The meaning of national interest is survival-the protection of physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by other nation-states.
In the Morgenthauian tradition, national interest is divine and survival its cornerstone. Yet India’s recent foreign policy in the Middle East, at its borders with China and Pakistan, and in multilateral forums reveals a perplexing fog, where survival instincts seem reactive and strategic clarity slippery. As the world burns,the. New Delhi often watches with an awkward silence.
Foreign policy in the world of IR is the set of strategies and actions a country adopts to manage its relationships with other nations. These objectives are driven by national interests, such as protecting internal security, ensuring progress, and securing economic well-being. These objectives are usually driven by national interest protecting internal security, ensuring progress, and securing economic well-being. The core of India's current policy is the strategic autonomy. It's refers to the state agility to pursue it's national interests and adopt the foreign policy without heavily depending on the other foreign states . It implies the capacity to set ones own priorities and make state independent decision in matters of the foreign policy and security, backed by the necessary political and economical resource. The strategic autonomy never push the State in isolation instead it emphasize on the growth without getting over dependence on the others actors or entities.
Since the independence India has witnessed a significant transformation in the foreign policy which initially followed the non alignment and idealism at some point of time , and when it faced challenged from the aliens powers it's also transformed it into the aggressive realism under the Mrs.Gandhi. Now ,It's moved from the idealism , Non-alignment characterized by a desired to remain away from the both conflicting power blocks to more paramagnetic approach of multi alignment in the contemporary era. Which highly vibrant and visible after the 2014 during the Modi era , which reflect the India's journey from the new independent post colonial state to emerging global player. It's principe of strategic autonomy is quite different from the old classical theoretical definition, sometimes the ability to act independently is not merely, inhert in the nation's capabilities but also a function of the evolving international system. The current global system is no longer concentrated in a singularity; instead, it has become distributed across various smaller centers, resulting in the creation of a multipolar global order: an expanded space for the regional power to excercise the greater autonomy. For India, as a growing middle power this changes brings the greater flexibility India's pursuit of strategic autonomy is not just a policy choice but also a response to and a leaveraging of , changes in the global power structure. Nehru's Non-alignment while asserting independence, largely involved keeping aloof from the major power bloc and exercise "own judgement" by maintaining the distance. In contrast the current era is characterized by the "multi alignment" which involves actively "engaging effectively with US, Russian, China". This is not the rejection of the strategic autonomy but rather than a adaptation of how it should achieved. The main and underlying principle of independence remains constant, but methods has transformed from passive non-involvment to active, flexible engagement with various power centres. This signifies the crucial transformation and evolution from a more idealistic, passive autonomy to the a paramagnetic, active one , tailored to navigate a more complex and interconnected Global landscapes
Balancing Power and Principle: The Pillars of India’s Modern Foreign Policy
India's current policy is defined by it's pursuit of strategic autonomy,multi alignment, and region focused engagement in these domains India's as a State engaging to fulfill it's objective of foreign policy. These pillars reflect India's efforts to navigate the multipolar World, protect it's interestand position itself as a leading power rather than a balancing one.Strategic Autonomy has replaced the older doctrine of the Non-alignment, but with a more flexible, interest driven approach. India is still making foreign policy decisions more effectively without aligning with any major global powers or ideological camp but more effectively and independently. This autonomy allow India's to navigate the multipolar World according the nation's interest However it's sometimes co-operate with the power bloc but sometimes find itself in the competing stage with the power bloc for securing it's interest. While the NAM doctrine has more legitimacy,it lacked the hard power to influence outcomes it's was highly influenced from the ideologies like the Nehru's idealism. Today's strategic autonomy under the Narendra Modi & earlier Manmohan Singh is less about moral posturing and more about power-balancing. non-alignment was idealist; strategic autonomy is realist.
