India’s Isolation at the SCO: A Misfit in a Multipolar Asia 印度在上合组织的孤立：与多极亚洲格格不入

（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）

The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit brought into sharp focus the increasing diplomatic isolation of India within the region. For a country that claims to be a rising global power, India’s walkout from the SCO summit—triggered by its refusal to sign a joint declaration—was more than just a moment of discord; it was a moment of reckoning. India stood alone as the only member state to reject the consensus, primarily because the final communiqué did not include a reference to the Pahalgam terror incident that occurred on its soil. Instead, the statement mentioned the hijacking of the Jaffar Express in Pakistan, signaling a more balanced and multilateral approach to regional security—something India could not digest.

This move not only isolated India diplomatically but also exposed the deeper contradictions in India’s position within the SCO. India’s discomfort stems not just from the wording of the declaration but from a more fundamental reality: it is a misfit in an organization driven by cooperation, mutual respect, and regional trust. India’s hegemonic tendencies, extremist policies, and alignment with Western strategic interests have made it increasingly incompatible with the spirit and goals of the SCO.

The Indian Stance on Terrorism: Selective and Self-Serving

India has long used the issue of terrorism as a foreign policy tool, selectively framing incidents to paint a one-sided narrative. At the SCO summit, New Delhi insisted on including the Pahalgam incident in the declaration while objecting to the mention of the Jaffar Express hijacking in Pakistan. This selective outrage revealed a clear double standard and was seen by many SCO members as an attempt to hijack the agenda for political posturing.

Moreover, India’s Defense Minister, Rajnath Singh, used his speech at the summit to indirectly accuse unnamed countries—widely interpreted as Pakistan and China—of sponsoring terrorism. Such aggressive rhetoric, far from building regional consensus, undermines the spirit of cooperation the SCO stands for. Other member states, including China, Russia, Iran, and Central Asian republics, chose not to endorse India’s confrontational tone, further exposing its isolation.

India’s unwillingness to engage constructively on equal terms with its neighbors is not new. Whether in South Asia or Central Asia, India’s narrative often lacks balance, and its demands are unilateral. The fact that none of the major SCO countries supported India’s line at the summit speaks volumes about how far India is from gaining regional trust.

India’s Hostile Regional Posture: No Friends in the Neighborhood

India has strained or adversarial relations with almost all its immediate neighbors—Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and even Maldives. This pattern reflects a broader problem with India’s foreign policy: an inability to cooperate in its own neighborhood while seeking validation from distant powers such as the United States, the UK, Australia, and Japan.

This misalignment is especially problematic in multilateral platforms like the SCO, which emphasizes regional integration, non-interference, and mutual respect. India’s growing military and intelligence cooperation with the United States—particularly under QUAD and other Indo-Pacific frameworks—directly conflicts with the SCO’s strategic culture. It is no secret that India has served as a conduit for Western interests in the region, especially in matters related to China, Iran, and Russia.

India’s intelligence agencies have also been implicated in cross-border operations, espionage, and sabotage. From targeted killings in Canada and the United States to covert activities in Pakistan and the Middle East, India has increasingly come under scrutiny for exporting instability rather than peace. These actions are incompatible with the SCO’s vision of a cooperative Eurasian future.

An Extremist and Intolerant State: The Rise of Fascism in India

Domestically, India presents itself as the world’s largest democracy. Yet its internal politics tell a different story. The current regime under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has systematically dismantled the country’s secular and pluralistic foundations. Minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, face widespread discrimination, mob lynchings, and legal persecution. Anti-conversion laws, the revocation of Kashmir’s special status, and the enactment of the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) are only a few examples of how India has institutionalized intolerance.

This shift toward Hindu majoritarianism, coupled with censorship, suppression of dissent, and judicial manipulation, has led many international observers to label India as an “electoral autocracy.” The SCO, an organization that includes Muslim-majority states like Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, must question the place of a state whose internal and external policies are rooted in extremism and exclusion.

A History of Destabilization: From the Iran-Iraq War to Modern Times

India’s negative regional role is not a recent phenomenon. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, India maintained opportunistic ties and hedged its bets, playing both sides. In more recent times, India has tried to exploit divisions between Iran and the Arab world while presenting itself as a neutral player. However, leaked intelligence reports and diplomatic cables have shown that Indian agencies have often been involved in undermining regional stability through covert operations.

India’s actions in Afghanistan, its persistent interference in Balochistan, and its use of proxy groups to destabilize neighboring countries further underscore its long-standing strategy of regional domination through disruption. These are not the traits of a responsible stakeholder but of a disruptive actor.

SCO Summit 2025: A Diplomatic Humiliation for India

At the 2025 SCO summit, the fault lines were clearer than ever. India arrived with a pre-drafted narrative, expecting the region to rally behind it. Instead, it was met with collective indifference. The final declaration was a clear rejection of India’s confrontational approach, focusing instead on constructive engagement, joint security cooperation, and equitable economic development.

