Ex Mumbai Police chief Param Bir Singh and his ‘tryst with controversies’ ::: Don-Cop nexus also nothing 'unusual' about Mumbai

 Ex Mumbai Police chief Param Bir Singh - his ‘tryst with controversies’

At times controversies come chasing you as a leopard whose stripes remain unchanged. Strangeness is an elementary feature.

CBI has now named him in the case related to the controversial death of Disha Salian.  

Singh was in news in 2020 after the "relentless media investigations" and journalistic-trial with regard to the mysterious death of young Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput.

Mumbai's encounter specialist Daya Nayak - 2003 snap  

In 2025 (July 29th) controversial Daya Nayak was promoted as ACP. 

Three others - Pandurang Pawar,  Deepak Dalvi and Jivan Kharat were also promoted. 

The city police commissioner had come at the receiving end of a political attack after the Supreme Court handed over the high profile probe into Sushant’s death – given out as suicide – to the CBI.

In the past too, Singh, 1988 batch IPS officer, had courted controversies.

Sadhvi Pragya, who was jailed for Malegaon blast, had named Param Bir Singh along with Hemant Karkare (who died in Pakistani terrorist siege on Nov 26/2008) and Suvarna Shinde for torturing and manhandling her to extract some ‘false confession’.  

However, in a dramatic turn of events on March 17, 2015, when BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis was the state Chief Minister -- the state Govt had promoted Singh as Thane police commissioner reportedly “ignoring” the seniority of three others.

 

When Uddhav Thackeray – heading Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance regime made Singh the police commissioner of Mumbai, the talk in the town was that the foundation for the same was laid by Fadnavis himself. 

After all it is said that the police commissioner in the satellite city of Thane is only a stepping stone to head the cops in the country's commercial and entertainment capital – Mumbai Mayanagari.

Singh also had other controversies. As chief of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), he had given a clean chit to the incumbent Deputy Chief  Minister Ajit Pawar in the much talked about irrigation scam.

Param Bir Singh 

On to a different plane, but important facet of policing in India.

A few years back when history-sheeter Vikas Dubey of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, was finally held in Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh and killed near Kanpur in a police encounter; many things related to cop-criminal relationships surfaced.

But the neta-criminals' nexus is nothing new in Indian socio-political canvas.

More than a decade back in Mumbai, encounter specialist Daya Nayak case had thrown lights on the cops-don nexus. The episode put the Mumbai's elite crime branch in poor light.

In fact, Daya 'enjoyed celebrity status' and there have been many films including legendary Nana Patekar-starred ‘Ab Tak Chhappan’ based on life and police career of Daya Nayak. 

Mumbai's encounter specialist (Daya) first made news in 2003 when a former journalist Ketan Tirodkar accused Daya of having links with the underworld and carrying out ‘killing spree’ at the directives of dons. 

Daya was alleged of amassing wealth disproportionate to his income. 

Nayak was investigated by the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). In 2006, Nayak was arrested during an investigation led by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) ACP Bhim Rao Ghadge. 

However, it was alleged that Daya was framed and in 2010 a Court quashed all the MCOCA charges against him. 

Together with the Telgi stam paper scam which also threw shady lights on police role in Maharashtra, there came a serious allegation that Daya Nayak was minting money for taking instructions from gangster Chhota Shakeel. 

Yet again, the date December 1, 2003 had turned an important day for Mumbai police. The then city commissioner of police R S Sharma - a day after his retirement - otherwise would have been relaxing with family members and friends.

But that was not the fate stored for him. On the first day after he took out his police boots, he was taken into custody.

Sharma's arrest was in connection with the Telgi stamp paper scam and prior to him Joint Commissioner of Police Shridhar Wagal was also held under MCOCA for aiding and abetting Abdul Karim Telgi in the running of his infamous syndicate.

There were other instances in Mumbai. There was a fiasco with regard to the Mohd Afroz case when police applied POTA – apparently in haste and later withdrew the day the Vajpayee government debated the new anti-terrorism law in a joint sitting of Parliament.

Political influence had bothered professionals in the police force. 

At one point, a former Mumbai police commissioner Rony Mendonca wrote a lengthy letter after his retirement to the Deputy Chief Minister Chhagan Bhujbal.

