Former Foreign Secretary. Ex-Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France & Russia. Chancellor, JNU. 700+ op-eds. The Sibal Brief: https://xitter.cf/t.co/Thbsk97LGE
New Delhi, India
Joined August 2020
- Tweets14.7K
- Following340
- Followers108K
- Likes30.2K
Pinned Tweet
For someone who started a war with Iran with destructive international consequences, who calls the Iranians scum and a cancer and wants to bomb them back to the Stone Age, supported Israel in its destruction of Gaza, still participates in a proxy war on Russia, kidnapped the serving head of state of a sovereign country and grabbed its oil, wants Greenland, the territory of an ally etc, to claim he is the most eligible candidate ever for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a parody.
He implicitly endorses Pakistan’s threat to use nuclear weapons against India by repeating Shehbaz Sharif’s claim Trump saved 30 to 50 million lives in Pakistan’s conflict with India.
This means Pakistan was ready to use nuclear weapons, had worked out targets in India and estimated the casualties.
Sharif has now officially in a message to Trump on the 250th anniversary of the US applauded him for saving hundreds of millions of lives. The figure has ballooned.
India has a No First Use doctrine which Pakistan rejects despite India proposing an agreement on this. India would not have used nuclear weapons first.
Instead of deploring Pakistan’s nuclear threat inherent in Sharif’s statements, Trump is legitimising it politically.
No concern about millions of Indian lives lost because of Pakistan’s nuclear madness.
Instead, Trump capitalises on Sharif’s pandering to his vanity to lay claim to the Nobel Peace Prize.
Can’t read the full article but the gist as posted by the journal shows once again the ugly face of the British establishment media . They just can’t stomach a rising India under a strong and confident leadership. They want to stoke turmoil in India and see an opportunity.
Narendra Modi’s party had used sleazy political tactics and its control of institutions to break up rival state parties and lure away their lawmakers. Voters accepted that. Under dispute now is whether the game itself is fixed economist.com/asia/2026/10/1…
These UN experts are really not on the UN staff. The have merely a UN stamp and speak for themselves. They are activists in their own right with their political and social prejudices.
This is the explanation the UNHRC gives:
“Special Rapporteurs/Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.”
This is serious flaw in the working of the OHCHR. These activists speak for themselves but create the impression that that speak for the UN.
#India
“We call on the authorities to immediately cease the use of excessive force, rescind blanket assembly bans, and refrain from the misuse of digital surveillance, including through biometrics, and internet disruptions.”
- @UN_SPExperts
buff.ly/GxuUI2e
Making up for the earlier rather terse and demanding readout by State Dept of Rubio- Jaishankar talks?
.@SecRubio’s second trip to India this year focused around two major hubs of finance, energy, and culture: Mumbai and Jamnagar.
The U.S.-India relationship is central to U.S. security and prosperity. This visit underscores our commitment to commercial investment, energy cooperation, and the strategic partnership between our two democracies.
Foreign backers of cockroaches want street demonstrations in India to continue.
UN experts called for an independent investigation into Indian authorities' conduct in a recent crackdown on protests, where they said demonstrators had sustained injuries and some reported being subjected to ill-treatment reut.rs/4iaP2oq
This is an unfortunate comparison. Equating US relationship with Pakistan with that of India with Iran does not stand scrutiny.
Iran is not our “ Major non- NATO Ally”.
We have not armed Iran for regional balance.
The US has supplied F16s and AMRAAMS to Pakistan.
We have not had any role in Iran developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan has.
The US has countenanced Pakistan going nuclear.
US knows the long history of Pakistan using terrorism against India as state policy. It sheltered Osama bin Laden for years. It was the godfather of the Taliban etc. The US has declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and comprehensively sanctioned it. No such action against Pakistan.
The US has now sanctioned India’s participation in the Chabahar project but does not oppose the CPEC and Gwadar.
