Breaking the Silence: India’s Need for Assertive Foreign Policy in a Polarized World

Indian foreign policy has undergone dynamic shifts and strategic recalibrations since the re-election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2024.

Authors: Kalyani Yeola and Sayantan Bandyopadhyay

Indian foreign policy has undergone dynamic shifts and strategic recalibrations since the re-election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2024. At a magazine launch event in December 2024, External Affairs Minister (EAM) Dr S. Jaishankar articulated the need for India  “to think big, to think long and to think smart.” This vision encapsulates India’s aspirations to emerge as a global leader, prioritizing issue-based alignments and a multi-aligned approach while steering clear of traditional bloc politics. India’s pursuit of being a “Vishwamitra” (global friend) or “Vishwabandhu” (global brother) underscores its emphasis on dialogue, diplomacy and inclusivity in addressing global challenges. However, this nuanced approach, often characterized as strategic ambiguity, has garnered praise and criticism, particularly as it impacts India’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

India’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict provides a clear example of this philosophy in action. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has consistently called for dialogue and diplomacy as the preferred means of resolving the crisis. While emphasizing respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, India has refrained from directly condemning Russia, a long-standing strategic partner. At the same time, India has extended humanitarian aid to Ukraine, signalling a balanced approach that seeks to avoid alienating either side. This posture has positioned India as a potential mediator, but it has also drawn criticism from Western nations and Ukraine, who view India’s abstentions in UN votes as a failure to uphold democratic values. This delicate balancing act demonstrates India’s strategic autonomy but raises questions about whether ambiguity can sustain its long-term aspirations as a global leader.

Similarly, India’s response to the ongoing Israel-Palestine tensions reflects a nuanced balance. While unequivocally condemning Hamas attacks as acts of terrorism, India has also expressed sorrow over the loss of innocent lives on both sides. The MEA’s call for restraint and dialogue aligns with India’s historical support for a two-state solution, reinforcing its commitment to peace and stability in the region. This dual approach—condemning terrorism while advocating for restraint—highlights India’s broader counter-terrorism policy and its consistent reliance on diplomacy. Yet, such careful positioning can be perceived as overly cautious, particularly when other nations expect unequivocal support for their causes.

In the case of Syria, India’s stance has been rooted in its long-standing principles of unity, integrity and Sovereignty. The emergence of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as a governance entity has posed new challenges in the region, prompting India to advocate for inclusive governance that reflects the diverse interests of the Syrian people. This position underscores India’s emphasis on stability and countering radicalization while avoiding direct involvement in the region’s complex power dynamics. However, the absence of a more proactive role in shaping outcomes in such crises could dilute India’s image as a decisive global actor.

Under Prime Minister Modi, India’s foreign policy reflects a deliberate blend of ambition and pragmatism. The emphasis on strategic autonomy —avoiding alignment with any single power bloc—has been a hallmark of this approach. This flexibility allows India to engage with a diverse set of partners, from Russia and China to the United States and the European Union. Yet, it also invites scrutiny about whether India’s reluctance to take clear positions on contentious global issues undermines its aspirations for leadership. For instance, while India’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict underscores its diplomatic independence, some critics argue that it reflects fence-sitting rather than moral leadership.

Global examples of countries adopting strategic clarity provide a compelling counterpoint to India’s approach. The United States exemplifies this with its explicit commitments to its NATO allies under Article 5, ensuring that an attack on one ally is treated as an attack on all. This clarity reassures member states and deters adversaries, reinforcing the credibility of its alliances. Similarly, the U.S. has maintained a clear stance on defending Taiwan while ensuring a robust deterrence posture against regional threats in East Asia.

China employs strategic clarity in asserting its sovereignty claims over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Beijing’s unequivocal declarations, backed by military and diplomatic actions, leave little room for misinterpretation, signalling its determination to uphold these claims despite international disputes. This approach demonstrates how clear articulation of positions can strengthen a country’s resolve and influence.

Israel’s national security policies also showcase strategic clarity. Its preemptive strikes against perceived threats and its firm opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions reflect a transparent and resolute defence posture. By clearly stating its red lines, Israel reinforces its deterrent capabilities and garners international support for its security needs.

Russia’s explicit “red lines” regarding NATO expansion and Ukraine highlight another example of strategic clarity. Moscow’s firm articulation of its geopolitical priorities has influenced the actions of other states, albeit at the cost of heightened tensions. These examples illustrate that strategic clarity can be a powerful tool for advancing national interests and deterring adversaries.

