In the realm of international diplomacy, where every gesture is scrutinized and every word weighed, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has introduced a refreshing and somewhat controversial element: the hug. This seemingly simple physical act has become a hallmark of his diplomatic style, sparking discussions and debates across the global political landscape. But to understand the significance of Modi’s “hug diplomacy,” we must delve deeper into the cultural, historical and diplomatic contexts that frame this gesture.

On July 9, 2024, Modi embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin, to the chagrin of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the following media briefing, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar defended the prime minister, noting, “In our part of the world, when people meet people, they are given to embracing each other. It may not be part of your culture, but I assure you, it’s part of ours.” This statement encapsulates the cultural divide that Modi’s hugs often bridge and the misunderstandings they sometimes generate.

Historical embracing in India and beyond

In India, embracing, or Aalingan, is deeply rooted in cultural and spiritual traditions. It’s not merely a greeting but a profound expression of trust, respect and connection that transcends verbal communication. This practice finds its origins in ancient Indian epics and spiritual texts.

In the Ramayana, one of India’s most revered epics, the embrace between the gods Lord Rama and Hanuman symbolizes not just friendship, but a deep, spiritual bond. Similarly, in the epic Mahābhārata, the god Krishna’s embraces with his friends and devotees are portrayed as acts of divine love, emphasizing the spiritual significance of physical connection.

The concept of Aalingan extends beyond mythology into everyday Indian life. It is a common form of greeting in many communities, especially among family members and close friends. It’s seen as a way to express affection, offer comfort and strengthen bonds between individuals.

While Modi’s hugs are rooted in Indian tradition, the act of embracing as a form of greeting or expression of kindness is not unique to India. Throughout history and across various cultures, this action has played significant roles in social and diplomatic interactions.

In ancient Greece, the concept of aspasmós referred to a greeting that often included an embrace. The Greeks, known for their emphasis on personal relationships and philosophical discourse, understood the power of physical connection in fostering mutual understanding. In Greek literature, this contact often signifies an emotional reunion or reconciliation between former enemies. Think of the embrace between the disguised Odysseus and his wife Penelope at the end of Odyssey. At first, Penelope does not believe Odysseus when he reveals his identity. Their hug signifies both reunion and the restoration of trust.

The Romans, too, recognized the importance of physical gestures in both personal and diplomatic contexts. The Latin terms amplexus (“embrace”) and complexus (“entwining”) were used to describe close physical contact that conveyed sincerity and built trust. In ancient Rome, the embrace signified brotherhood and common purpose. The celebrated Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs, depicting the four Roman co-emperors in a mutual embrace, amply demonstrates this custom.

Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs, Venice, Italy.

In the Middle Ages, the “kiss of peace,” or Pax, was a common greeting among European nobility and clergy, often accompanied by an embrace. This practice, rooted in early Christian traditions, was seen as a way to express unity and reconciliation within the community.

Even in cultures where physical contact is generally more reserved, there are historical instances of embraces being used in diplomatic contexts. For example, the famous “socialist fraternal kiss” between Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and East German leader Erich Honecker in 1979 became an iconic image of Cold War diplomacy.

Depiction of the socialist fraternal kiss in Berlin, Germany. Via LBM1948 on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Advertisement

The strategic significance of Modi’s hugs

Against this rich historical backdrop, Modi’s embraces take on a deeper significance. They are not just spontaneous displays of affection but calculated diplomatic moves that bridge ancient traditions with modern international relations.

Geopolitics are often cold and formal; interactions are guided by strict protocols and careful words. Touch, therefore, serves as a disruptive force. It humanizes interactions, breaks down barriers, and creates a sense of intimacy that few other diplomatic gestures can achieve.

When Modi embraces a world leader, he is sending a clear message: India values personal connections, and relationships are built on more than just agreements and treaties. This approach aligns with India’s broader diplomatic strategy, which emphasizes soft power and cultural diplomacy as key tools in its international relations.

To dismiss these hugs as mere quirks or cultural misunderstandings would be to underestimate their strategic significance. In a world where geopolitical tensions often dominate headlines, these embraces serve as powerful symbols of unity and shared humanity.

Modi’s embraces have become a unique form of non-verbal communication in his diplomatic toolkit. They can convey warmth where words might fail, break ice in tense situations or reinforce the strength of existing relationships. In some cases, they have even become newsworthy events in themselves, drawing attention to India’s diplomatic engagements and the prime minister’s personal brand of leadership.

Moreover, these hugs align with India’s aspirations on the global stage. As India seeks to position itself as a bridge between East and West, North and South, Modi’s hugs symbolize the country’s ability to connect diverse cultures and political systems.

This “hug diplomacy” has drawn criticism, however. Some view the embraces as overly familiar or even culturally insensitive, especially when dealing with leaders from more reserved cultures. Others argue that such gestures can be seen as unprofessional or distracting from substantive diplomatic issues.