Marco Rubio on Pakistan:
In the case of Pakistan, it's a country that we have to have a relationship with. It's a country that possesses nuclear weapons.
It's a country that, from a geographic standpoint, we need to be able to interact with them, in much the same way as the government of India has to have and has a relationship and meets with leaders from Iran.
So these are difficult things to balance, but they have to be as part of our foreign policy.
Kanwal Sibal retweeted
Aha! This is fresh news.
No wonder that as UNHCR, she didn't let out a squeak against brutal Chinese oppression of Uighurs!
Sunita Williams was not traducing India on human rights violations at a very sensitive moment when our backs were against the wall in J&K.
On top of that, her calumny of India was when the UPA was in power.
In October 2025 in an interview with the Hindu to a question whether countries including India were guilty of abetting genocide by supplying arms to Israel she said it would be a matter of shame if India is found complicit in supplying arms to Israel.
This persistence in criticising India for not congratulating her and calling it double standards is puzzling. @ShashiTharoor
Sorry, when UPA was in power.
Sunita Williams was not traducing India on human rights violations at a very sensitive moment when our backs were against the wall in J&K.
On top of that, her calumny of India was when the NDA was in power.
In October 2025 in an interview with the Hindu to a question whether countries including India were guilty of abetting genocide by supplying arms to Israel she said it would be a matter of shame if India is found complicit in supplying arms to Israel.
This persistence in criticising India for not congratulating her and calling it double standards is puzzling. @ShashiTharoor
Those who doubt the foreign hand backing the attempted street turmoil in India, here is some evidence.
These UN busybodies are out of control and have no mandate to pronounce on internal matters of sovereign countries.
The policy on such matters is made by the UN Human Rights Council where India has a say.
This liberty that these experts take is a flaw in the working of the UN Human Rights system in Geneva.
Sunita Williams was not traducing India on human rights violations at a very sensitive moment when our backs were against the wall in J&K.
On top of that, her calumny of India was when the NDA was in power.
In October 2025 in an interview with the Hindu to a question whether countries including India were guilty of abetting genocide by supplying arms to Israel she said it would be a matter of shame if India is found complicit in supplying arms to Israel.
This persistence in criticising India for not congratulating her and calling it double standards is puzzling. @ShashiTharoor
. Our government has hailed every other foreign citizen of Indian origin who has won a Nobel or other global distinction. It cheered @Astro_Suni’s return to earth. Most Indians shared that sense of identification and vicarious pride. No one worried about what passport they held. Why the double standards now?
The inordinate length of this post shows how insecure this supposedly Singapore based AI assisted Chinese anonymous handle feels about India’s rise and hence this broadside.
Regional Power, Global Pretender: India’s Great Power Illusion
From 1962 to Quad: Washington’s Favorite Sidekick
I wrote this article after chancing on a post by Kanwal Sibal claiming “We should not belittle ourselves (India) by classifying ourselves as a middle power”. See image attached.
So here we are again, folks, with the eternal question: Is India a Great Power? Spoiler alert—no. At best, India is a regional power, a convenient pawn for Washington to wave around whenever it needs someone to “balance China.” The U.S. pats India on the back, whispers sweet nothings about “shared democratic values,” and then quietly reminds itself: “Hey, didn’t China thrash India in 1962? Yeah, let’s keep them around as our junior partner.”
The 1962 Border War: India’s “Great Power” Reality Check
Let’s start with the elephant in the room—or should I say the dragon. In 1962, India strutted onto the Himalayan stage, puffed up with Nehru’s rhetoric about “non alignment” and “moral leadership” but unfortunately he has an Intelligence Chief that told him erroneously that the PLA will not react if he occupy the disputed region on the Chinese side of the border. Then China showed up, slapped India across the mountains, and sent its army running downhill faster than Bollywood plot twists.
That war was India’s baptism of fire—and humiliation. A supposed “Great Power” doesn’t get thoroughly defeated in its own backyard. Yet India did. And ever since, the U.S. has been dangling India like a battered sword, hoping it can still scare China. Spoiler: it can’t.
