When Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim welcomed India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi at KLIA with a red carpet a few weeks ago, royal guards and cultural splendour, the symbolism was unmistakable. This was not merely diplomacy. It was theatre — a performance of friendship between two leaders who describe each other in warm personal terms.
Yet history has always asked a harsher question than ceremony is willing to answer: can leaders truly be “friends” when they stand at the helm of different civilisational blocs?
Anwar leads a Muslim-majority nation whose political legitimacy is inseparable from the wider Islamic world. Modi leads a state increasingly self-conscious of its place within what many describe as the Indian — or more specifically, Hindu — civilisational sphere. If the late political scientist Samuel Huntington was right in his thesis in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, then we are no longer in the era of ideological conflict, but of civilisational alignment and confrontation.
In such an era, personal friendships between leaders may matter little.
Modi at the Knesset: Civilisational Signalling
Modi’s address to the Knesset this week was more than a diplomatic gesture. Standing beside Benjamin Netanyahu, Modi declared that India stands “firmly” with Israel. He offered condolences for Israeli victims of the October 7 Hamas attack. He spoke of shared grief. He deepened defence and technological cooperation.
In the language of realpolitik, this is strategic alignment. In the language of civilisations, it is signalling.
Israel is widely perceived across much of the Muslim world not merely as a state in conflict, but as a symbol of confrontation between the Islamic and Western spheres. By affirming unwavering solidarity in the Israeli parliament itself, Modi was not simply strengthening bilateral ties; he was locating India within a particular global alignment in a time of heightened civilisational consciousness.
For many Muslims worldwide, the Gaza war is not a distant geopolitical issue. It is a moral wound. When India’s prime minister speaks in Jerusalem of “standing firmly” with Israel while remaining silent on Palestinian casualties, the symbolism is amplified beyond diplomacy.
If Huntington’s framework holds — that the post-Cold War era is defined by cultural and civilisational blocs seeking coherence and defending identity — then Modi’s words were not neutral. They were declarative.
Malaysia’s Counter-Signal
Now place that speech alongside what unfolded in Kuala Lumpur when Modi came to visit us recently.
On the very day Modi arrived in Malaysia, a rally was organised ostensibly over “illegal” temples. Officially, it was about rule of law. Unofficially, its timing was too precise to be coincidence.
The rally embarrassed Anwar. It created the optics of religious tension during Modi’s visit. It suggested that beneath the choreography of MoUs and cultural performances lies an unresolved anxiety.
Whether or not the organisers intended it, the message was clear: segments within Malaysia’s Muslim majority remain deeply sceptical — if not hostile — toward Modi’s political project. His association with Hindu nationalism, his policies in Kashmir, and now his unequivocal embrace of Israel feed into a perception that he stands on the opposite side of an Islamic civilisational narrative.
In that sense, the rally was also signalling.
If Modi’s Knesset speech signalled India’s positioning, the protest signalled how parts of the Islamic sphere perceive him.
Anwar’s Tightrope
Anwar’s dilemma is therefore not merely diplomatic. It is civilisational.
He has consistently spoken of friendship with Modi. He has emphasised trade, technology, digital cooperation, defence ties and people-to-people engagement. Eleven MoUs were signed. Scholarships were announced. A consulate will open in Kota Kinabalu. The optics were warm.
But Anwar is not simply a technocratic leader. He is also a Muslim leader of a Muslim-majority federation. His moral vocabulary has long drawn from Islamic reformism and global Muslim concerns. He has spoken passionately about Palestine in international forums.
How does one reconcile standing firmly with Gaza rhetorically while embracing a leader who stands firmly with Israel at the Knesset?
This is not a question of hypocrisy. It is a question of structural tension.
If civilisations are indeed the primary actors in this era — as Huntington argued — then leaders are constrained by the identities they represent. Personal warmth cannot erase civilisational memory. Economic synergy cannot dissolve symbolic alignment.
The Illusion of Personal Friendship
Netanyahu described his relationship with Modi as “a real friendship.” Modi has used similar language in describing ties with various leaders. Anwar too speaks of friendship.
But history reminds us that civilisations rarely hinge on personal chemistry. Leaders come and go; identity blocs endure.
In the Cold War, ideological divides structured alliances. Today, identity increasingly structures them. India’s growing partnership with Israel, its assertive articulation of Hindu civilisational pride, and its strategic positioning in global geopolitics place it in a complex relationship with the Islamic world.
Malaysia, as a Muslim-majority country with deep historical ties to both the West and the broader Ummah, occupies another.
When Modi hugs Netanyahu in Jerusalem and Anwar hugs Modi in Kuala Lumpur, the images may suggest harmony. Yet beneath those embraces lie deeper tectonic plates.
If Huntington Was Right
If this truly is the era of the clash of civilisations, then the idea of uncomplicated friendship between leaders of clashing blocs may be an illusion.
This does not mean war is inevitable. It does not mean cooperation is impossible. Trade agreements will continue. Technology transfers will proceed. Diplomatic smiles will persist.
But it does mean that every gesture will be interpreted through civilisational lenses.
Modi’s support for Israel will not be seen in isolation. The anti-temple rally will not be viewed as a mere local protest. Each becomes a symbol within a larger narrative of alignment and resistance.
Anwar may sincerely believe in bridging divides. He may envision Malaysia as a mediator between worlds. That is an honourable ambition.
Yet if the global mood is shifting toward hardened identities rather than fluid coexistence, then even the most carefully choreographed diplomacy will be tested.
Civilisations do not hug. They negotiate, compete, signal — and sometimes collide.
The question for Malaysia is not whether Anwar and Modi can call each other friends.
The real question is whether, in an age increasingly defined by civilisational consciousness, friendship alone is enough.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