There’s also the risk of overuse. If every diplomatic meeting ends with this gesture, does it lose its significance? Critics argue that the frequency of the prime minister’s embraces might dilute their impact or make them seem less sincere.

The power of human connection

Despite these challenges, the enduring popularity and discussion surrounding Modi’s hugs speak to a fundamental truth about human interaction: Physical connection matters. In a world increasingly dominated by digital communication and remote interactions, a simple embrace can carry profound meaning.

As the ancient Greeks and Romans understood, and as Indian tradition has long emphasized, physical gestures can convey what words often cannot. They can build trust, foster goodwill and create lasting impressions in ways that formal speeches or written agreements cannot.

Modi’s “hug diplomacy” is more than just a quirky diplomatic style; it’s a bridge between ancient cultural practices and modern diplomatic strategies. Drawing from the rich traditions of Aalingan in India and echoing touch’s historical significance across cultures, the hugs serve as a powerful reminder of our shared humanity in a divided world.

As we continue to navigate the complex, high-stakes landscape of international relations, perhaps we should view these embraces not as oddities to be questioned, but as invitations to consider the role of personal connection in diplomacy. While divisions seem to grow by the day, a warm human touch might just be the simplest yet most profound way to unite us.

As the saying goes, “hugs are the universal medicine.” Sometimes the most effective solution can be a heartfelt embrace.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The writer is the former UK ambassador to Lebanon and foreign policy adviser to three prime ministers. His latest novel is ‘The Assassin’

Civilians across the Middle East are braced once again against the increasing possibility of a full-scale conflict between Israel and Hizbollah, the Iran-backed militant group. After the devastation in Gaza, they anxiously watch the reckless high-stakes poker of hardliners who want to keep the region on the brink of war in order to keep themselves in power.  

As every intelligence service is privately acknowledging, turning pagers and radios into lethal explosives was an audacious piece of tradecraft from Mossad, Israel’s spy agency. It hit Hizbollah’s command chain, communications and confidence. It is one of those moments in the Middle East that resonates beyond the immediate: it will be spoken about in hushed tones for years, perhaps decades. Social media makes the psychological impact even greater. Hizbollah is in shock, and seething. Its rank and file feel insecure.

The key question on the Hizbollah side is whether it absorbs this humiliating blow or hits back. It is probably a case of when, not if, it chooses to do so, alongside its threats of revenge for the assassinations of its leadership.

The key question on the Israeli side is whether this was a prelude to a serious land offensive, or just a psychological operation to degrade Hizbollah? I hear both explanations from the Israeli military, many of whom think it is only a question of when, not if, they launch a land invasion aimed at removing Hizbollah from the south of Lebanon and establishing some mirage of a “buffer zone”.

Faced with this moment of peril, the international community must focus on two urgent challenges.  

First, civilian protection. The reality is that hundreds of thousands of civilians — in Lebanon and Israel — are on the brink of a devastating escalation of this conflict if the hardliners get their way. Many are already displaced, injured and killed. They must be our central concern.  

Second, upholding international law, including legal constraints on the conduct of war. As we have seen with cyber and lethal autonomous weapons, the speed of technological change means that the systems designed to contain the ingenuity of humans to find new ways to kill each other struggle to keep up. But the basic rules are not complicated, whether the weapon is a pager or a rocket: don’t kill civilians.  

Now, sadly, it appears that neither of those challenges is a major priority for the current leaders in Iran and Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s increasingly hardline government is focused on tactical wins. The Iranian regime is content to let others fight its battles. So we must also focus on preventing disastrous escalation. 

There is space for diplomacy. It can build the off-ramps for both sides, for when leaders emerge with the wisdom to take them. UK foreign secretary David Lammy and others are working the phones to regional leaders. Wise voices and cool heads can prevail. The challenge is that both Israel and Lebanon are in political crisis — in Beirut, there is a caretaker government and no president, while in Israel, Netanyahu’s far-right coalition is fracturing.

International mediation on Israel and Lebanon needs to deal not only with the short-term cessation of hostilities, but land-border demarcation, a permanent peace (not just a ceasefire) and the return of state authority to south Lebanon. The Lebanese army has to be supported to provide security on the border, as we have helped it to do on the border with Syria.

From my discussions with the Lebanese prime minister, Najib Mikati, and others, it has become clear that ultimately the key to regional de-escalation lies in Gaza ceasefire talks and hostage releases. There are still fundamental differences to overcome — how to manage the Rafah crossing, prisoner releases and the future of the so-called Philadelphi corridor, a narrow strip of land along Gaza’s border with Egypt. But with the right collective pressure and political will these obstacles are surmountable.  

Ultimately, the prize remains a big, bold agreement between Israel and the Arab world that includes the normalisation of relations; the creation of the long-promised Palestinian state; and the isolation of the Iranian regime. There is no way out of a wider crisis without hope that both Palestinians and Israelis have the right to security, justice and opportunity in lands they can call their own. This will require genuine partners for peace on both sides of the table.  