Economy: Big Numbers, Small Reality
Yes, India has a massive population. Yes, it has a big GDP in aggregate. But per capita? Still scraping the bottom compared to actual great powers. A billion people with smartphones doesn’t equal industrial depth. India’s economy is like a Bollywood set—flashy on the outside, hollow scaffolding inside.
Great powers build aircraft carriers, hypersonic missiles, and AI ecosystems. India builds call centers, software outsourcing hubs, and WhatsApp forwards. The U.S. loves to hype India’s “potential,” but potential doesn’t win wars or shape global orders.
Dependent of Remittances from Overseas Indian Workers
India’s “Great Power” fantasy collapses when you look at its rural economy, propped up not by industrial might but by remittances from overseas workers. And not the glamorous expat elite—think construction workers, kitchen help, and labourers sweating in the Gulf. Their wages flow home through the underground Hundi network, untaxed and invisible, because many are working without proper visas. The untaxed remittances complicate GDP estimation for the rural economy and inflate it during recession.
A supposed global power shouldn’t rely on shadow finance from illegal migrant labour to keep villages afloat. Yet India does. Great powers export technology; India exports cheap manpower. That’s not sovereignty—it’s dependency dressed up as pride.
Military: Import Nation
A true great power makes its own weapons. India buys them. Russia sells India jets, France sells it Rafales, Israel sells it drones, and the U.S. dangles Patriots and F 21s like candy. India’s military is a Frankenstein’s monster stitched together from foreign suppliers.
Imagine calling yourself a great power while begging Moscow for spare parts and Paris for upgrades. That’s not autonomy—that’s dependency. And dependency is the opposite of power.
Technology: The Missing Link
India likes to brag about its space program—“We put a probe on the Moon!” Sure, but so did China, Russia, and the U.S. decades ago. Great powers dominate cutting edge tech: AI, quantum computing, aerospace, cyber warfare. India? It’s still trying to figure out how to keep its domestic chip industry alive.
Meanwhile, Indian IT firms are busy fixing bugs in American software while China is building sovereign AI ecosystems that empower the world. That’s not great power behavior; that’s subcontractor behavior.
Geopolitics: The Junior Partner
Here’s the kicker. India’s role in global geopolitics is basically: “Be the sidekick.” In BRICS, it’s the cautious one. In the Quad, it’s the hesitant one. In U.S. strategy, it’s the “swing state”—translation: useful, but not decisive.
Washington loves India because it’s not China. That’s it. India is the “Not China” option. The U.S. doesn’t see India as an equal partner; it sees India as a convenient counterweight. A regional power to poke Beijing, nothing more.
The Pretender Syndrome
India talks like a great power but acts like a middle power. It waves its population size like a trophy, but when push comes to shove, it can’t project decisive power beyond South Asia. Its navy is still struggling to dominate the Indian Ocean, let alone the Pacific. It’s 2 aircraft carriers are nothing but glorified floating platform, as they lack air wings as India is still waiting for the delivery of Rafael M fighter jets, which will probably not come till after 2035 as France is prioritizing NATO’s requirement in the event of a war with Russia.
China builds Belt and Road; India builds excuses. China builds infrastructure across continents; India builds bureaucratic bottlenecks. China shapes the global order; India debates whether it should even show up.
Why the U.S. Loves This Setup
For Washington, India is perfect. Big enough to look impressive on paper, weak enough to stay dependent, and insecure enough to cling to American approval. The U.S. doesn’t need India to be a great power—it needs India to be a regional foot soldier in its rivalry with China. Think of India as the geopolitical equivalent of the junior recruit in a military drill. The U.S. is the seasoned commander, China is the rival competitor across the field, and India is the eager soldier who stumbles in the first skirmish but still insists it’s “part of the campaign.”
