India in the international climate protection negotiations. A discourse analysis

This paper analyzes the political discourse on climate change in India, in particular the positioning of India as a large and powerful, still poor emerging country and the arguments of Indian actors in international climate conferences since the early 1990s. The research method presents an interdisciplinary discourse analysis combined with a political-linguistic content analysis of all foreign policy, public Indian government documents, UNFCCC submissions from India and speeches of Indian politicians and diplomats at the climate conferences. Persistent conflicts of interest between industrialized and developing countries dominated the Indian political climate discourse. Above all, the justice-based concepts such as the per capita approach, the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries, the priority of poverty reduction and the economic growth priority as well as the internationally accepted legal principle of ''common but different responsibilities'' shaped the language of political actors. Climate policy statements, based on the long-term effects of India's colonial past or environment-friendly culture (Mahatma Gandhi), were other important contextual issues used to defend India's political and economic interests since the 1990s on the international scene. India's climate policy language has always been marked by ambivalences, both defensive and proactive statements on climate change and the international climate change regime. Internationally, however, India had the image of the blocker and the defender of the rights of developing countries. Since 2009, Indian actors have been acting more and more within the framework of the BASIC group together with Brazil, China and South Africa in order to protect their climate-political interests against the industrialized countries. In spite of economic growth and rising greenhouse gas emissions, the narrative on India continued to prevail in the climate policy context as a country that was not involved in climate change and, above all, was too poor for binding emission reduction targets. Furthermore, the fact that India will be hit hardest by climate change and that, on the other hand, the Indian government is pursuing the ''Western'' lifestyle, which has been proven to be unsustainable, creates a dilemma. Because not only is the Indian rhetoric in view of the comparably greater poverty and concern of the ''Least Developed Countries'' or the small island states in the long run unbelievable, also the targeted economic development goals are likely to be severely affected in the future due to the consequences of climate change.