"...when you found I was not willing to comply with your (Bhujbal's) wishes you resorted to posting officers directly. I was left with no choice but to voluntarily seek a shift from the post of commissioner of police," Mendonca had written.

Of course there were scores of such cases in Gujarat specially during 2002 anti-Muslim mayhem when the cops in general sense were  allegedly standing in solidarity with the 'majority community'.

In 1998-99, the National Commission for Minorities made news in embarrassing the BJP-led Vajpayee government, particularly in the context of attacks on Christians and the panel had said that in many cases in different states, the police seemed to look the other way.

In the Gujarat context, a serving senior police official in Uttar Pradesh in May 2002 (during the peak of mayhem) - Vibhuti Narayan Rai - had written a letter to several police officials lamenting point blank: 

".... not only was the police unsuccessful in containing the violence ….. but it seemed that in many places policemen were actively encouraging the rioters".

Mumbai riots of 1992 

In general sense, experts say Indian policing system needs reforms - something which has been pending for the last many decades.

In fact, it goes without saying that the police always appear to be in an adversarial relationship with the common citizens. This was a true pan-India scenario cutting across all regions and state boundaries.

The public perception of a policeman or even a policewoman is that of an intimidating, highhanded personality who puts people in illegal custody and resorts to third-degree methods.

Vibhuti Narayan Rai had written that the police failure and inaction (including in Gujarat) ought to be seen primarily "as a failure of the (police) leadership" itself.

"The failure of the police should not be attributed to lower ranks but must be seen as a failure of the leadership, that is the failure of the IPS (cadres)," Rai had said in his missive.

With regard to policing history in India, in most cases, it has been found that either the state DGP would be a dedicated 'Man Friday' to the state Chief Minister(s) or they would have had 'regular' running feuds.

In the words of Mumbai-based lawyer and NCP leader, Majeed Memon, constitutionally a state DGP is accountable to -- "law and law only" and not to any Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister.

But this fact of the law book has seldom made a difference in independent India and wherever and whenever a few individuals were at loggerheads with political bosses and civil bureaucracy, they have been unceremoniously replaced.

Several committees and experts have recommended a fixed tenure for state DGPs so that they need not fear 'transfer' at the whims and fancies of the political masters.

Justice B.N. Srikrishna Commission on the Mumbai riots of 1992-1993 had spoken rather explicitly about strong communal feelings of the men in khaki.

"The working of the Special Investigation Squad is a study in communal discrimination. The officers of the squad  systematically set about implicating as many Muslims and exculpating as many Hindus as possible irrespective of whether they were innocent or guilty. 

Cases of many Hindus belonging to the Shiv Sena, Rashtriya Utsav Mandal (a local branch of Hindutva outfit) were wrongly classified as 'A' category and investigations closed," said the report.

No wonder, various police services in the country are generally viewed as far more amenable to political control and manipulation.

Justice B N Srikrishna 

It is worth mentioning here that M.N. Venkatachaliah, former Chief Justice of India and former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, had in one of his reports pointed out that nearly 

--  60 percent of all arrests in India made by police were unnecessary and unjustifiable.

However, it may not be fair to say that the police force or the entire system has failed.

Former Mumbai police commissioner Mendonca had summed it up well in an interview with this scribe way back in 2004 that : 

".....the irony remains that police also do good work. But despite having done a good job and often bringing crime rate down like in Mumbai, fighting underworld dons and averting threat perceptions for film stars, the Mumbai cops have only earned flak".

This is precisely the story in most states if not all ! 

Policing is certainly one of well known thankless jobs!

Well, most of it is though not the making of cops in middle ranks. 

It has been rather the complicity of cops' leadership - the elite IPS cadres - and political influences that has ultimately brought their image to such a receiving end.

Of course, Param Bir Singh was once hailed for taking on Don Arun Gawli. 

But it was alleged in 2008-09 by the then Mumbai police commissioner, Hasan Gafoor, that during the November 26, 2008 (26/11) siege of Mumbai,  that Param Bir Singh – as the IGP - was found guilty of dereliction of duties.

In fact, Singh’s father Hoshiyar Singh was furious about such a charge against his son and had moved court against Gafoor in Chandigarh.

Nevertheless, a probe panel constituted by the Congress-NCP regime had found fault with Gafoor and passed stricture against him for the 26/11 fiasco.

    

Perhaps the row against Param Bir Singh will take some more weeks and months to settle down. 

