When Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un met in Singapore in 2018, the world watched with bated breath. The historic summit promised a breakthrough in U.S.-North Korea relations, with bold commitments and glowing headlines. But within months, the promises fizzled, tensions resurfaced, and the grand spectacle turned into yet another footnote in diplomatic history.
India, too, has had its fair share of high-profile summits—Howdy Modi with Trump, informal Wuhan talks with Xi Jinping, and back-to-back G20 and SCO leadership engagements. These meetings have shaped India’s foreign policy, opening doors to trade deals, strategic alliances, and global influence. But the big question remains: Are these summits truly driving India’s global rise, or are they just diplomatic theatre without lasting substance? Is India building a strong institutional framework to sustain its global momentum, or is it overly dependent on the personal rapport of its leaders?
Summit Diplomacy and India: A Critical Analysis
Summit diplomacy has played a pivotal role in India’s foreign policy, helping the country forge strategic partnerships, manage conflicts, and enhance global influence. However, it also presents challenges, including over-reliance on high-profile engagements and the risk of superficial agreements.
Benefits for India
| Benefit | Impact on India | Examples |
| Strengthened Bilateral and Multilateral Relations | India has expanded its global reach by engaging directly with world leaders. | Example: India’s engagement with the U.S. through the ‘Howdy Modi’ (2019) and State visits has strengthened the Indo-U.S. strategic partnership. |
| Economic and Trade Agreements | Summits have helped India secure FDI, technology transfers, and trade deals. | Example: India signed the India-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (2022) during a summit meeting, boosting trade relations. |
| Strategic and Security Partnerships | Summit diplomacy has played a role in strengthening defense ties, intelligence sharing, and maritime cooperation. | Example: India-France defense summits led to the Rafale jet deal, enhancing India’s air defense capabilities. |
| Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution | High-level engagements have helped defuse tensions and manage border disputes. | Example: The Modi-Xi Jinping informal summits (Wuhan, 2018 & Mamallapuram, 2019) attempted to stabilize India-China relations despite ongoing border tensions. |
| Boosting India’s Global Leadership | India has used summits to assert leadership on climate change, global health, and multilateral governance. | Example: G20 Presidency (2023) allowed India to champion issues of the Global South, including sustainable development and digital transformation. |
Challenges and Limitations of Summit Diplomacy for India
| Challenge | Impact on India | Examples |
| Risk of Superficial Agreements | Many summit-level agreements lack follow-up mechanisms, leading to limited implementation. | Example: The India-China Wuhan and Mamallapuram summits failed to prevent the Galwan Valley clash (2020) despite earlier commitments to peace. |
| Over-Reliance on Personal Diplomacy | Strong leader-driven diplomacy can lead to policy fluctuations with changes in leadership. | Example: India’s relations with Pakistan saw highs and lows under Modi and Nawaz Sharif (2015 Lahore visit) but later deteriorated after Pulwama (2019). |
| Geopolitical Constraints and Strategic Mistrust | Summit diplomacy cannot resolve deep-rooted geopolitical tensions without institutional support. | Example: Despite multiple summits with China, border tensions persist, highlighting the limits of informal diplomacy. |
| Limited Impact on Multilateral Negotiations | While India actively participates in summits, its efforts are sometimes blocked by global power dynamics. | Example: Despite summit engagements, India’s bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat remains unresolved. |
| Symbolic vs. Substantive Gains | Some summits focus more on optics than concrete outcomes, leading to skepticism about their effectiveness. | Example: The BRICS Summits produce many declarations, but real economic cooperation remains limited. |
Institutionalization of Diplomatic Process
Institutionalization of diplomatic processes strengthens foreign policy by making it more structured, accountable, and resilient. By embedding diplomacy within institutions, nations can reduce the risks of impulsive decision-making and ensure that international agreements lead to long-term peace and cooperation rather than just symbolic gestures. India has institutionalized in the following ways:
| Area | Institutional Mechanism | Impact |
| Foreign Policy Formulation | Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) with specialized divisions (e.g., Economic Diplomacy, Multilateral Affairs) | Ensures structured policy-making and coordination across global engagements. |
| Strategic Diplomacy | Think tanks like IDSA, ORF, RIS advising policymakers | Provides research-backed inputs for foreign policy decisions. |
| Economic & Trade Diplomacy | Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements (CEPAs), and FTA negotiations | Institutionalizes trade partnerships beyond summit announcements. |