The 1962 Lesson Still Echoes
India’s defeat in 1962 wasn’t just a military loss—it was a strategic revelation. It showed that India’s ambitions outstripped its capabilities. And sixty plus years later, not much has changed. India still talks big, still gets flattered by Washington, and still lacks the hard power to back it up. Not surprisingly India is still afraid to release the 1963 Indian Army’s Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report outlining why India suffered the catastrophic defeat by China.
Great powers don’t get used as pawns. They set the board. India is still a pawn, sometimes promoted to knight when Washington feels generous, but never the queen.
Conclusion: India the Regional Power
So, let’s cut through the rhetoric. India is not a Great Power. It is, at best, a regional power—a South Asian heavyweight that can balance Pakistan, poke at China, and provide Washington with a convenient talking point.
But global power? No. India lacks the economy, the military autonomy, the technological depth, and the geopolitical leverage. It remains a junior partner, a subcontractor, a sidekick.
And until India stops sending its men overseas to work as cheap labourers, stops importing weapons, stops outsourcing its tech talents, and stops clinging to Washington’s approval, it will remain what it has been since 1962: a regional power that talks like a giant but gets humbled whenever the real giants step onto the stage.
Point made in the article about big Indian corporates becoming assets for Indian foreign policy is valid.
But the corporates should also not be allowed to become so powerful as to control politics and government policy , as is the case in the US with the military- industrial complex.
While US waiving sanctions on Russian diesel- to be reviewed after 60 days Rubio now says- gives us reprieve but there are uncertainties ahead.
This is a tactical decision by the US in view of the mid- terms. The current US administration has shown repeatedly that it can change its position.
The temporary lifting of sanctions on Russia does not mean that pressure on India to buy more energy from the US and less from Russia will end.
Let us not assume a stable, longer term change in US policy on Russian oil.
No change of heart here, only opportunism.
On US Sec of State Rubio’s visit to the Reliance refinery in Jamnagar, and the power of capital in diplomacy
indianexpress.com/article/op…
Kanwal Sibal retweeted
NYT: "Surging exports and the industrial production needed to sustain them kept China’s economy growing over the past three months, even as consumer spending stagnated and investment plunged. The result is an economy increasingly dependent on selling goods abroad, even as domestic demand deteriorates."
NYT's Keith Bradsher gets this right. Many other analysts have been presenting this year's economic data as describing a two-track economy, with a sluggish domestic economy being balanced by a brilliant export economy.
But that is a very poor description of what is actually happening. Yes, net exports are surging, but this isn't a sign of a viable export sector. If the export sector were very profitable, it might make sense to describe it this way, but exports aren't especially profitable except in relation to domestic sales, where except in a few sectors businesses are struggling to make any profit at all, and once direct and indirect subsidies are backed out, much of China's exports are net value destroyers for the economy, with the losses capitalized on balance sheets in the form of surging debt.
When an economy produces far more than it can absorb through domestic consumption or investment, it must either export the balance or close down domestic production. Given how high real unemployment is, especially among the young, Beijing has no choice but to force the former, even if this comes at an economic cost.
The surge in China's net exports, in other words, is not a sigh of a strong and profitable export sector. If it takes rising debt, continued subsidies, and growing exports in order to prevent a contraction in domestic production, the surge in net exports is simply another way of describing weak domestic demand.
Surging exports are usually a good sign for an economy. Surging net exports usually are not.
nytimes.com/2026/10/18/busin…
China is feeling nervous and insecure.
What happened to the Global Development Initiative?
A supposedly different way of dealing with other countries with no hegemonic ambitions?
China on Monday refined export controls on UAVs, dredgers and high-end engineering equipment, setting clearer technical thresholds while streamlining procedures for some widely used civilian products. The targeted approach aims to reduce misuse risks, strengthen end-use management and safeguard national security, while facilitating compliant trade and maintaining stable global industrial and supply chains.
globaltimes.cn/page/202610/1…
This lady whose Nobel Peace Prize you want to celebrate not only never condemned Pak sponsored terrorism against India but also could not bring herself to decry Pak role in the Mumbai terror mayhem in 2008.