Nana Patekar in film based on Daya Nayak's career and life 

Ends

“Kya Kashmiri Pandit ko apne ghar jaane ka mauka milega?” ::: Why and How ?? '-- The Kashmir Files' became uncomfortable for many ???

 The Kashmir Files and the uncomfortable question

'The Kashmir Files' in 2022, written and directed by Vivek Agnihotri. The film presented a fictionalised narrative centred on the persecution and displacement of Kashmiri Pandits. It brought the subject of the community’s suffering and displacement into the centre of mainstream political and cultural debate.

One question emerging from the film’s narrative was particularly uncomfortable:

“Kya Kashmiri Pandit ko apne ghar jaane ka mauka milega?”

Will the Kashmiri Pandit ever get an opportunity to return home?

And, more fundamentally, what does justice mean for a community that was displaced from its homeland? For decades, these questions received comparatively limited space in mainstream popular culture.

The emergence of films dealing explicitly with the subject therefore represented a shift in India’s cinematic discourse.

Shah Rukh Khan’s son and the politics of celebrity

Bollywood’s relationship with politics and public morality has also been tested by controversies involving its own stars. When Aryan Khan, son of actor Shah Rukh Khan, was arrested in connection with a 2021 drugs case, sections of public debate quickly moved beyond the legal proceedings.

Supporters argued that the case was being used to target the actor and his family, while others insisted that the legal process should be allowed to take its course. The episode demonstrated another feature of contemporary India: the intersection of celebrity, politics, identity and social media can transform a criminal investigation into a national political argument almost overnight.

The controversy eventually became part of a much larger debate about selective outrage, privilege, law enforcement and the politics of celebrity.

Nepotism and the Sushant Singh Rajput debate

The death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput in 2020 opened another Pandora’s box. 

The ensuing debate over nepotism, the influence of film families and the opportunities available to outsiders became one of the most intense cultural controversies in contemporary Bollywood.

The issue was not simply whether star children should be allowed to enter the industry. It was about whether an industry that claims to celebrate talent provides equal opportunities to those without influential family connections.

Bollywood would perhaps prefer to forget much of the controversy. But the debate fundamentally altered the way many Indians viewed the industry’s internal structures.  

Pakistan on the Hindi screen

The portrayal of Pakistan is another fascinating chapter.Politics

One analysis cited in discussions of  Bollywood representation noted that Pakistan featured in 20 films examined, with 18 portraying Pakistanis as welcoming, courteous, open-minded or courageous — a depiction that could differ sharply from the  political and security realities between the two countries.

Again, fiction is not journalism.

A filmmaker is not obliged to reproduce geopolitical reality exactly. But the cinematic representation of India’s neighbour has often reflected the  politics of the particular period in which a film was produced.

There was also a period when Pakistani artists could work in India with relatively few barriers.

Zeba Bakhtiar appeared in Heena. 

Pakistani singer Meesha Shafi worked in Bhaag Milkha Bhaag. 

Pakistani actor and cricketer Mohsin Khan also appeared in Indian cinema and married actress Reena Roy. 

Saba Qamar appeared in the critically acclaimed Hindi Medium.

Naseeruddin Shah, meanwhile, acted in the Pakistani film Khuda Ke Liye in 2007, alongside prominent Pakistani performers including Fawad Khan, Shaan and Iman Ali.

Om Puri also worked in Pakistani cinema.

Shilpa Shukla, before becoming widely recognised as Bindiya in Chak De! India, appeared in the Pakistani film Khamosh Pani.

Cinema crossed borders even when politics could not.

The politics of nationalism changes Bollywood :: The political climate has changed considerably in recent years.

Today, one of the principal criticisms directed at sections of Hindi cinema is that they are undergoing “saffronisation”.

Yet the history is more complicated.

The patriotic cinema of Manoj Kumar was hardly new. Films built around nationalism, sacrifice and the idea of Bharat have existed for decades.

What has changed is the political environment surrounding such films.

Under Narendra Modi, patriotism has acquired renewed cultural visibility.

Films such as 'Uri: The Surgical Strike' became major commercial successes, while more recent productions such as the 

Dhurandhar films have openly addressed Pakistan’s intelligence establishment and themes of national security.

Whether one likes this genre or not, it represents a significant change from the dominant cinematic narratives of earlier decades.  