| Multilateral Engagements | Permanent Missions at the UN, WTO, G20 Sherpa Mechanism | Enhances India’s global presence in decision-making forums. |
| Defense & Security Diplomacy | Strategic dialogues (e.g., 2+2 Dialogue with U.S., Japan), QUAD, IOR Defense Cooperation | Strengthens long-term security partnerships beyond leader-led summits. |
| Diaspora & Cultural Diplomacy | Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, ICCR, Indian Council for Cultural Relations | Institutionalized outreach to the Indian diaspora and cultural promotion. |
Where India Needs to Improve
| Challenge | Gaps in Institutionalization | Needed Reforms |
| Weak Follow-up Mechanisms | Many summit agreements lack dedicated task forces or review mechanisms for implementation. | Establish inter-ministerial monitoring frameworks to track MoUs and agreements. |
| Over-Reliance on Political Leadership | Summit diplomacy often depends on personal engagement of leaders rather than institutional processes. | Strengthen bureaucratic decision-making and empower diplomats to sustain momentum. |
| Bureaucratic Red Tape & Slow Execution | Complex approvals and delays hinder the timely execution of trade and defense agreements. | Streamline procedures through fast-track mechanisms in MEA and related ministries. |
| Limited Global Leadership in Multilateral Forums | Despite participation, India’s leadership in UN reforms, climate change, and WTO negotiations remains reactive. | Proactively shape global agendas rather than just responding to initiatives. |
| Inadequate Public & Economic Diplomacy | India’s economic diplomacy is less aggressive compared to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). | Expand India’s global economic influence through better infrastructure investments and trade blocs. |
Conclusion
While India has made significant progress in institutionalizing diplomacy, further improvements are needed in follow-up mechanisms, bureaucratic efficiency, and multilateral leadership. By enhancing institutional processes alongside summit diplomacy, India can ensure sustained global influence and strategic consistency beyond high-profile engagements.
#BACK2BASICS: About Summit-Level Diplomacy
Summit-level diplomacy refers to high-level meetings between heads of state or government, often conducted to address pressing global, regional, or bilateral issues. These summits serve as platforms for direct negotiation, policy coordination, and diplomatic engagement at the highest levels.
Examples:
- G20 Summit (Global economic coordination)
- BRICS Summit (Emerging economies’ collaboration)
- India-China Informal Summits (Bilateral strategic discussions)
Five Critical Elements of Summit-Level Diplomacy
- High-Level Representation: Involves participation of presidents, prime ministers, or monarchs, ensuring authoritative decision-making.
- Example: Modi-Biden Summit for Indo-US strategic ties.
- Agenda-Setting & Issue Prioritization: Focuses on key economic, security, environmental, or diplomatic concerns.
- Example: COP Climate Summits prioritize global climate action.
- Negotiation & Consensus Building: Provides a space for direct, high-stakes negotiations that can lead to policy breakthroughs.
- Example: Indo-Pakistan Agra Summit (2001) aimed at peace efforts despite eventual failure.
- Bilateral & Multilateral Engagements: Can be bilateral (between two nations) or multilateral (involving multiple countries or organizations).
- Example: QUAD Summit (US, India, Japan, Australia) for Indo-Pacific security.
- Symbolism & Public Diplomacy: Signals diplomatic intent, boosts international image, and reassures domestic audiences.
- Example: India’s participation in G7 Summits showcases its rising global influence.
Summit diplomacy plays a crucial role in shaping international relations, resolving disputes, and forging strategic alliances.
Difference Between Summit-Level Diplomacy and Pseudo Summit-Level Diplomacy
| Feature | Summit-Level Diplomacy | Pseudo Summit-Level Diplomacy |
| Definition | High-level meetings involving heads of state/government for direct diplomatic negotiations. | Symbolic or staged meetings that lack substantive decision-making or long-term impact. |
| Decision-Making Authority | Leaders have real authority to negotiate and finalize agreements. | Often pre-scripted with little room for genuine negotiation or policy shifts. |
| Substance vs. Symbolism | Focuses on concrete policy discussions, economic ties, or security cooperation. | Primarily for media optics, diplomatic signaling, or domestic political gains. |
| Impact on International Relations | Leads to binding agreements, treaties, or diplomatic breakthroughs. | Rarely results in significant policy changes or legally binding commitments. |
| Examples | – India-US 2+2 Dialogue (Defense & foreign policy coordination) – Indo-Pak Lahore Summit (1999) (Peace-building effort) – G20 Summits (Global economic strategies) | – Trump-Kim Jong-un Hanoi Summit (2019) (Failed negotiations, no agreements) – Indo-China Informal Summits (Wuhan, Mamallapuram) (No formal treaties, mostly optics) – SAARC Summits Post-2016 (Minimal progress due to regional tensions) |
Key Takeaway:
While summit-level diplomacy results in substantive outcomes, pseudo summit-level diplomacy is often limited to symbolism, diplomatic signaling, or media spectacle, without tangible policy changes.
