Das happens to be an alumni of the prestigious LSR college in Delhi and started her career in journalism with the Indian Express.
Hindus like her are the ones vilifying Hindutva, RSS, Modi and Yogi in international media.
One can understand the Muslims’ hatred for these “Kafirs” but it’s hard to understand what drives Hindus to defame and malign their fellow brothers. Are they willing to stoop to any level just to please their masters at the WSJ and NYT? Just for the sake of their career and money, are they willing to vilify India and it’s society?