The Belarusian Institute for Strategic Research (BISR) has analyzed the wide-ranging global reaction to the post by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on his “X” account, accompanied by a photo of his warm meeting with the Head of the Belarusian State on the sidelines of the 25th SCO Summit in Tianjin. Published at 15:09 Minsk time on August 31, 2025, it read, “Glad to have met President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus. We both are very optimistic about the beneficial opportunities ahead as far as our nations are concerned.”
As of September 4, the post had received 6.2 million views, 3,200 comments, 14,000 reposts, 111,000 likes, and 1,000 bookmarks. Positive reactions accounted for about 65–70% of the total, neutral-informational for around 15%, and negative-critical for approximately 15–20%. Technical monitoring showed no signs of heavy moderation or mass bot activity, which suggests that the discussion was largely organic.
Although the meeting was in a working format and without public statements, it was nevertheless perceived in the global media space and expert community as a diplomatic signal — which explains its wide and strong resonance.
Among Indian users, reactions were largely positive. Commentators highlighted Modi’s pragmatism and his ability to engage in dialogue with different countries, including Belarus. The SCO was underscored as an important platform where India can demonstrate its strategic autonomy amid trade tensions with the United States. Some noted Belarus as a potential partner in technology, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals — particularly in the context of global economic turbulence. The emphasis was placed on expanding India’s economic opportunities and strategic independence, fostering multipolarity, and supporting the Global South as part of a “non-Western alignment.”
Sources of criticism mainly came from English-speaking users in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, as well as from India’s internal liberal-globalist circles and pro-Western Belarusian accounts. These criticisms largely recycled familiar narratives: reputational risks to India’s democratic image (“why meet with a dictator”), undermining Western sanctions policy, and “legitimizing Lukashenko’s regime.”
BISR partners in New Delhi, including local experts on China, noted “the warm handshake with your president” and emphasized the uniqueness of their national leader’s reaction — “we have never seen this before.” Analysts affiliated with India’s National Security Council and Ministry of External Affairs interpreted this as “a political gesture signaling a reset of relations.”
The meeting — and especially its atmosphere — was warmly received by representatives of the Indian business community in Belarus. They paid close attention both to the setting of the encounter and to the content of the tweet itself, which they viewed as a kind of advertisement for Belarus and a signal to Indian business circles.
Contacts close to the Indian Embassy in Minsk, stressing Modi’s particular respect for social media, agreed that any positive mention of Belarus in his account “can generate the right signals to private business.”
Thus, BISR’s semantic analysis of the political context, media perceptions, and geopolitical and economic prerequisites allows us to conclude that the above-mentioned working meeting between Lukashenko and Modi in Tianjin could (as the author has repeatedly noted before) become a starting point for resetting Belarusian–Indian relations.
At any rate, the business communities of both countries — as the most pragmatic and rationally minded segment of society and the elites — have already clearly articulated such a request in their comments on the tweet. Professional intuition suggests this is not their last word. Returning to the tweet itself, one may note: Mr. Modi has made his move, and now the ball is in our court. A competent diplomatic and media strategy would allow Minsk to consolidate its place in India’s agenda as a reliable partner.
At this juncture, the BISR initiative to launch a bilateral expert dialogue — “Nemiga–Yamuna” (sacred rivers for both peoples) — could prove particularly timely. As a permanent discussion platform between leading scholars, analysts, and researchers of the two countries, it would provide prompt analytical and informational support for ongoing bilateral processes and events.