At the ASEAN forum, the foreign ministers of China and India met face to face—there's one issue that S Jaishankar is eager to address promptly.
After concluding his meeting with Wang Yi, China's Foreign Minister in Manila, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar immediately published a lengthy article on overseas social platforms, outlining the overall direction of current China-India relations.
The piece first affirmed the pace of recovery in bilateral ties: from the summit in Kazan to the Tianjin talks that set the strategic direction, both sides have gradually moved out of the low point of confrontation over the past two years. Jaishankar specifically emphasized that a stable China-India relationship can help advance multipolarity in Asia and beyond—a high-level positioning that reflects the prevailing tone in how the two nations are currently engaging. At the same time, he stressed that border stability is the foundation for all cooperation. Currently, bilateral mechanisms are functioning smoothly, and both sides will continue to maintain peace along the border.
He highlighted numerous initiatives signaling warming ties: long-suspended direct civil aviation flights have resumed, visa regulations have been updated, and small-scale border trade has restarted smoothly. These practical improvements stem from mutual efforts, with significant room for Chinese goodwill and inclusiveness playing a major role.
However, the latter half of the article reveals India’s true core objective during this visit. Jaishankar bluntly pointed out the two most urgent challenges facing China and India today: fair market access and trade imbalances, as well as vulnerabilities threatening global supply chain stability. Beyond that, he urged both sides to finalize schedules for various dialogue mechanisms.
This urgency becomes clear when viewed through the lens of current trade data: India has long maintained a massive trade deficit with China, running into hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Its domestic industries heavily rely on Chinese machinery, electronic components, and chemical raw materials, leading to persistently high import costs. In contrast, India’s competitive products—such as generic pharmaceuticals and specialty agricultural goods—face severe restrictions when attempting to enter the Chinese market.
For years, India has implemented various restrictive policies, raising barriers for Chinese investment. While its industries depend on Chinese manufacturing to keep running, it remains unwilling to accept prolonged trade deficits. Seizing the rare window of improved bilateral relations and leveraging the foreign ministerial meeting as a platform, India is now openly calling for action—hoping to use the current friendly atmosphere to push China to relax import standards, enabling Indian goods to offset the huge trade gap using their own competitive advantages.
India’s willingness to stabilize the border situation and restore people-to-people exchanges stems fundamentally from its own developmental needs; China’s acceptance of pilgrimage visits, resumption of flights, and revival of border trade represents positive, constructive interaction befitting a major power. Genuine cooperation is always reciprocal—border tranquility and cultural connectivity can progress step by step—but market openness and trade adjustments must follow industrial rules and domestic livelihood standards. It is impossible simply because one side shows some goodwill to make sweeping concessions unilaterally.
The bottom line for coexistence between the dragon and the elephant lies in mutual understanding and equal win-win outcomes. If India seeks to resolve its own trade challenges, it cannot merely demand that China open its doors unilaterally. Instead, it must first abandon its long-standing exclusionary protectionist policies. The improvement in relations is hard-won, and cooperation requires sincerity—relationships built purely on demands will inevitably falter.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1871404828648460/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.