Nearly 80 years after Independence, it is worth asking a rather uncomfortable question: How has Hindi cinema portrayed India’s  religious communities, castes, politicians and social institutions over the decades?

It is a long period in the life of a country. It is equally a long period for an industry that has grown into one of India’s biggest cultural and economic enterprises.

The journey takes us back to Dhundiraj Govind Phalke, popularly known as Dadasaheb Phalke, whose films based on Hindu religious figures helped lay the foundations of Indian cinema.

Phalke’s Raja Harishchandra and Lanka Dahan became major successes. 

Moving images of Hindu gods and mythological characters on the screen, battling evil and delivering moral messages, immediately struck a chord with audiences.

Yet cinema evolved.

There came the era of Raj Kapoor, Guru Dutt, Bimal Roy, Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Satyajit Ray and many others. 

Hindi cinema gradually moved beyond mythology to explore the aspirations, frustrations and contradictions of middle-class India.

But alongside this evolution came another phenomenon: the portrayal of India’s religions, castes and communities through recurring stereotypes.

What did an IIM Rohtak study find?

A study attributed to IIM Rohtak Director Dheeraj Sharma, examining Bollywood films made between 1960 and 2010, has been cited for its findings on how different communities were represented on screen,

Among the reported findings were:

58% of corrupt politicians had Brahmin surnames.

62% of corrupt businessmen had Vaishya surnames.

88% of Sikh characters were portrayed as laughable.

74% of Muslim characters were portrayed as strongly religious and honest.

78% of promiscuous female characters had Christian names.

The figures, if cited, need to be understood as an analysis of film characters and cinematic representation, not as a description of the real-world behaviour of any religious or caste group.

But the broader question remains relevant: Why did particular stereotypes become so familiar to generations of Indian film audiences?

And why was the Hindu character so often represented as a corrupt politician, a dubious businessman, a criminal in saffron robes or an orthodox priest, while characters belonging to minority communities were frequently given more sympathetic roles?Action & Adventure Films

The Muslim character as the good Samaritan

Hindi cinema developed a particularly recognisable template.

The Muslim character was often the generous neighbour, loyal friend, sympathetic police officer, honest tailor, benevolent old man or self-sacrificing figure who came to the aid of the protagonist.

Sanjeev Kumar and Jaya Bahaduri : 'Sholay' 

In Sholay, for instance, the village imam is portrayed as a deeply emotional and morally serious character willing to make a tremendous personal sacrifice.

Similarly, the number 786 acquired a distinctive cinematic symbolism.

In Deewaar, Amitabh Bachchan’s character questions God and rejects conventional religious belief. Yet, in one of the film’s memorable coincidences, the number 786 on a bullet box helps save his life.

Cinema was, of course, using symbolism.

But symbolism repeated over decades can eventually become a cultural vocabulary. 

And where was the Hindu character?

The contrasting stereotype was sometimes equally predictable. A Hindu holy man, temple priest or saffron-clad character could be presented as corrupt or complicit with criminals.

The question is not whether filmmakers had the right to create such characters. They certainly did.  The question is whether the frequency and consistency of such portrayals created an imbalance in the cinematic representation of Indian society.

Cinema has enormous cultural power. Millions of Indians encountered their first images of different communities not through direct social interaction but through films.

That makes representation important.

Sikh characters and the comedy stereotype ::::: Sikh characters also suffered from a familiar cinematic treatment. 

The turban and beard became visual shorthand for comic relief. “Sardarji” jokes became part of popular culture, and Sikh characters were often presented as lovable but foolish or comical figures.

There were exceptions, of course.

But stereotypes can survive precisely because they are repeated so frequently that audiences stop noticing them.

The same applies to caste representation.

If a particular caste is repeatedly associated with corruption while another community is disproportionately associated with virtue, cinema is not merely entertaining audiences. It is also constructing a social imagination.   

From Hrishikesh Mukherjee to Satyajit Ray

There was, meanwhile, another side to Indian cinema that should not be forgotten.

Hrishikesh Mukherjee provided a window into the Indian middle class. His films captured ordinary people’s frustrations, family relationships, humour and aspirations without requiring grand  political messaging.

In 'Kissi Se Na Kehna', for example, everyday social situations become the source of humour.

The period also reflected the language of an India negotiating modernity, tradition and changing social norms.