QUAD Participation: Security Alignment without Formal Alliance
 |
| Tap on image to view full resolution data |
India's participation in the QUAD alongside the US, Japan, and Australia reflects strategic convergence in the Indo-Pacific, especially for balancing & countering China’s assertiveness ,While the QUAD is not a military alliance like NATO still it carries geostrategic symbolism, including joint military exercises (Malabar), tech and cyber cooperation, and maritime security. Traditionally India resists any formal military alliance ensuring it doesn't become a subordinate in a US-led bloc. So, it opposed expanding QUAD into a military NATO-like alliance, maintaining its “issue-based engagement” philosophy. India attends QUAD summits with US allies, yet refuses to take a strong anti-China position in its official statements. It walks a fine line countering China in the Himalayas while cooperating with it in BRICS .Russia always a crucial option and Ally of india in any phase. Despite the growing alignment with the US and West Entities, India has not distanced itself from Russia During the Ukraine war, India abstained from UN votes condemning Russia, citing national interest and dialogue. This abstention wasn’t ideological, it's practical
In the western era of defence equipment; Russia still the biggest arms exporter of india and despite all the pressure from US , india still continues its defence trade with russia as it was in past. The west see these all action as a part of India's "strategic ambiguity" however for India it's a strategic Autonomy; choosing partner based on interest not ny pressure.
Multilateralism: Walking Between G20 and BRICS India’s simultaneous leadership in G20 (seen as a Western-led global economic forum) and active engagement in BRICS and SCO (where Russia and China dominate) shows a deliberate dual strategy. In 2024, when India's hosted the G20, it pitched itself as a "Voice of the Global South", focusing on development, debt restructuring, and digital public infrastructure.on other side in BRICS India supports de-dollarisation and global governance reform ideas backed by China and Russia however last india rejected the claim that he's looking toward de-dollarisation. This dual engagements highlight India’s intent to not “choose sides” in the emerging Cold War 2.0. In Realist terms, strategic autonomy is a logical strategy in an anarchic international system. As Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism argues, nations act to maximize their security and autonomy, especially in the absence of a any global authority.India’s behaviour reflects a balancing act not a opportunistic approach. It align where it interests lies and avoid any non necessary engagement as some countries has to do in NATO.
While India’s strategic autonomy provides flexibility, it also creates strategic dilemmas,
India’s balancing often leads to diplomatic fog. The West questions India’s Russia stand; the Global South doubts India’s closeness with the US. This makes leadership claims difficult to sustain without clearer positions. It's Nature of politics that whoever want to lead as leader must be a with a vision and ideology, Global souths countries can't accept a nation as a leader who itself is uncertain and unsure about it policies . Some critics highlight that, in the modern era, the West is booming in the AI, semiconductor, and tech sectors. It is possible that its strong ties with Russia may hinder its ability to keep up with this rapid technological evolution and that India may lag behind as a result. India seeks to be a global rule-maker, it may need to take harder stances on key global issues something autonomy avoids. Can one lead without aligning?
The Neighbourhood Trap: India’s Regional Diplomacy Dilemma
India’s Neighbourhood First policy is a regional expression of strategic autonomy it seeks to shape its periphery without becoming interventionist or over-extended. The logic is simple: India cannot be a global power if it cannot manage its immediate neighbourhood. But there's growing problem in the relationship of India's with his key neighbour who rapidly drifting towards the china and it economic and military power acting catalyst in this process.In recent elections of Maldives, governments previously friendly to India have been replaced by leaders cozy with Beijing. similarly anti India development happening in the Nepal and Sri Lanka. These all development limiting the India's ability to project itself as a father of the region India’s leverage in its periphery often depends on having friendly governments in place.When such governments fall, India’s influence quickly get weak. Sheik Hasina's collapse in the Bangladesh is perfect example of it. On the other side China's leaverage in these realms is due to its economical Power in the forms of loan, agreement which by and large remain constant. Critics observe that diplomatic missteps and insufficient economic outreach have given China an opening: by investing heavily in Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives and others, Beijing has undercut India’s traditional role.
