‘Incoherence’ appears to shadow the Indian foreign policy for about a quarter of a century now. It could be satisfactory for many to see its advancement from utter confusion and from nowhere to somewhere, yet it has to be articulated with greater precision and meticulousness. The vocabulary of ‘Strategic Autonomy”, “‘Equidistance,’ ‘National Interest”, ‘Multi-alliances”, ‘Multi-alignment”, ‘Vishwamitra”, ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy, and ‘Global South Engagement” marks its discourse with certain empty dots and spaces. Amidst all this jargon, there are significant points that require urgent attention, and the “empty dots” need to be effectively addressed. Since the ‘International Relations’ are giving space to the “Global Politics” where formal and informal actors are marking their presence, India has the formidable challenge of reconciling its strategic goals with the dynamics of global politics amid a swiftly evolving geopolitical landscape.
The world of the day has changed from the Western-centric order to the Asia-centric one, where the new powers vie for dominance against the traditional US-dominated and bipolar order. The failure of multilateral agencies to address the major global challenges has provided greater space to the regional and local forums to come forward and mark their presence, regardless of having legitimacy to dictate the terms and share the global responsibilities (Thakur, 2024). The increased rise of minilaterals looking for quick solutions to the regional and member-state issues further aggravates the situation. South Asia has its own challenges, of course further aggravated by these dynamics and more intense.
Today, India’s foreign policy gives the impression of having a clear view of its strategic goals but a vague methodology of pursuing them. The early part of foreign policy in the twenty-first century underscored a significant shift towards the US at the cost of annoying Russia and China, resulting in the founding of QUAD and border pricking by the latter. The second part, although it began with a wise decision of showing congeniality towards neighbors, its aftermath raises more concerns. Why this happened needs scrutiny, as stern dealing with Pakistan, a permanent border sore, has scared the other neighbors, and how they could be backtracked to normalcy should be the priority. Although the government started well with keeping the option open for all the South Asian neighbors, it then gradually kept on losing its hold over them to a state of almost complete uncontrol and influence.
However, India’s foreign policy has increasingly displayed assertiveness on the international stage, reflecting a more robust global outreach on critical issues such as the Global South, the G20, and advancements in military technology. It has dealt sternly with Chinese misadventures and Pakistani border offensives and sent a strong signal to its adversary states. This assertiveness highlights India’s aspirations to solidify its role as a major global player. However, its approach has been marked by strategic ambiguity on certain issues, most notably the Ukraine conflict. India’s attempts to balance relations with major powers—including the United States and China on one side and Russia on the other—have drawn criticism for their perceived indecisiveness.
While such a balancing act is often justified under the principles of strategic autonomy and multi-alignment, it has led to significant challenges. These include unattended regional concerns and a lack of cohesive policy initiatives to address emerging threats in its immediate neighborhood. This perceived inertia risks creating a vacuum in regional leadership and undermines India’s credibility as a stabilizing force. At a time when greater decisiveness and policy cohesion are expected, India’s foreign policy stance risks diluting its strategic positioning by prioritizing balancing over assertive regional and international leadership.
Losing control of South Asia is a major concern, a part of Sino-Pakistan strategy to rid other smaller states of the region from Indian influence. Of course, China’s “National Rejuvenation” project, which has stages of advancement like infrastructure building, pumping of capital outside China, creating debt dependence among states, and controlling the emerging world order, has also impacted India’s growing stature and regional and global influence. India’s relations with Nepal and Bangladesh worry more where the domestic policies have unintentionally exacerbated regional tensions. Certainly, there are international interventions in their domestic issues. Now the policy of multi-alignment, engaging the Global South and maintaining strategic autonomy, brings points of disconnection in the Indian foreign policy and unravels its weaknesses.
Foreign policy under the current regime initially gave the impression that India was going through a period of revitalization and assertiveness in the international arena, but recent assessments have revealed inadequacies that have undermined its regional impact. The deterioration of relations with China is a fundamental cause that impacts the larger trajectory of Indian foreign policy. The fall owes to several factors, like China’s ‘go global mission,’ global power ambition, India standing as a hurdle in its BRI project, the revival of QUAD, the Indo-US Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) 2017 and Indo-US dynamics over the Indo-Pacific. Few strong decisions by the government of India, like the declaration of a new political map, the abrogation of Article 370, and the inclusion of Ladakh as a Union Territory in 2019, which has also led China to show parts of Ladakh as part of its provinces recently, have also shown India’s courage to set the stage for the coming times, though at the risk of straining ties with the neighborhood. This also evoked protests from Nepal. China’s aggressive strategies have gradually encroached upon India’s sphere of influence and significantly eroded its influence in South Asia (Thakur, 2023). The politicization of certain laws (Citizenship Bill) on communal grounds has also distanced its South Asian neighbors like Bangladesh and Maldives, though citizenship laws are common in several states. All these acts have pushed the smaller neighbors towards China or used its leverage against India.