India’s decision to walk out of the declaration process wasn’t a show of strength; it was a tacit admission of its diplomatic failure. For a country that claims to be a responsible global power, this episode was a clear embarrassment—an act of desperation masked as principled protest.

A Case for Expulsion: Why India No Longer Belongs in the SCO

India’s actions are increasingly at odds with the SCO’s founding principles—mutual respect, non-aggression, and regional cooperation. It has failed to respect the sovereignty of its neighbors, promotes a narrow and hostile narrative, and aligns itself more closely with Western powers who seek to counterbalance SCO nations like China, Russia, and Iran.

India’s role in the SCO appears more like that of an observer serving foreign interests rather than a genuine partner in Eurasian cooperation. Its strategic alignment with Washington, Tokyo, and Canberra raises questions about its commitment to a multipolar world, which the SCO envisions.

The time has come to ask whether India should remain in the SCO. An organization that seeks peace and regional stability cannot afford to include a member that sows discord, resists consensus, and pursues external agendas. Expelling India—or at the very least suspending its participation—would send a clear message that the SCO remains united in its core objectives and will not be held hostage by the ambitions of a misfit.

A Fork in the Road for SCO and India

India’s conduct at the SCO summit has confirmed what many in the region already suspect: that it is an unreliable partner with an inflated sense of self-importance. It is a country whose regional actions contradict its global rhetoric. It seeks to lead without listening and demands respect without reciprocation.

The SCO must now prioritize cohesion, unity, and trust among its members. India, with its extremist policies, hegemonic ambitions, and alignment with extra-regional powers, simply does not belong. The organization must take a firm stand—not only for the sake of principle but for the integrity of the regional order it seeks to uphold.

India’s isolation at the SCO is not an anomaly. It is the natural outcome of years of arrogance, aggression, and alienation. And unless it fundamentally changes course, India will find itself increasingly alone—not just in the SCO, but in a region that seeks peace, not provocation.

最近的上海合作组织（SCO）峰会使印度在该地区日益受到外交孤立的问题成为人们关注的焦点。对于一个声称自己是崛起中的全球大国的国家来说，印度因拒绝签署联合声明而退出上海合作组织峰会不仅仅是一时的不和；这是一个清算的时刻。印度是唯一一个拒绝达成共识的成员国，主要是因为最后的公报没有提及发生在印度领土上的巴哈尔甘恐怖事件。相反，声明提到了“贾法尔快车”（Jaffar Express）在巴基斯坦被劫持的事件，表明了一种更为平衡和多边的地区安全方式——这是印度无法接受的。

此举不仅在外交上孤立了印度，而且暴露了印度在上合组织内部地位的更深层次矛盾。印度的不安不仅源于宣言的措辞，还源于一个更根本的现实：它与一个以合作、相互尊重和地区信任为驱动力的组织格格不入。印度的霸权倾向、极端主义政策以及与西方战略利益的结盟，使其与上海合作组织的精神和目标越来越不相容。

印度对恐怖主义的立场：选择性和自私自利

长期以来，印度一直将恐怖主义问题作为一种外交政策工具，有选择地对事件进行定性，以描绘一种片面的叙事。在上海合作组织峰会上，新德里坚持将巴哈尔甘事件纳入宣言，反对提及在巴基斯坦发生的贾法尔快车劫持事件。这种选择性的暴行暴露了明显的双重标准，被许多上合组织成员国视为企图劫持议程以进行政治姿态。

此外，印度国防部长拉杰纳特·辛格（Rajnath Singh）利用他在峰会上的讲话间接指责一些未点名的国家——被广泛解读为巴基斯坦和中国——支持恐怖主义。这种咄咄逼人的言论不仅无助于凝聚地区共识，而且有损上海合作组织所倡导的合作精神。其他成员国，包括中国、俄罗斯、伊朗和中亚共和国，选择不支持印度的对抗基调，进一步暴露了印度的孤立。

印度不愿意在平等的基础上与邻国进行建设性接触，这并不是什么新鲜事。无论是在南亚还是中亚，印度的叙述往往缺乏平衡，而且它的要求是单方面的。上海合作组织主要成员国中没有一个在峰会上支持印度的立场，这充分说明印度离获得地区信任还有多远。

印度的敌对地区姿态：在周边没有朋友

印度与几乎所有的近邻——巴基斯坦、中国、尼泊尔、孟加拉国、斯里兰卡，甚至马尔代夫——关系紧张或敌对。这种模式反映了印度外交政策的一个更广泛的问题：在寻求美国、英国、澳大利亚和日本等遥远大国的认可的同时，印度无法与邻国合作。