Worse, she said this -absolving Pak of any role in this attack and suggesting it was local. Shameful:
"Whenever there is an act of terrorism, one points fingers at neighbouring countries, thereby absolving oneself of all responsibility... Terrorists need not be from outside; they can be home grown. When you accuse others, you fail to take steps to correct the problem at home."
Very useful 101 for those tracking the #NobelPeacePrize Justice Navi Pillay issue...Thanks Editor Varadarajan @svaradarajan
You are misinformed.
UNMOGP has no role on the Indian side. They can’t enter J&K. They have a small liaison office in Delhi which we ignore. We have not expelled them because they are irrelevant.
China attacked us in 1962. Russian veto ended that mischievous move in the UNSC.
Even so, by your date line, for 64 years the UN ignored the Kashmir issue., till 2019 when a mischievous attempt by China fizzled out.
The UNGA hasn’t passed any resolution on J&K.
As for the OIC, which is an Islamic club no one now bothers about, ask yourself why Turkey plays such an active anti- Indian role in it. You took the chairmanship of the OIC contact group on Kashmir.
Beyond all this, in the Simla Agreement of 1972, Pakistan agreed that the Kashmir issue will be addressed bilaterally by the two countries.
The irrelevance of the OIC is exposed on the Palestine issue, recalling it was set up after the Al Aqsa incident. Gaza has been destroyed and the West Bank is under more and more duress.
Key OIC countries have now diplomatic ties with Israel.
As ambassador to Turkey I knew Kandemir,,Ozceri and Sanberk very well. Gentlemen. Constructive. Very friendly towards India.
You seem to be influenced by the dilution of secularism in Turkey and have imbibed Islamism under Erdogan.
Incidentally, I was the equivalent of the Undersecretary in your system.
BM’nin Hindistan-Pakistan Askeri Gözlemci Grubu 1949'dan beri hâlâ sahada. Gündemden düştüğü söylenen bir mesele için epey uzun bir mesai.
Bir meselenin ciddiye alınması için 193 ülkenin rahatsız olması mı gerekiyor? Keşmir 1957'den çok sonra da Güvenlik Konseyi’nin gündemindeydi. 22 Haziran 1962'de Konsey’in 11 üyesinden 7'si Keşmir’e ilişkin bir karar tasarısına evet oyu verdi. Tasarıyı yalnızca Sovyet vetosu durdurdu.
193 üye arasında “kimse rahatsız değil” diye yazdıktan hemen sonra, Bağdat toplantısındaki “tekrarlanan acımasız İİT saldırılarından” şikayet ettiniz. 57 üyeli bir teşkilatın her yıl aynı meseleyi gündeme getirmesi “kimse rahatsız değil” tanımına pek uymuyor.
Eski bir diplomatın daha iyi bilgilenmiş olması gerektiği konusunda haklısınız. Hele ki sizin gibi Dışişleri Müsteşarlığı yapmışsa. @KanwalSibal
This is wishful thinking by the Europeans.
Russia has made its bottom lines clear and they go beyond these two simplistic options.
It is not for Europe alone to decide Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Is there any trust left between Europe and Russia?
Europe has no viable strategy left.
Rearmament and continuing support to Ukraine is a self- created political trap.
The anti- Russian hawkish governments in key European countries are likely to be replaced .
European economies are in trouble and protestors are out in the streets.
This weakens any bargaining power of Europe.
Trump is now openly asking for Zekensky’s ouster.
If that happens Ukraine could well collapse.
From Gideon Rachman’s lack of depth in his columns on India one can ask how seriously one should take what he says about Europe giving a binary choice to Russia on Ukraine.
Siddhart , what would you say to this since the argument is that she was basing what she said on our own NHRC’s reports etc.