Comedian Keshto Mukherjee’s famous observation — 

“Yeh milavat aur banavat ka hi zamana hai” — captured a society increasingly conscious of pretence and appearances.

Then came films such as Shakti Samanta’s An Evening in Paris, which reflected another transformation in Hindi cinema: glamour, modernity, international locations and changing representations of women.

Raj Kapoor, the USSR and India’s cultural diplomacy 

Raj Kapoor became an icon not only in India but also across the former Soviet Union.

His films travelled well beyond India’s borders.  Yet in the international cultural hierarchy of the time, Satyajit Ray occupied a different position.

'India Today' wrote in 2000 that Satyajit Ray had become a national icon who was showcased to the world “in a way that no Indian art personality ever had been.”

Ray’s films received serious international critical attention, including substantial reviews in publications such as The Times.

Indira Gandhi was also known to organise private screenings of Ray’s films for foreign dignitaries. This was cinema functioning not merely as entertainment but as India’s cultural diplomacy.

From Phalke to the present

The journey from Dadasaheb Phalke to contemporary Bollywood is therefore not a simple story of progress or decline.South Asians & Diaspora

It is a story of changing India.

Phalke used  religious mythology to establish a new visual language.

Raj Kapoor carried Indian cinema across borders.

Hrishikesh Mukherjee captured the middle-class imagination.

Satyajit Ray transformed India’s standing in global cinema.

Manoj Kumar turned patriotism into a cinematic vocabulary.

Amitabh Bachchan’s “angry young man” represented the frustrations of another India.  And today’s filmmakers are increasingly confronting terrorism, nationalism, Kashmir, Pakistan, identity politics and ideological conflict.

The charge of “saffronisation” will continue.

So will the counterargument that earlier Bollywood was itself shaped by ideological preferences, including particular approaches to secularism, minority representation and caste. 

Perhaps the more useful question is not whether Bollywood was ever completely neutral.  It was not.

Cinema has always reflected the politics, 

anxieties and 

aspirations of its time. 

The real question is whether today’s Indian film industry can create a more balanced representation of the extraordinary complexity of Indian society — where a Muslim character need not always be the noble friend, a Sikh need not always be comic relief, a Christian need not automatically be the benevolent saviour, and a Hindu need not routinely be the corrupt priest or politician.

India is too complicated for such stereotypes.

And perhaps Indian cinema, after more than a century, is finally beginning to understand that.

One and only Satyajit Ray 

ends 

Aaditya Thackeray, Rhea Chakraborty named in CBI FIR in Disha Salian death case ::::: ".. criminal conspiracy, propagation of false suicide story"

The CBI has named Aaditya Thackeray, Rhea Chakraborty, Dino Morea and Sooraj Pancholi among those whose roles require investigation in Disha Salian's death case. The FIR also names Uddhav Thackeray, Showik Chakraborty, Sachin Waze, ex-Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh and others, following the Bombay High Court's direction for a thorough probe.   

The CBI has named Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray and his father, former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, among the people whose roles require investigation in connection with the death of Disha Salian, according to the FIR registered following a Bombay High Court direction for a thorough probe into the circumstances surrounding her death.

The FIR also names actors Dino Morea and Sooraj Pancholi, along with Rhea Chakraborty and her brother Showik Chakraborty, among those whose roles require investigation in connection with the commission of the principal offences, criminal conspiracy, the subsequent creation and propagation of the false suicide story, and the suppression, destruction and/or fabrication of evidence.  

According to the FIR, the list also includes 

Aaditya Thackeray's bodyguards, former Mumbai cops Sachin Waze 

and 

former police commissioner Param Bir Singh, 

DCP Vishal Thakur, 

the then Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, and several other serving or former police personnel.

The CBI FIR further names officers associated with Malvani Police Station, doctors and staff linked to the delayed post-mortem, and officers of the Forensic Science Laboratory in Kalina, including Assistant Chemical Analyser NP Bhale.     

DISHA SALIAN'S FATHER NAMES PEOPLE FOR PROBE

Following the court's direction, Salian’s father, Satish Salian, said he had shared details of the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s death with investigating authorities and expressed confidence that the probe would begin soon.

Satish said he had provided investigators with the names of several people whom he wanted authorities to examine.

“I stated the facts exactly as they were; I told them everything that happened to my daughter. 

