In 2020, the Taiwan-India Parliamentary Friendship Association was revived with much fanfare. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Wu Yu-chin (吳玉琴) assumed the presidency of the association in its revived form. The revival of the association took place in the presence and with active participation from Deputy Foreign Minister Tien Chung-kwang (田中光) and then-India-Taipei Association director-general Gourangalal Das. The development came after a deterioration in India-China relations and the resultant amenability between the civil societies and people of India and Taiwan. Given the shared challenge posed by China, this growing friendship was not only expected, but also quite natural.
However, three years have passed since its revival, and there has been limited progress within the scope of the parliamentary forum. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic abating and leading to an increase in lawmakers’ visits to Taiwan from around the globe, India remains a notable exception by not sending or encouraging a parliamentary delegation visit to Taiwan. The only Indian parliamentarian to visit Taiwan last year and this year was lawmaker Sujeet Kumar. Parliamentary exchanges between India and Taiwan are not uncharted territory, so what is hindering the two countries from resuming these visits? Several factors have contributed to this situation.
In its prior iteration, the parliamentary friendship association played a crucial role in arranging bipartisan visits, such as the remarkable 2018 visit of an all-female parliamentary delegation from Taiwan to India. That visit triggered protests from China, with the Global Times, a mouthpiece for the Chinese Communist Party, cautioning India against “playing with fire.” However, this occurred during a distinct period in India-China relations. India’s hopes for stabilizing relations with China, combined with the challenges posed by the pandemic, led to a temporary halt in parliamentary exchanges between the two countries, despite both operating under parliamentary systems of government.
Furthermore, several parliamentarians who once showed an interest and inclination towards Taiwan have since retired from politics, leaving a gap that Taiwan must address by enhancing its outreach efforts and cultivating interest in Taiwan among Indian lawmakers. However, it would not be fair to solely attribute the lack of interest in Taiwan to Indian lawmakers. Taiwanese lawmakers, too, often overlook India, as their focus has predominantly centered on Western countries. Even though the New Southbound Policy was initiated by the DPP administration primarily to strengthen ties with South and Southeast Asian countries, the legislative branch of the Taiwanese administration has yet to fully engage with the New Southbound Policy countries.
Addressing this mutual disinterest is essential, and the rationale behind doing so is straightforward: It is mutually beneficial to engage each other. A significant portion of civil society, the media, and even the general populace in India holds favorable views toward Taiwan. Seizing this opportunity is not just logical but essential for fostering positive perception and harnessing the potential of the relations between the two countries.
The lack of diplomatic relations should not serve as an excuse for these neglected and underdeveloped areas with significant potential. Instead, it should serve as a motivation for proactive efforts given both countries have much to gain from engagement. Encouraging parliamentary exchanges are crucial precisely because formal government dialogues are constrained. In the absence of unrestricted government communication, parliamentarians, who are integral members of the state apparatus yet possess the autonomy to act independently, must play a central role. They can pave the way for meaningful interactions between India and Taiwan.
India is seeking investments from Taiwan. While there are existing government-level engagements in the economic sector, they occur at the secretary level. Facilitating exchanges between parliamentarians could significantly contribute to India’s goal of attracting investments. As a semiconductor powerhouse, Taiwan is home to major semiconductor giants that have shown reluctance to enter the Indian market. Indian parliamentarians could play a crucial role in negotiating alongside the Indian government and encourage these companies to invest in India’s growing semiconductor industry.
Parliamentary exchanges would also help satiate the appetite for stronger relations. While India has taken a cautious approach and refrained from discussing Taiwan openly in matters related to China, parliamentarians can engage with Taiwan and gain a deeper understanding of the associated risk factors.
Undoubtedly, advanced exchanges between parliamentarians from both sides would facilitate a more productive path for Taiwan and India to bolster cooperation without exacerbating complexities in their relationship. Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in his book The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World that “India must reach out in as many directions as possible and maximize its gains.”
Taiwan should be a vital component of India’s eastward outreach, and parliamentarians can play a substantial role in shaping and advancing India’s policy.
Parliamentarians represent their people’s interests. Given the widespread support among Indians for Taiwan and the mutual benefits of engaging with Taiwan, it is imperative for them to work toward advancing India-Taiwan relations.
Sana Hashmi is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation and the George H. W. Bush Foundation for US-China Relations.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s