The Diplomacy of Ambiguity: India’s Global Strategy Under Scrutiny
India’s foreign policy often emphasizes “strategic autonomy” and issue-based engagement rather than formal alliances, a legacy of its non-aligned outlook. While these approache sometimes provide the flexibility but it also undermine India’s credibility on the world stage.For instance, India has consistently urged dialogue and respect for sovereignty in global crises, but stops short of outright condemnations. During the Russia–Ukraine war. This balanced stance (maintaining ties with Russia while aiding Ukraine) was praised as a display of neutrality, but Western governments and observers criticized it as shirking moral responsibility and it's understandable that India's has a strong ties it russia. "But it doesn't always work the same way. When the U.S. bombed Iran's nuclear facility, India did not stand in support of Iran, despite having strong ties with the country. These actions raise the question: does India only side with the stronger powers? Does it lack the backbone to stand with the weaker ones?" Similarly, in Middle East issues India treads a fine line. In the Gaza conflict, New Delhi condemned the October 2023 Hamas attacks as terrorism while also calling for restraint on Israel. This dual message consistent with India’s two-state tradition was described as a commendable emphasis on diplomacy and dialogue.Yes, it opened India for the critique that its policy is too caution and equivocal., India’s reluctance to take absolute strong stands on issues like human rights, climate change or global security norms creates an image of dilemma. India’s mix of Nehruvian non-alignment, economic engagement and military balancing has so far produced a foreign policy that is flexible but leaves questions about whether India can consistently project leadership or stick to clear principles.
Navigating Turbulence: India’s Approach to International Conflicts
In point is the October 2023 Israel- Hamas war. Prime Minister Modi’s public reaction came four days after the conflict began, via social-media posts that “condemned terrorism” and offered solidarity with Israel. This delay reflected India’s need to balance its growing partnership with Israel against its ties to Arab and Palestinian interests.This delay reflected India’s need to balance its growing partnership with Israel against its ties to Arab and Palestinian interests. It was predicted that India would maintain a “low public profile” during the war signaling support to Israel privately while publicly framing its stance as a reaction to Hamas terrorism, not a rejection of Palestinians. Such calibrated messaging aligns with India’s broader approach but some time it look like the hesitancy. In a crisis where other leaders issue immediate statements, India’s measured diplomacy and delayed timing has drawn comment as lacking clarity. India's slow response underscored the criticism that its foreign policy is too cautious and slow to mobilize when urgent global expectations demand swift leadership.
Between Washington and Moscow: The Power Calculus of a Middle Power
India has historically navigated a complex Middle East, juggling ties with Israel and Arab states while safeguarding its energy and trade interests In recent months this balancing act has been especially tested by the Israel–Iran conflict. In mid June 2025, Israel launched direct strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, prompting Iranian missile attacks on Israeli cities. Soon after, the United States entered the fray: on June 22, 2025 the U.S. Air Force and Navy bombed Iran’s Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities, effectively joining Israel’s war againstIran.India’s response has been notably cautious and noncommittal, reflecting its wider and traditional Middle East dilemma.
 |
| Tap on image to view full resolution data |
India places a premium on these energy links, including the Iran India Chabahar port project that offers an alternate route to Central Asia. India also pursues ambitious trade and infrastructure projects with Gulf states: for example, it helped launch the India Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (with US and Israel) to boost connectivity
The Middle East supplies the largest's share of India’s oil. With 80% of consumption imported, India must engage all major Gulf producersSaudi Arabia is India’s largest crude oil source, and Iran is another key supplier. And The large Indian diaspora (around 8–9 million workers in GCC countries) sends home nearly half of the $118 billion in remittances from the Gulf. India therefore seeks stable ties with Gulf capitals to protect these people-to-people and economic links. On the other hand, India’s security interests bind it to Israel. Intelligence and counterterror cooperation with Israel have also expanded.India today tries to maintain friendly ties with both Israel and the Arab world, Its relationship with Israel is unusually warm. India now enjoys a close strategic partnership with Israel,India has even moved away from its older practice of criticizing Israel in international forums. At the same time, India cultivates deep ties with the Arab world. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are seen as crucial partners: both nations invest heavily in India and supply vast amounts of oil. Saudi Arabia is explicitly cited as India’s largest oil supplier, and India’s foreign ministry has called Saudi ties a “strategic partnership.”