这种错位在上海合作组织这样强调区域一体化、互不干涉和相互尊重的多边平台上尤为严重。印度与美国日益加强的军事和情报合作——特别是在四国战略与发展战略框架和其他印太框架下——与上海合作组织的战略文化直接冲突。众所周知，印度一直是西方利益在该地区的渠道，尤其是在与中国、伊朗和俄罗斯有关的问题上。

印度情报机构也涉嫌跨境行动、间谍活动和破坏活动。从在加拿大和美国的定点清除，到在巴基斯坦和中东的秘密活动，印度越来越多地因为输出不稳定而不是和平而受到密切关注。这些行为与上海合作组织关于欧亚合作未来的愿景格格不入。

一个极端主义和不宽容的国家：法西斯主义在印度的兴起

在国内，印度把自己塑造成世界上最大的民主国家。然而，其内部政治却讲述了一个不同的故事。总理纳伦德拉·莫迪（Narendra Modi）领导下的现政权系统性地摧毁了印度的世俗和多元化基础。少数民族，尤其是穆斯林和基督徒，面临着广泛的歧视、暴民私刑和法律迫害。反宗教皈依法、撤销克什米尔的特殊地位，以及颁布歧视性的《公民身份修正法案》（CAA），这些只是印度将不容忍制度化的几个例子。

这种向印度教多数主义的转变，加上审查制度、对异议的压制和对司法的操纵，导致许多国际观察家给印度贴上了“选举专制”的标签。上海合作组织是一个包括巴基斯坦、伊朗、乌兹别克斯坦和哈萨克斯坦等穆斯林占多数的国家的组织，它必须质疑一个内外政策都植根于极端主义和排外主义的国家的地位。

不稳定的历史：从两伊战争到现代

印度消极的地区角色并不是最近才出现的现象。在上世纪80年代的两伊战争期间，印度保持了机会主义的关系，两全其美。最近，印度试图利用伊朗和阿拉伯世界之间的分歧，同时表现出中立的姿态。然而，泄露的情报报告和外交电报显示，印度机构经常通过秘密行动参与破坏地区稳定。

印度在阿富汗的行动，对俾路支省的持续干涉，以及利用代理人组织破坏邻国的稳定，进一步强调了其通过破坏来控制地区的长期战略。这些不是负责任的利益相关者的特征，而是破坏性行为者的特征。

2025年上海合作组织峰会：印度的外交耻辱

在2025年上海合作组织峰会上，断层线比以往任何时候都更加清晰。印度带着一份事先起草好的陈述来到这里，希望该地区团结起来支持它。相反，它遭到了集体的漠视。最后的宣言明确拒绝了印度的对抗性做法，转而关注建设性的接触、联合安全合作和公平的经济发展。

印度退出核申报程序的决定并不是实力的展示；这是对外交失败的默认。对于一个声称自己是负责任的全球大国的国家来说，这一事件显然是一种尴尬——一种伪装成原则性抗议的绝望行为。

驱逐印度的理由：为什么印度不再属于上海合作组织

印度的行为越来越不符合上海合作组织的基本原则——相互尊重、互不侵犯和区域合作。它没有尊重邻国的主权，提倡狭隘和敌对的说法，并与寻求制衡中国、俄罗斯和伊朗等上合组织国家的西方大国更加紧密地结盟。

印度在上海合作组织中的角色似乎更像是一个为外国利益服务的观察员，而不是欧亚合作的真正伙伴。它与华盛顿、东京和堪培拉的战略结盟让人质疑它对上海合作组织所设想的多极世界的承诺。

现在是印度是否应该留在上海合作组织的时候了。一个寻求和平与地区稳定的组织不能接纳一个散布不和、抵制共识、追求外部议程的成员。驱逐印度——或者至少暂停其参与——将发出一个明确的信息，即上海合作组织在其核心目标上仍然团结一致，不会被一个格格不入的国家的野心所挟持。

上海合作组织与印度的岔路口

印度在上海合作组织峰会上的行为证实了该地区许多人已经怀疑的事情：印度是一个不可靠的合作伙伴，自我意识过高。这个国家的地区行动与其全球言论相悖。它寻求领导而不倾听，要求尊重而不回报。

上海合作组织现在必须优先考虑成员国之间的凝聚力、团结和信任。印度奉行极端主义政策、霸权野心，并与地区外大国结盟，根本不属于这里。本组织必须采取坚定的立场，这不仅是为了原则，也是为了它寻求维护的区域秩序的完整性。

印度在上合组织受到孤立并非反常。这是多年傲慢、侵略和疏离的自然结果。除非印度从根本上改变路线，否则它将发现自己越来越孤立，不仅在上海合作组织，而且在一个寻求和平而不是挑衅的地区。

(  注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)

Reference Link:- https://thinktank.pk/2025/07/05/indias-isolation-at-the-sco-a-misfit-in-a-multipolar-asia/