From G20 Glory to COP33 Exit | India’s shrinking global role

India’s climate U‑turn highlights the gap between lofty rhetoric and harsh realities.

On December 1, 2023, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a high-pitched announcement to ‘host COP33 in India in 2028’, during the meeting of Conference of Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates.

Earlier this month, on April 2, the Modi government sent a low-key letter (initially not publicly released), withdrawing India’s bid to host the COP33.

Why this anti-climax? Is India losing its green ambitions? Does India no longer seek global leadership? Is this decision connected in any way with the 2029 Lok Sabha polls?

Setbacks on the environmental agenda

Modi, while making the 2028 COP33 bid, was riding high.

He talked about India setting an example of ‘a perfect balance between ecology and economy’, being ‘one of the few economies on track to meet NDC targets’ and having achieved ‘emissions-intensity targets 11 years before and non-fossil fuel targets nine years ahead of schedule’.

He also underlined India’s high climate ambitions — of raising the share of non-fossil fuel to 50%, and achieving net zero by 2070.

In two COPs thereafter — COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and COP30 in Belém, Brazil — India grew increasingly dissatisfied. India rejected the $300 billion annual climate-finance pledge, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), in Baku as ‘an optical illusion’ and ‘too little, too late’. India, visibly frustrated and disillusioned, raised its objections — strangely — after the deal had already been formally adopted by consensus.

India went to COP30 with modest ambitions, focusing primarily on the operationalisation of the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). India, dissatisfied with the progress there, accused developed nations of ‘dodging their climate finance obligations and pushing developing countries into an impossible corner’.

India’s post-Dubai experience was causing it to lose hope of achieving anything substantial in COP33 in 2028.

Meanwhile, New Delhi also had other problems with its environmental agenda. India, which had pushed for phase-down coal in the Glasgow COP in 2021 instead of the global preference for ‘a phase-out’ agenda, is now constructing new coal power plants (since 2020, 53 GW of new capacity approved, with 35 GW under construction).

India’s energy and EV-transition track record does not meet global leadership standards. India continues to rank as the most polluted country in terms of air quality. This performance must have created strong doubts in the leadership’s mind about the utility and relevance of hosting COP33.

Diminishing global leadership

India is facing a leadership crisis in global affairs.

India, currently the BRICS chair, has been on the horns of a dilemma after the United States-Israel axis attacked Iran, a BRICS member, on February 28. India, having pushed itself into the US-Israel corner, could not issue a BRICS statement, despite Iran, China, and Russia urging India to do so.

Pakistan and other developing countries are playing a major role in bringing the US and Iran to negotiate a ceasefire and work out an agreement to end the war. India is not at that table. India’s initial characterisation of Pakistan as a ‘dalal’ stood in the way of securing observer status for India.

India-US ties have also suffered significantly. The inability to negotiate a tariff deal and the acceptance of US interference in India’s sovereign right to purchase oil from Russia have further marginalised India.

India’s role in WTO plurilateral negotiations on electronic transmission, investment facilitation, and other issues is also viewed unfavourably by most countries.

The US has walked out of global climate institutions, agreements, and conferences. China has developed a vice-like grip on the energy transition and climate-change agenda. All this is sufficient to underline India’s lack of confidence in presenting any national agenda at COP33 and in bringing stakeholders together to accept it.

Another G20 showcase unlikely

In 2023, Modi converted India’s G20 presidency into a major show of India’s global leadership. G20 meetings and events, organised in major cities with pomp and show, sent a powerful message to both global participants and the domestic constituency about India shining under Modi’s leadership.

India showcased ‘One Earth, One Family, One Future’, ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’, a new agreement on ethanol, and a deal on the India Middle-East Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).

India’s G20 presidency was seen as giving Modi an edge in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. It was no surprise that he went to Dubai, two months after the Delhi G20 Summit, and demanded the right to host COP33 in 2028, to be held months before the 2029 elections.

The ground situation has changed a lot since 2023.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), confident of securing 400 seats in the 2024 polls, ended up with 240. On April 17, the Modi-led government suffered its biggest defeat when the 131st Constitution Amendment Bill failed in Parliament.

COPs are much bigger, longer, more complex, contentious, and competitive, with major participation by NGOs from around the world — enough to create considerable doubts in the leadership’s mind about the advisability of hosting one before the 2029 polls.

Not worth the risk

The Modi government is also facing many issues of under-performance. Economic growth is weak — India has slipped to sixth position in the global GDP rankings. Modi’s guarantee of making India the third-largest global economy by 2029 is sure to fail.

The rupee is the worst-performing major global currency. The political ground is becoming shakier. In view of such overwhelming reasons, India’s withdrawal from hosting COP33 is a no-brainer.

Subhash Chandra Garg is former Finance & Economic Affairs Secretary, and author of ‘The Ten Trillion Dream Dented’, ‘Commentary on Budget 2025-2026’, and ‘We Also Make Policy’.

X handle: @Subhashgarg1960.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)