Traditionally New Delhi has historically maintained a neutrality in the region, avoiding overt alignment which reflects the rRealist approach: securing economic and strategic benefits without becoming entangled in sectarian or ideological rivalries. Yet this balancing is becoming harder to sustain.When US did strike on the Iran, India refrained from taking any definitive stand. Apart from issuing a generic call for "restraint and de-escalation,"New Delhi avoided condemning either party. While this silence aligns with the traditional policy of strategic ambiguity, it also reveals a lack of preparedness and clarity in rapidly evolving crises.Being strategic ambiguite can help, but only if there’s a solid plan behind it. India’s unclear approach to regional issues has led to last-minute reactions instead of forward-thinking solutions." From the realist point of view National Interest : securing trade routes , sustaining economic partnerships is India's topmost priority which make it align with the Israel while simultaneously hosting state visits from Saudi and UAE leaders.However, Constructivist theory sheds light on the ideological and identity-based contradictions. India has traditionally supported Palestinian statehood and advocated for the 2 state solution and positioned itself as a voice for the Global South. Yet its growing alignment with Israel, including silence over Israeli operations in Gaza and Iranian nuclear targets, has eroded its credibility in Arab capitals. Furthermore, India's domestic political climate-marked by rising Hindu nationalist narratives- has influenced the perception of bias in its West Asia policy."The current government believes that international relations operate on the basis of religion, whereas in reality, they operate on the basis of power. By these actions “India risks alienating key partners in the Gulf if its silence is interpreted as tacit support for Israeli maximalism.
There's deep structural loopholes in India's Middle East Policy India lacks a published or institutionalized doctrine for engagement with West Asia. This creates confusion in fast-moving crises, making India appear hesitant or opportunistic. In contrast, countries like Turkey and China have more consistent strategic narratives in the region. India’s traditional identity as a neutral, non-interventionist power is diminishing. But the growing alignment with the U.S. and Israel is undercutting its ability to act as a credible balancer between conflicting poles and raising critical questions on it's ability to lead the Global South.Credibility and Strategic Risks
India’s current posture in the Middle East is increasingly being perceived as fragile and inconsistent. Its inability to take firm, timely positions risks weakening its image as a rising global power with a values-based foreign policy. In a multipolar world, hedging is understandable but not at the cost of diplomatic invisibility in moments of crisis.The strategic silence may also come at a cost in international forums. As global powers seek clearer alignments in polarized conflicts, India's reluctance to articulate positions could weaken its bargaining capacity and soft power appeal.
The Tripartite Struggle of Asia: Navigating India’s Twin Threats from Pakistan and China
India faces simultaneous security challenges on two fronts – a militant-backed Pakistan in the west and an assertive China in the northAfter the 2019 Pulwama suicide attack (40 Indian soldiers killed), India deviated from its historical restraint and launched the Balakot airstrikes into Pakistan this shift in action reflected a new willingness to impose costs on terrorist sponsors: Balakot strike illlustrated that strategic space exists for limited use of force and dispelled fears that any Indian strike would inevitably trigger nuclear escalation. In 2025, a new terrorist attack in Pahalgam where 26 Hindu pilgrims were killed , again tested India’s policy. India’s military answered with Operation Sindoor a controlled missile-and-drone strike on alleged militant camps in POK While Pakistan claimed to shoot down Indian jets nd launched its own missile/drones, intense cross-border fire erupted until a US-mediated ceasefire on May 10.
As a CDS Chief highlighted in ORF Conclave that
“Pakistan was the front face, but China was extending all possible support and even Turkey supplied military hardware.
This underscores India’s view that it faces a triad of adversaries. Turkey’s leadership toured Islamabad, strengthening defence and trade ties .China’s Foreign Ministry “regretted” India’s strikes and urged both sides to exercise restraint, and it denied any direct role despite India’s claims of Chinese satellite support. In practice, no major power openly backed India’s , international statements from China, Russia, even the US uniformly called for calm and dialogue. By contrast, Islamabad enjoys the overt backing of its “all-weather ally” China and a friendly Turkey. Somewhere India’s relative diplomatic isolation limits its strategic options.