I listed all the names: Aditya, Sooraj Pancholi, 

Dino Morea, and the bodyguards. They noted everything down,” he told a news agency. 

The CBI's decision to register an FIR comes after the Bombay High Court directed the agency to investigate the case. During an earlier hearing, a Division Bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande raised questions over the fact that only an ADR had been registered despite claims by Salian’s family that she had been murdered.

The court also noted that Salian’s family had not been provided copies of her post-mortem report and the ADR even five years after her death.

The FIR also names security guards of Regent Galaxy Building, including Sushil Kumar Yadav and Shivmurad Gautam alias Munna, as well as several other individuals. 

It additionally refers to senior members of the SIT and other senior police officers under whose supervision the earlier investigation or inquiry was conducted.

The FIR lists several other individuals and unidentified persons whose roles, it says, require investigation in connection with the alleged offences and the subsequent alleged cover-up.

BRICS is important ... but New Delhi Summit throws up yet another missive - and not so hidden -- The RIC Equation Returns -- India alongside China and Russia

 The RIC Equation Returns

The Modi-Putin-Xi photograph inevitably revived discussion about the RIC — Russia, India and China triangle.

The three countries have historically represented major poles of Eurasian power, although their strategic interests have frequently diverged.  India’s current approach is different from the alliance politics of the Cold War.

New Delhi wants Moscow and Beijing to remain important partners without allowing either relationship to dictate India’s wider foreign policy choices. This is the essence of strategic autonomy.

The emerging BRICS architecture, therefore, may not represent a conventional anti-Western bloc. Rather, it is becoming a platform through which major emerging economies seek greater room for manoeuvre. 

The shift has been visible since the 2024 BRICS Summit hosted by Russia and continued through Brazil’s 2025 presidency. Under India’s 2026 chairmanship, the Delhi Declaration has reinforced the importance of consensus despite deep differences among members.

The Modi government has repeatedly maintained that India stands for peace, dialogue and diplomacy while avoiding alignment with rival geopolitical camps.

That approach was visible again at the Delhi Summit.

A day earlier, Modi was photographed holding hands with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Putin and Xi were also central to the summit’s diplomacy. The message was unmistakable: India intends to engage with different centres of power rather than choose one geopolitical camp.

Modi had earlier said that “this is not the era of war.” In August, he expanded that formulation while speaking with Putin, arguing that the world should move from an “endless war” towards an “end of war.”

The approach has helped India maintain dialogue across difficult geopolitical divides. 

BRICS and the New Global Order

The larger question is whether BRICS is becoming an alternative pole in global politics.

The answer is more complicated than a simple yes or no. BRICS members have different political systems, economic interests and strategic partnerships. Yet they share concerns about the concentration of economic and institutional power in Western-led structures.

The Delhi Summit has demonstrated that these countries can still reach consensus on selected issues.  India achieved a similar diplomatic feat at the 2023 G20 Summit, when members agreed on a consensus declaration despite major differences over the Ukraine conflict.  

At the Delhi BRICS Summit, Modi’s outreach to Xi and Putin, China-Russia support for a greater Indian role at the UN and consensus on terrorism point to a changing geopolitical landscape.Geographic Reference

Prime Minister Modi’s carefully choreographed engagements with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Delhi BRICS Summit have produced a powerful visual and diplomatic message: 

India is seeking to work simultaneously with Moscow and Beijing while retaining its strategic autonomy.  

A photograph of Modi standing between Putin and Xi, holding hands with both leaders during a light-hearted moment, quickly became one of the defining images of the summit.

The image speaks beyond symbolism. It reflects the growing importance of the Russia-India-China (RIC) equation within a wider BRICS framework that is increasingly challenging assumptions about the existing global order.  

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday, urged India and China to join hands to strengthen BRICS cooperation during bilateral talks with Modi.

There was also significant diplomatic messaging for India and Brazil.

China and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power, reiterated support for India and Brazil to play a greater role in the United Nations, including at the Security Council.

According to the Delhi Declaration, BRICS leaders reiterated their support for a “comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council.”

Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal described the development as “a big deal”, particularly in the context of China’s position and its implications for Pakistan.

The broader message is that Beijing appears willing, at least within the BRICS framework, to support language favouring reform of global institutions and a greater role for emerging powers.  

Xi-Modi Meeting After Galwan

The Modi-Xi bilateral was particularly important because it marked their first bilateral meeting on Indian soil since the 2020 Galwan Valley clash.