One of the key challenges India faces in its pursuit of a permanent UNSC seat is reconciling its strategic ambiguity with the expectations of decisive global leadership. India’s ability to maintain balanced relations with opposing blocs has strengthened its claim as a neutral and pragmatic actor, capable of representing the interests of the Global South. This approach has also bolstered its credibility as a mediator in conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war. However, the perception of indecisiveness—fueled by India’s reluctance to take unequivocal positions on issues like human rights and climate change—risks alienating key stakeholders.

The ambiguity in India’s foreign policy also complicates its relationships with Western democracies, which are among the strongest advocates for its inclusion in the UNSC. The United States and European nations have expressed concerns about India’s neutral stance on Russia, viewing it as misaligned with liberal democratic values. Simultaneously, some developing nations in the Global South have questioned India’s commitment to equitable climate policies, seeing its positions as prioritizing self-interest over collective responsibility. These critiques underscore the delicate balancing act India must perform to maintain its strategic autonomy while addressing the expectations of diverse international audiences.

India’s strategic ambiguity extends beyond diplomacy into areas like counter-terrorism and regional security. For instance, its measured responses to cross-border terrorism and its nuanced approach to Pakistan reflect a careful balancing of domestic and international considerations. However, this restraint has sometimes been interpreted as a lack of resolve, particularly by domestic critics who call for stronger action. On the global stage, ambiguity in addressing certain terror groups not directly affecting their interests has also drawn criticism from nations advocating for a more unified stance against terrorism.

In navigating these complexities, India’s refusal to publish a formal National Security Strategy (NSS) is both a strength and a limitation. EAM Jaishankar has argued that India’s strategic culture is deeply embedded in its diplomatic practices, even if not explicitly documented. This implicit approach allows for flexibility and adaptability, enabling India to respond dynamically to shifting global scenarios. However, the absence of a formal NSS invites questions about the coherence and transparency of India’s strategic objectives, particularly as it seeks to project itself as a global power.

To strengthen its bid for a permanent UNSC seat, India must address these challenges by complementing its strategic ambiguity with clearer commitments and proactive leadership. First, India should assert its moral leadership by taking unequivocal stances on global norms. Along with sovereignty, and territorial integrity, India should take a clear stand on the preservation of human rights that would reinforce its credibility as a principled global actor. Second, India could leverage its neutral stance to lead peace negotiations or initiatives in global conflicts, showcasing its ability to act decisively when needed. Instead of merely issuing statements, India can actively engage these countries and create a platform for meaningful negotiations. Third, championing the causes of the Global South—India can push developed countries to honour their climate finance commitment. It would solidify India’s image as a representative of underrepresented voices.  Finally, strengthening alliances with Western democracies while maintaining ties with Russia and other partners would balance India’s strategic autonomy with clearer global alignment.

India’s strategic ambiguity remains both an asset and a liability in its quest for a permanent seat on the UNSC. While it highlights India’s diplomatic flexibility and adherence to non-aligned traditions, it also raises doubts about its decisiveness and leadership. Balancing pragmatic ambiguity with stronger commitments to global norms and a more proactive role in addressing critical international challenges will be essential for India to enhance its candidacy and solidify its position as a global leader.

In this context, India could further its diplomatic objectives and bolster its leadership credentials by defining its strategic “red lines” in a white paper. Such a document would articulate the boundaries of acceptable behaviour from global actors while maintaining a commitment to dialogue and cooperation. This transparent framework would not only serve as a guide for other nations to navigate their relations with India but also project India’s resolve to protect its core interests. Additionally, India should adopt a more assertive approach based on a coordinated escalation ladder. This strategy would enable India to respond proportionately to any violations of its defined boundaries while maintaining the flexibility to de-escalate when necessary. By combining clear articulation of its red lines with a calibrated escalation strategy, India can effectively safeguard its national interests while reinforcing its role as a constructive and decisive global leader.

*Sayantan Bandyopadhyay is a Junior Research Fellow in the Centre for South Asian Studies(CSAS) in the School of International Studies(SIS) of Jawaharlal Nehru University,New Delhi.

Kalyani Yeola
Kalyani Yeola
Kalyani Yeola is a Senior Research Fellow at the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, K K Birla Goa Campus, India.