On the Sino-Indian front, Galwan Valley (June 2020) was a watershed. For the first time in decades, Indian and Chinese soldiers fought with lethal force along the Line of Actual Control and India lost 20 troops and around 40 loss from other side. This incident “fundamentally altered” bilateral dynamics: India no longer gives China the benefit of the doubt, and Beijing can no longer assume India will react with restraint. Indeed, post-Galwan New Delhi quietly “balanced” by accelerating defence ties with the US and regional powers and by beefing up its military presence on the LAC. India has sought to deter Pakistan’s proxy war by punitive strikes and tougher security measures, while simultaneously trying to counter China’s territorial coercion through infrastructure, force posture and international alignments, not going for the arms deterrence in the case of China.Following the realist logic, India is attempting limited balancing and deterrence: it signed defense agreements (e.g. S-400 missiles from Russia, Rafale jets from France) and deepened partnerships like the Quad with the US, Japan and Australia. These moves signal deterrence to China, even as India tries to hedge its commitments to maintain strategic autonomy.
India’s situation exemplifies classic IR concepts. Security Dilemma as moving from non-alignment to “strategic autonomy” and even a quasi-alliance with the US (QUAD) to hedge against China. In practice, India is reinforcing its armies along contested borders, acquiring advanced missiles and jets for credible minimum deterrence, and engaging great powers to offset its vulnerabilities. For instance, India has procured Rafale fighters, S-400 SAMs and upgraded mountain divisions. On the Pakistan front, improved surveillance and quick-reaction forces aim to deter infiltrations. India’s strategy of “imposing costs” – as in Balakot or Sindoor – is meant to raise the price of Pakistan’s proxy war without triggering all-out war. Likewise, on the China front, India’s force modernization e.g. mountain strike corps, UAVs is intended to deter further incursions by demonstrating capability..
Policy Gaps and Isolation: Why India Struggles to Gain Support
India’s international support is muted. Major powers, wary of nuclear escalation, China’s veto power and strategic ties with Pakistan give Islamabad a shield; for example China has repeatedly blocked punitive measures against Pakistan at international forums. India’s moral high ground on terrorism is blunted by its own Kashmir policies many Muslim-majority countries side with Pakistan on Kashmir issues, making India’s diplomatic isolation acute.
Indeed, while India maintains it acted in self-defense, Chinese and Turkish leaders have publicly embraced Pakistan’s narrative. At the same time, India finds that none of its partners will “openly” support kinetic action: the US and others stop short of endorsing strikes, instead urging restraint. It has been noted on the even neutral press coverage focused on fears of escalation, not on India’s grievances.India’s measured Pahalgam response as “strategic restraint,” but others interpreted it as a sign India felt exposed. If India appears unwilling to escalate decisively (to avoid nuclear war), and if adversaries believe India won’t retaliate strongly, they may push harder next time. Kargil misadventure (1999) happened partly because India’s earlier restraint was seen as weakness. India is facing persistent “security dilemma” and must continue broadening its strategic toolkit- from military modernization to partnerships like the Quad- to compensate for its vulnerabilities and if must increasing cooperation with whom who can openly give their hacking in the situation of military clashes eg: Russia in 1971.
Reaching the Core: India’s Foreign Policy Through Theoretical Lenses
Strategic Autonomy vs. Alliances. India officially maintains a policy of “strategic autonomy”, refusing formal blocs with any power. For example, despite rising China threats and border clashes, India “resisted embracing” the Quad (security dialogue with U.S., Japan, Australia). Likewise, it has been praised domestically for not condemning Russia over Ukraine, prioritizing cheap oil and defence deals over ideological alignment. In practice India hedges between great powers: deepening defence ties with the U.S. e.g. a 2023 deal to co-produce GE fighter‐jet engines in India while still relying heavily on Russia for military hardware and energy.
 |
| Tap to view full resolution data |
Realism predicts that India should build power to secure its interests. In line with this, New Delhi has steadily increased defence spending and diversified weapons imports. However, analysts caution India’s military remains inadequate to counter China alone.India currently has “neither…the military capabilities (internal balancing) nor…foreign partnerships (external balancing)” to secure its northern borders. Russia. long India’s strategic partner, has proven unreliable (failing to deliver contracted weapons after Ukraine) and has drawn closer to China. Critics therefore warn that without a strong ally, India stays “woefully exposed” to Chinese pressure.