Xi said India and China could learn from each other’s strengths and pursue shared development. Beijing, he indicated, viewed ties with New Delhi from a strategic and long-term perspective.

The two leaders also agreed that differences should not become disputes.  They discussed strengthening business ties, improving mobility and addressing concerns surrounding the structural trade imbalance and supply-chain issues. India also stressed the importance of “meaningful and predictable market access.”

The language reflects a cautious attempt to stabilise relations after years of tension. Yet India’s engagement with China is not a strategic surrender.  

New Delhi continues to maintain pragmatic partnerships with the United States, European countries, Japan and other Western partners.

ends 

Unpredictable conduct of Trump and "uncertainty" in their own relationship with US would take India and China 'much closer' in times to come

During the drafting of the 'New Delhi Declaration' at the BRICS Summit. the challenge was bigger than simply finding consensus on a few paragraphs.

"Aur Karib aa jao" -- Come much closer than we are today -- spirit will make BRICS Delhi Summit 'relevant and refreshing' in times to come.  

Malaysian Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, added a Bollywood flavour to his visit to India as he broke into Kishore Kumar’s iconic song 'Khwab Ho Tum Ya Koi Haqeeqat' from the 1965 film 'Teen Deviyan'.

Malaysian PM adds a new 'Kishore Kumar' flavour to BRICS 

 The line in the song -- "देर से कितनी दूर खड़ी हो, और करीब आ जाओ" sounded most relevant. 

This was paradoxically more true for India-China relations than between New Delhi and Kualalumpur. 

Now; the decline in India-US ties mark a reversal after years of growing closeness, in large part stemming from their mutual interest in countering China. 

As many as six years after a deadly clash on their mountainous border sent relations between India and China into a deep freeze, Chinese president Xi Jinping came to New Delhi and was an active participant -- shaking hands with PM Narendra Modi and Russian president Vladimir Putin. 

The well perceived 'uncertainty' in each country’s own relationship with the US is a major factor for the same.

India has to readjust in geo-strategic sense as both China and India have been particular targets of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. New Delhi was further as he tried to  promote Pakistan and its army chief. One of the clearest signs of that 're-evaluation' came in 2025, when PM Modi traveled to China for the first time in seven years for SCO meet.

The Indo-US ties was one of the strong points of reference globally since the time of Bill Clinton. It received a big booster during Obama-Manmohan Singh when civil Nuke deal was inked.  

Even under Modi - things continued. Modi handled Obama as well as Joe Biden well despite challenges. Trump too was okay during his first tenure. 

But all that changed in 2025.  Now India’s ties with America have deteriorated sharply over matters that included rancor over India’s purchases of Russian oil and tariffs.  U.S. President Donald Trump made the remark “lost India…to deepest, darkest China” on social media in September 2025 after photos emerged of Narendra Modi laughing with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit.  

In September 2026, this has been taken to the next level.  Time and again, the Delhi Summit gave a message that --

Modi, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have 'pledged' mutual cooperation and also would take a lead in taking the BRICS forward as a powerful non-west bloc.

 

Blogger 

The rivalry between India and China, the world’s largest democracy and largest authoritarian state, dates to the founding of their modern nations in the 1940s. 

They went to war in 1962 and have had several border standoffs.

For China, better ties improve stability on a border that touches two regions where Beijing has long struggled to stamp its full control, Tibet and Xinjiang, 

China has issues about the US. The prospect of improved ties between Washington and Beijing is undercut by the possibility that New Delhi could shift its alignment closer to the US once Trump is out of office.

"There are some signs that the world’s two most populous nations, which also compete to represent the interests of developing economies, are trying to take some baby steps forward on the economic front," says an article in Wall Street Journal.  

 

After the 2020 conflict, India banned Chinese apps. 

New Delhi also made it impossible for Chinese firms to invest in India and increased regulatory scrutiny of those firms that were operating in the country. 

But China's robust position as a manufacturing hub is crucial.

India will need the world’s largest manufacturer if it wants to boost Indian manufacturing. 

India is still a largely untapped market for Chinese consumer goods.

There is room for the countries to do more on the trade. However, there are questions whether the fundamental nature of their relationship would be impacted.

China has a deep relationship with India’s rival Pakistan and this may still continue.