By_shalini oraon
the potential implications of Prime Minister Modi’s likely absence from the ASEAN summit in Malaysia.
—
A Strategic Pause: Decoding Modi’s Likely Absence from the ASEAN Summit and its Geopolitical Message
In the intricate dance of global diplomacy, the presence of a leader at a multilateral summit is a powerful symbol of commitment. Their absence, however, can be an even more potent signal. The recent reports indicating that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is unlikely to attend the ASEAN-India Summit in Kuala Lumpur next week have sent ripples through diplomatic circles. While officially attributed to “scheduling conflicts” and parliamentary commitments, this decision, if confirmed, is far from a simple diary clash. It is a nuanced diplomatic maneuver that speaks volumes about India’s evolving foreign policy priorities, its current geopolitical stance, and a subtle recalibration of its much-vaunted “Act East” policy.
At first glance, skipping a summit dedicated to a region central to India’s strategic and economic ambitions seems counter-intuitive. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) lies at the heart of India’s “Act East Policy,” a cornerstone of its foreign policy for over a decade. The region is crucial for trade, security cooperation, and counterbalancing China’s influence. However, a deeper analysis reveals that Modi’s potential absence is not a dismissal of this importance, but rather a strategic choice reflecting several converging factors.
The Domestic Imperative: A Parliament in Crucial Session
The most immediate and officially cited reason is the ongoing Winter Session of the Indian Parliament. This session is particularly significant, as the government is expected to push through a heavy legislative agenda. In a parliamentary democracy, the presence of the Prime Minister to pilot key bills and face the opposition is paramount. Opting to remain in New Delhi underscores a commitment to domestic governance and signals that nation-building at home takes precedence over diplomatic engagements abroad. This is a politically astute move, reinforcing the image of a leader focused on his domestic mandate, especially with general elections on the horizon in 2024. It demonstrates that foreign policy, while critical, must be balanced against pressing internal legislative priorities.
A Subtle Signal of Diplomatic Recalibration
Beyond the domestic calendar, the absence is being read as a nuanced message to ASEAN itself. India’s relationship with the bloc is robust, but it has also faced certain frustrations. While high on rhetoric, the tangible outcomes of the relationship, particularly in countering China’s economic and military dominance in the South China Sea, have sometimes fallen short of New Delhi’s strategic expectations. ASEAN’s consensus-based approach often leads to a cautious stance on issues directly challenging Beijing, which can limit the scope for a more assertive India-ASEAN security partnership.
By sending a high-level delegation, likely led by the External Affairs Minister, India maintains diplomatic engagement without granting the meeting the top-level political weight of a Prime Ministerial visit. This can be interpreted as a gentle nudge to ASEAN partners, signaling that the relationship needs to evolve beyond symbolism into more concrete, actionable outcomes, especially in areas like connectivity, trade, and maritime security. It is a reminder that partnerships are a two-way street, requiring mutual demonstrable commitment.
The Shadow of Global Conflicts and ASEAN’s Stance
The current global geopolitical landscape, fractured by the war in Gaza and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, adds another layer of complexity. India has walked a delicate tightrope on these issues, balancing its historical ties, energy needs, and strategic partnerships. ASEAN, as a collective, has also often issued cautious or divided statements on these conflicts.
Modi’s absence could be a way of avoiding a forum where he might face pressure to align more explicitly with one side or the other, or where the final joint statement might not fully reflect India’s nuanced position. In a summit setting, a leader’s presence can sometimes force them into uncomfortable diplomatic corners. By participating at a ministerial level, India can convey its stance while retaining greater flexibility and avoiding the high-stakes, direct pressure that a leader might face.
The China Factor and the Quad Dynamics
The ever-present “China factor” looms large over this decision. While India seeks to deepen engagement with Southeast Asia to provide a democratic counterweight to China, it is also acutely aware of the economic and military realities of Beijing’s influence in the region. A Prime Minister’s visit would inevitably be framed in the context of Sino-Indian rivalry.
Furthermore, India’s strategic priorities are also clearly aligned with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) with the United States, Japan, and Australia. The Quad has gained significant momentum, offering a more cohesive and like-minded platform for India to advance its Indo-Pacific vision. Investing diplomatic capital in consolidating the Quad, which operates with a shared strategic outlook, might currently be viewed as a more efficient and impactful use of political bandwidth than a summit with the more diverse and sometimes fractious ASEAN. This is not an “either-or” choice, but a matter of prioritization in a crowded diplomatic calendar.
What Does This Mean for the “Act East” Policy?
Critics might argue that skipping the summit undermines the “Act East” policy. However, it is more accurate to view it as a maturation of that policy. The initial phase was about intense engagement and rebuilding ties. We are now entering a phase of selective, strategic deepening. India is no longer just seeking presence; it is seeking specific outcomes.
The decision indicates a move away from ritualistic attendance at every forum and towards a more result-oriented, interest-based foreign policy. It signals that India is confident enough in its global standing to make tough choices about where its leader’s time is best spent. The “Act East” policy remains a pillar, but its execution is becoming more sophisticated, distinguishing between ceremonial engagement and substantive, high-impact diplomacy.
Conclusion: A Calculated Diplomatic Move, Not a Snub
Prime Minister Modi’s likely absence from the ASEAN summit should not be misinterpreted as a snub or a de-prioritization of a critical region. Instead, it is a multi-faceted diplomatic signal. It underscores the primacy of domestic politics, conveys a subtle message about the need for more substantive outcomes with ASEAN, provides a buffer in a complex global environment, and reflects a strategic prioritization of alliances like the Quad.
In the grand chessboard of international relations, sometimes a move not made is as significant as a move made. By likely choosing to stay in New Delhi, Modi is communicating that India’s foreign policy is assertive, confident, and ultimately driven by a clear-eyed assessment of its national interests, both at home and abroad. The true test will be how this strategic pause is followed up with concrete actions to reassure ASEAN partners and advance the relationship in a more focused and productive direction.