Since the independence India witnessed a significant transformation in the foreign policy which initially followed the non alignment and idealism at some point of time , and when it faced challenged from the aliens powers it's also transformed it into the aggressive realism under the Mrs.Gandhi. Now ,It's moved from the idealism , Non-alignment characterized by a desired to remain away from the both conflicting power blocks to more paramagnetic approach of multi alignment in the contemporary era. Which highly vibrant and visible after the 2014 during the Modi era , which reflect the India's journey from the new independent post colonial state to emerging global player. It's principe of strategic autonomy is quite different from the old classical theoretical definition, sometimes the ability to act independently is not merely, inhert in the nation's capabilities but also a function of the evolving international system. The current global system now not concentrated in the singularity instead of that it get distributed in various smalls centers result in creation of multipolar global order : an expanded space for the regional power to excercise the greater autonomy. For India, as a growing middle power this changes brings the greater flexibility India's pursuit of strategic autonomy is not just a policy choice but also a response to and a leaveraging of , changes in the global power structure.
Constructivist Lens: Identity and Image (Vishwaguru)
The constructivist view looks at India’s self-image and values projection. In recent years the Modi government has aggressively crafted a global brand: invoking Hindu civilizational heritage and democracy. For instance, Indian leaders regularly tout India as the “Mother of Democracy” and aspire to be the Vishwaguru (“world teacher”) of global ideas. In practice this became visible during the 2023 G20: Delhi projected a G20 logo hologram on a Mughal tomb and plastered billboards calling India the “Mother of Democracy” hosting world leaders. Home Minister Amit Shah even declared that “India is on the way to become Vishwaguru now”. These symbols and speeches aim to build an identity of moral leadership and soft power (through yoga diplomacy, cultural ties, diaspora networks, etc.) beyond sheer hard power. Constructivism also examines how domestic ideas shape foreign policy. Critics point out a contradiction: while promoting an image of pluralistic leadership, India’s ruling party has rolled back secular norms at home. Scholars of IR warned that India is drifting toward a “poisonous Hindutva ideology” that undermines its secular-democratic values. This ideological turn ,changes to citizenship laws, treatment of minorities, and nationalist themes ,clashes with the liberal-democratic image India sells abroad.
In short, the “world image” India is trying to build doesn’t fully match the situation at home. This identity politics is partly a way to protect itself: using ideas like Vishwaguru and democracy helps to avoid criticism by focusing on civilizational pride. But the gap between words and reality is a clear loophole when freedoms are going backward at home, the image of peaceful democracy and pluralism becomes hard to believe.
For defence and geopolitics, India acts like a classic power-state: diversifying arms, building naval capacity, and shoring up territorial claims. It also selectively joins coalitions (e.g. Quad exercises, the Malabar naval drills) these all are useful, but falls short of full commitment. Economically and institutionally, India shows liberal tendencies: it has opened markets with partners (UAE, Australia FTAs and in talks with EU) and actively hosts or leads forums (G20, BRICS, SCO). In current time India’s foreign policy today is mixed. It often pays lip service to ideals (multilateralism, democracy, South-South solidarity) but ultimately bows to realpolitik when interests are at stake. New Delhi “strides the global stage with a clear-eyed pursuit of power and material interests” while still posing as champion of the developing world. This ambivalence has led critics to see loopholes in the strategy: policy decisions can appear more. opportunistic and the overall doctrine unclear.
Goal-posts shift with circumstances. Whether India is “on the right path” depends on perspective; realists praise the tough pursuit of strength, liberals appreciate global engagement, but both agree that a more clear and consistent strategy is needed if India wants to turn its ambitions into lasting influence
.
Comments
Post a Comment