She never condemned as UNHCR High Commissioner Pakistan sponsored terrorism against India.
Much worse, she did not condemn Pakistan for the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
Her personal rhetoric on the attack was condemnable. Instead of pointing to external state sponsorship or naming Pakistan, she said this:
"Whenever there is an act of terrorism, one points fingers at neighbouring countries, thereby absolving oneself of all responsibility... Terrorists need not be from outside; they can be home grown. When you accuse others, you fail to take steps to correct the problem at home."
She not only gave a pass to Pakistan, she insinuated this terrorist attack had local origins.
Better than the GOI's silence on Navi Pillay's Nobel Peace Prize is @KanwalSibal attempt to offer an explanation and I applaud him for that.
At the heart of his objection to Navi Pillay's Nobel is his suggestion that she "has a long record of targeting India". This is what he writes:
"She has attacked India on Kashmir and mass graves and disappearances, on AFSPA, on Sexual Violence and New Delhi gang rape(2012), calling for substantial legal and systemic reforms to tackle widespread sexual violence, and Caste and Gender Discrimination (2014)."
Let's break it down.
1. Kashmir mass graves.
This is what a UN press release in Oct 2012 (news.un.org/en/story/2012/10…) said when Pillay was head of the UNHRC:
"The human rights of people living in areas that are the subject of unresolved territorial disputes are also often neglected, she noted, adding that one such example is Jammu and Kashmir in India, where the discovery of 2,730 bodies in unmarked mass graves was confirmed in a 2011 report by the Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission.
“I urge the Indian authorities to fully investigate past killings and disappearances and bring the perpetrators to justice, as well as to ensure protection of witnesses and families of the missing and provide them with redress,” the High Commissioner stated. “These will be critical steps in the ongoing effort to build confidence with the aim of promoting lasting peace and stability in the region.”"
Here, Pillay does nothing more than cite the finding on mass graves of an OFFICIAL INDIAN BODY, the J&K SHRC and urges India to fully investigate. Here is the JK SHRC report (kljp.org/articles/shrc-on-un…). After 2019 the commission was disbanded and it no longer has a website! How is that 'targeting India'?
2. Call to repeal AFSPA. Navi Pillay made this call in 2009. Two years later, another Pillai, Gopal Pillai, former Union Home Secretary, said the same thing. (nagalimvoice.com/news/gk-pil…). Whether you agree or disagree, the call to repeal AFSPA has many, many backers within India and abroad and this position cannot be dismissed as 'anti-India'. The government is free to disregrard these calls, if it wishes.
3. "She has attacked India on ... Sexual Violence and New Delhi gang rape(2012), calling for substantial legal and systemic reforms to tackle widespread sexual violence"
Yikes. Navi Pillay echoed what Indians were saying on the street and whose views Parliament duly took note of by passing a new law that embodied substantial legal and systemic reforms to tackle widespread sexual violence.
4. "She has attacked India on ... Caste and Gender Discrimination (2014)".
Double yikes! He gives the date for 2014 when Navi Pilay made (as far as I can tell) brief and unobjectionable remarks in response to the murder of two Maurya girls in UP, but I found a more complete statement from 2013 which cannot be accused of 'targeting India'. (idsn.org/wp-content/uploads/…). She actually said this, which should please Mr Kanwal Sibal: "India also has far-reaching constitutional guarantees and laws which prohibit castebased discrimination. Most recently, the Union Cabinet in India has cleared the new legislation on manual scavenging, proposing stiff penalties against any public authority or private individual who uses or promotes this heinous practice. With an estimated 90% of Dalit women among manual scavengers in India, the adoption of this law will represent a key step forward in protecting and promoting the rights of Dalit women and it will represent a good practice for other countries where manual scavenging continues to be practiced."
Net-net, the evidence offered to justify India not welcoming Navi Pillay's Nobel Peace Prize is unconvincing.
Please revise and resubmit.