So Britain and its allies should take the parameters for a two-state solution to the UN Security Council. Sometimes the immediacy of the danger can create space and urgency for negotiations. 

Hamas, Hizbollah and Israeli hardliners want to bury a two-state solution, displace the other side and destroy the prospect of coexistence. The stakes are too high to let them do so.

TOKYO — Shohei Ohtani’s feat of becoming the first major leaguer with at least 50 home runs and 50 stolen bases in a season was met with extra editions of newspapers for fans to read on their way to work on Friday morning in Japan.

Ohtani raced past the 50-50 milestone as he hit three home runs and stole two bases in a game during the 20-4 rout of the Miami Marlins on Thursday, securing a playoff berth for the Dodgers.

Read More: Shohei Ohtani Is What Baseball Needs

The news topped morning headlines, and “Ohtani-san” was the No. 1 trending topic of social media platform X.

There was also praise from the Japanese government.

“We would like to express our heartfelt congratulations on his achievement of this giant record,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said as he responded to the first question at his regular news conference Friday. “We look forward to seeing more successes from Ohtani, who has already achieve numerous feats and pioneered new grounds.”

Ohtani, who debuted in Major League Baseball in 2018 with the Los Angeles Angels, has become Japan’s national icon and pride.

Yu Tachibana, a 44-year-old office worker, was a lucky one to get a copy of the special newspaper edition for her 18-year-old son who plays baseball. She says nobody had thought a Japanese player would so well a decade ago. “It is very encouraging,” she said, as she noted a saying where there is a will, there is a way.

A wave of congratulatory messages were posted on social media.

“Japan’s record-making machine has done it again,” U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel said in his message on X. “Congratulations to Shohei Ohtani on an incredible baseball achievement. A true global ambassador of the game.”

Proponents of the latest changes are betting that easing the hurdles for companies, even in ways investors dislike, will pay off

Team GB should be proud of its haul of 65 medals at the 2024 Paris Olympics – more than any country besides China and the US.

However, with 14 of those 65 medals being gold, GB may well feel like it took the runner-up prizes a few more times than it would have liked.

Unfortunately, there are parallels here with the British capital markets, currently lamenting a dearth of new and exciting IPOs – a field in which we’re also trailing the US.

It is widely agreed radical changes are needed. That’s just what is happening. Yet still not everyone is excited.

New proposals in July to amend rules governing disclosures and investor access to capital raisings were announced as part of the government’s ongoing plans to rehydrate the country’s capital markets.

The key proposal, if enacted, would eliminate the need for companies to issue a new prospectus in most circumstances other than for initial listings on public markets. The proposals also outline measures to increase retail participation in both public and private market investments.

These proposals are intended to complement the recently introduced UK Listing Rules, which came into effect last month. The rules aim to remove the barriers on the road to UK investment recovery by relaxing restrictions on dual class share structures, which allow managers and founders to exercise control over companies in which they may only hold a minority stake.

They also remove requirements to seek shareholder approval for a number of significant corporate transactions, or those with related parties.

Pedalling ahead

Although measures to encourage a broader base of investment are a largely welcome boost to UK companies in need of an edge, several of these moves are perceived to come at the expense of investor protections valued by UK shareholders.

On balance, this proposed regulation looks like a bold gamble, which hinges on the idea the UK can build a more competitive capital market by streamlining the requirements for listed companies, even if that means introducing features their investors largely dislike.

Pushing forward market features that many of the largest investors oppose will require a careful eye on the detail if we are to attain the leading capital market everyone seeks.

Whether reducing investor protections and required disclosures is the right route to go down will depend on the UK’s ability to attract high-performing and well-governed companies. Any perception that the new rules represent a race to the bottom – in which investors place their capital in lower quality businesses, subject to weaker transparency and greater management control – will need to be fought against.

Overall, while not everyone is happy with the changes, investors and companies appear to have accepted the current regulatory direction of travel is not about to alter, having just been confirmed as one of the first acts of the new Labour government.

So, the strategy has been set and the big call has been made. Let’s hope that when the figurative tyres are changed, it turns out to be a stroke of genius which puts UK companies on a winning streak rather than setting up investors for a fall.

Lindsey Stewart is director of stewardship research and policy for Morningstar Sustainalytics

Express insiders are said to be deeply upset at the departure of editor-in-chief Gary Jones after six years in the job.

Reach confirmed the departure of Jones on Friday morning, saying he has stepped down. He had not been seen in the office for about two weeks before that, sending the rumour mill into overdrive.

Jones said in a statement: “It’s been a privilege to have served the readers for so many years. Long may they continue to value and cherish the journalism we publish.

“I have tried my level best to continue in the great campaigning traditions of the Mirror and Express and would like to offer my appreciation to the colleagues, politicians, organisations and individuals who have shared my passion for bringing positive change.

“I’ve had the greatest of times, and felt fortunate to have met and collaborated with some of the most fascinating, inspirational and creative people, who have hugely enriched my career and life.”