Sam Pitroda’s China Remarks Spark Controversy: Diplomacy or Delusion?

Paromita Das

New Delhi.

Sam Pitroda, the Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress and a close aide of Rahul Gandhi, has ignited a political firestorm with his recent comments on China. Speaking to IANS on February 17, 2025, Pitroda dismissed concerns about the Chinese threat, suggesting that the perception of hostility was exaggerated. His statement, “I don’t know what is the threat from China. I think there is always this thing blown out of proportion,” has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, including political leaders, strategic analysts, and military experts.

This controversy has reopened the debate on Bharat’s foreign policy, China’s aggressive posturing, and the Congress party’s historical ties with the Communist regime in Beijing. While Pitroda’s statements reflect an alternative approach to diplomacy, they also expose a stark contrast to the prevailing sentiment in Bharat, where Chinese aggression at the borders, trade imbalances, and diplomatic conflicts remain pressing concerns.

Pitroda’s Views: China Is Not an Enemy?

Sam Pitroda’s remarks suggested that Bharat has adopted a confrontational stance toward China from the very beginning, which, according to him, has shaped the current hostilities. He argued that China should not be treated as an enemy, emphasizing a need for a shift in Bharat’s foreign policy towards collaboration and communication rather than conflict.

He further asserted that the United States has played a role in shaping Bharat’s perception of China as a threat. “Our attitude is that of confrontation from day one and that attitude creates an enemy and that creates certain support in the country. I think we need to change that pattern,” he stated.

Watch: On whether US President Donald Trump and PM Modi will be able to control the threat from China, Indian Overseas Congress Chief Sam Pitroda says, "I don't understand the threat from China. I think this issue is often blown out of proportion because the U.S. has a tendency… pic.twitter.com/UaBvPVqdsr

— IANS (@ians_india) February 17, 2025

Moreover, Pitroda urged Bharat to increase dialogue with Beijing and move away from a “command and control mindset.” His views align with the idea of fostering economic and diplomatic ties with China, focusing on mutual growth rather than geopolitical tensions.

However, his remarks have raised eyebrows across political and strategic circles, particularly given China’s continued aggression at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), its military expansion in the Bharatiya Ocean, and its economic policies that many experts describe as “predatory.”

The Congress Party’s History with China

Pitroda’s comments are not the first instance where a senior Congress leader has expressed pro-China views. Rahul Gandhi himself has been vocal about his admiration for China’s economic model, its governance structure, and its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In March 2023, during his controversial speech at Cambridge Judge Business School, Rahul Gandhi referred to China as an “aspiring superpower” and a “force of nature” while accusing Bharat of failing to keep pace with its development.

In 2022, in a conversation with political columnist Shruti Kapila, Gandhi praised China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—a controversial global infrastructure project widely seen as a tool for economic dominance. He claimed that China wanted neighboring countries to prosper, contradicting Bharat’s official stance on the debt-trap diplomacy associated with the BRI.

Despite his occasional criticism of China’s incursions into Bharatiya territory, Gandhi has often downplayed strategic concerns, sometimes even equating Bharat’s stance on China to that of Ukraine against Russia. In May 2022, during his UK visit, Gandhi made a striking remark: “Ladakh is to China what Ukraine is to Russia.” This statement sparked a backlash, as it implied an acceptance of China’s territorial claims in the region.

Further deepening the controversy, the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF)—a trust chaired by Sonia Gandhi—was found to have received financial contributions exceeding ₹1 crore from the Chinese government between 2006 and 2009. The foundation, where Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra have served as trustees since 2005, has been scrutinized for its financial ties with Beijing.

Another major point of contention was the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the Congress party and the Communist Party of China (CPC). The agreement, established during the UPA regime, facilitated the exchange of high-level information and collaboration between the two parties. The lack of transparency surrounding this MoU has fueled allegations that Congress maintained questionable ties with China, raising concerns over potential foreign influence on Bharatiya policymaking.

Why Pitroda’s Remarks Are Problematic

Pitroda’s comments dismissing the Chinese threat have come at a time when Bharat is facing increased border tensions, economic competition, and geopolitical challenges posed by China. His remarks not only appear tone-deaf to ground realities but also undermine Bharat’s official stance on national security.

1. Continued Border Tensions

Since the Galwan Valley clash in 2020, where 20 Bharatiya soldiers lost their lives, China has continued to fortify its positions along the LAC. Satellite images and intelligence reports suggest massive infrastructure development by China near Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh, including the construction of military bases, roads, and airstrips.

Despite multiple rounds of military talks, China has refused to withdraw troops from several friction points, making Pitroda’s call for “cooperation” seem disconnected from reality.

2. Economic and Trade Imbalances

Bharat’s trade deficit with China has ballooned to over $100 billion, raising concerns about over-reliance on Chinese goods. While the Bharatiya government has been working on reducing dependencies, companies linked to China continue to dominate sectors like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and infrastructure.

In contrast to Pitroda’s suggestion of increased collaboration, the Bharatiya government has been imposing restrictions on Chinese investments and banning Chinese apps, citing concerns over data security and national interest.

3. China’s Hostility Towards Bharat’s Interests

China has repeatedly blocked Bharat’s efforts to designate Pakistani terrorists at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and continues to provide diplomatic and military support to Pakistan. Additionally, Beijing has opposed Bharat’s bid for a permanent seat at the UNSC, a move that contradicts Pitroda’s portrayal of China as a potential ally.

Furthermore, China’s growing influence in South Asia, the Indian Ocean, and Africa has threatened Bharat’s strategic position. The development of military bases in Djibouti, the Hambantota Port deal in Sri Lanka, and infrastructure projects in Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are seen as efforts to encircle Bharat geopolitically.

A Misguided View on China

Sam Pitroda’s comments reflect a naïve and dangerously simplistic view of Bharat’s relationship with China. While diplomacy and dialogue are essential tools in international relations, ignoring China’s aggressive actions, border incursions, and economic maneuvers is neither realistic nor strategic.

While some argue that Pitroda’s remarks align with Congress’s historical engagement with China, others view them as a deliberate attempt to undermine Bharat’s national security concerns for political gain.

In contrast, the Bharatiya government has adopted a balanced approach—engaging in diplomatic negotiations while strengthening military preparedness, diversifying trade partnerships, and reducing dependencies on China. This pragmatic approach recognizes the realities of geopolitics rather than wishful thinking.

Conclusion: Words Matter in Diplomacy

Sam Pitroda’s dismissal of China as a threat and his call for greater collaboration may have been intended as a vision for peace, but they fail to acknowledge the ground realities of China’s actions. At a time when Bharat is defending its borders, securing its economic interests, and building strategic alliances, such statements only serve to weaken the country’s diplomatic position.

If the Congress party wishes to be taken seriously on foreign policy, it must reassess its stance on China, address past controversies, and adopt a more pragmatic approach to dealing with an assertive and often adversarial neighbor. Until then, statements like Pitroda’s will continue to raise questions about the party’s commitment to Bharat’s national security.