Jaishankar in Beijing: Just tactical diplomacy or thaw in post-Galwan tensions? | Interview

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s visit to Beijing marks a significant diplomatic turn in the long fraught relationship between India and China. Coming after years of icy tensions triggered by the Galwan Valley clash in 2020, the visit is being viewed as a cautious step toward normalisation. But behind the diplomatic niceties lie unresolved border tensions, trade imbalances, and strategic rivalries. Manoj Joshi, Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation (ORF), weighs in on whether this marks a genuine reset in India-China relations following the Galwan clash. Is Beijing softening its stance —and is New Delhi recalibrating trade priorities in light of rising friction with the US?

How do you assess Foreign Minister Jaishankar’s visit to Beijing in the larger framework of India-China ties post-Galwan?

Jaishankar has been the central figure in managing our post-Galwan diplomacy with China. He’s had consistent interactions with his Chinese counterparts over the past five years. The tone of this visit was deliberately modest, with Jaishankar noting that ties are “steadily improving” — a reflection of the incremental progress in resolving border frictions. He reiterated India’s long-standing stance that peace at the border is a prerequisite for any meaningful relationship.

By October last year, both sides had achieved some resolution on the Ladakh issue. Jaishankar made it clear that while trade and global cooperation are important, they cannot come at the expense of border stability. His emphasis on peace, tranquility, and trade sums up India’s current posture — cautious but open to engagement.

Also read: EAM Jaishankar meets Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing

Can we call this visit a thaw or tactical détente between the two countries?

Certainly. When Jaishankar himself says the relationship is “steadily improving”, that’s a diplomatic way of signalling a thaw. It may not be a dramatic turnaround, but it does mark a shift. This could be a prelude to a visit by the Indian Prime Minister to the SCO Summit later this year.

While Jaishankar and his Chinese counterpart have met multiple times, the top leadership hasn’t met since the informal Wuhan Summit in 2018 — except briefly in Kazan in 2024. So this visit is significant in restoring top-level engagement and inching toward normalisation.

Also read: Farmers feel the pinch after China halts specialty fertilisers export to India

What about the other geopolitical complications, like India’s role in the Quad and the Dalai Lama issue? Have those affected China’s diplomatic tone during this visit?

I wouldn’t say there’s been a shift in China’s posture. But it’s important to note that last month, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visited China and was surprisingly blunt. He called for resolving the border demarcation issue, not just managing the Line of Actual Control (LAC) through CBMs (Confidence-Building Measures).

This is the first time in recent memory that an Indian leader has so clearly stated the need for a permanent solution. China responded with diplomatic evasiveness, pointing to the special representatives' mechanism, which has held 23 meetings — the last in December 2024 — but achieved little. So, while the overall diplomatic tone might appear conciliatory, key structural issues remain unresolved.

Also read: Jaishankar in China: Need to address de-escalation, build on progress in ties

Given recent US tariff threats and Jaishankar’s visit happening simultaneously, do you see India trying to diversify trade ties away from Washington?

The tariff threats from the US target both India and China. While China and the US have reached some kind of framework, India is still negotiating. But there’s a shared realisation that with such unpredictability from Washington, it’s prudent for India and China to stabilise their economic relationship.

Yes, there’s competition too. India aims to replace China in low-cost manufacturing. But ironically, we still depend heavily on China for industrial inputs and skills. Take the iPhone facility near Chennai — many of its components and even skilled labour come from China. There have been reports of China restricting that skilled labour flow.

So while the US and China are both central to India’s economic outlook, the dynamics differ. With China, we suffer a massive trade deficit. With the US, we enjoy a trade surplus. Our challenge is twofold: push China to import more Indian goods and increase imports from the US to balance expectations.

Is it accurate to say the trust deficit with China is fading? Or does it still deeply affect bilateral ties?

The trust deficit is very much intact. Our relationship was anchored in a series of agreements — 1993, 1996, 2005, and 2012. All of those were thrown out the window in 2020. That breach created a massive trust void.

We are now in the phase of repair, which is always long and difficult. Trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild quickly. We’re trying, but it’s going to take time and sustained effort.

What about China’s involvement in arming Pakistan, especially during Operation Sindoor? Can India realistically rebuild trust in that context?

China has been arming Pakistan since the 1980s. It’s not new. As for reports of Chinese involvement during Operation Sindoor, many of them are likely exaggerated. Yes, China sees Pakistan as an “iron brother”, and their support complicates our strategic environment.

But I doubt China wants to get directly involved in India-Pakistan issues. They’ll continue their military cooperation with Pakistan, but there’s a limit. We must factor in their role, but not overstate it.

(The content above has been generated using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)