Instead of being proactive, sometimes Indian foreign policy appears to be reactive too. India has also encountered difficulties in transforming its growing economic capabilities into effective regional leadership or influence, despite the fact that these capabilities are expanding. Policy analysts also believe that instead of showing support for democratic regimes, India prioritizes its strategic goals, as it happened about the military takeover in Myanmar. India puts its connections with authoritarian governments like Russia rather than embracing pro-democracy regimes and movements that advocate for democracy. The case of Ukraine has often been cited here. Although India provided a good platform for global issues during its G20 leadership, it didn’t criticize Ukraine’s invasion. At a time when serious diplomatic sense could have prevailed, the bluntness of “it’s not our problem” may boomerang when we are in trouble from the other corner.
Issues at Home
India’s announcement of a revised political map in 2019, coupled with the abrogation of Article 370 and the designation of Ladakh as a Union Territory, significantly altered its territorial landscape. This authoritative move has, while establishing India as a powerful global actor that has the capacity to take decisions without pressure, also strained relations with neighboring states. Additionally, these developments have elicited protests from Nepal, particularly concerning the Lipulekh tri-junction and the Kalapani region, which further complicates the regional diplomatic dynamics. Amidst these developments, SAARC has lost its legitimate presence permanently.
The interplay between India’s domestic politics and its foreign policy has significantly influenced the country’s standing in the international arena. The electoral politics of the Indian states affect its external policy-making, as opposition, for the sake of opposition, overlooks the genuine national interests being pursued by the government. In times of exigencies when India has to stand united, opposition leaders sing of its adversaries and even target its democratic culture and process, of which they themselves are a reflection. In other states such expression might be tantamount to treason.
What sours the Indian system is its ineffective bureaucracy and the lack of intelligence inputs. They have marred India’s growth as the border episodes with China, the state of affairs in POK, political coup simmering for months in Bangladesh gave its adversaries a lead. The failure of the Indian state in assessing the community distances uncashed by external agencies is also a big concern. The ‘steel frame,’ i.e. Indian Civil Services, appear to be what Nehru once observed: neither civil, nor service, nor even Indian.
The New Plan
Following the so-called “Churchill Plan,” which transformed the Indian subcontinent into a continent of nation-states, emerging aspirations now suggest a potential movement toward carving out another distinct entity in the northeastern region. Sheikh Hasina, amid her strained relations with the United States and her waning political influence in Bangladesh, has alluded to this developing agenda. This purported design seeks to establish a separate Christian-majority nation, encompassing parts of Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India. It is claimed that this proposed entity would primarily involve Christianized northeastern tribes, including the Kuki, Chin, and Zo communities. Such a development, if realized, would have profound implications for regional peace, stability, and security, eliciting strong opposition from the three nations involved ((Organiser, 2024; First Post, 2024).
Therefore, though Indian foreign policy has projected India as a strong contender for the UNSC and the rising global power with an inflating economy. However, significant structural flaws persist, stemming in part from the traditionalist orientation of its bureaucracy and strategic community and exacerbated by an educational framework that the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) may also fail to adequately address. The existing bureaucratic system requires comprehensive reform, as it fails to align with the visionary aspirations of leaders like Sardar Patel. Instead, it largely represents a narrow elite within the civil services and political establishment, whose legitimacy to govern a nation of immense wisdom and untapped potential is increasingly questioned. A shift in governance from the British system to the Indian tradition deserves immediate attention that incorporates the transfer of administrative responsibilities towards genuine stakeholders and experts. The health experts, scientists, and professors can’t be allowed to be governed by ‘British-trained Babus.’. While China directs a substantial portion of its GDP toward its history, culture, education, research, and technological innovation, aiming for another “Great Leap” in artificial intelligence and technology by 2035, India risks repeating the strategic missteps of the 1970s and 1980s. These errors include a failure to adapt to global trends, weakening regional ties, and allowing domestic political challenges to overshadow critical reforms.
To fulfill its ambition of becoming a leading global power, India must address these deficiencies through the adoption of inclusive domestic policies that align with its neighbors’ developmental trajectories and the creation of a cohesive foreign policy strategy focused on long-term stability rather than short-term gains. Forceful diplomacy must be coupled with robust internal reforms, connecting the empty dots of history, culture, education, strategic planning, innovation, and national strength. By effectively harnessing its internal capacities to address external challenges, India can position itself as a formidable player in the evolving global order.