Over the last decade, India’s political leadership has increasingly projected the country as a decisive global actor. Senior officials, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, have described India as moving from a “balancing power” to a “leading power,” and have argued that India now helps shape global conversations rather than merely participating in them. This narrative has been a consistent feature of India’s diplomatic messaging, particularly in the years preceding the 2024 general elections.
However, influence in international politics is best measured not by participation or visibility, but by outcomes: the capacity to shape decisions, to resist coercion by more powerful states, and to protect national interests and citizens when they conflict with those of others. On these metrics, India’s record is more mixed than official rhetoric suggests.
Strategic autonomy and great-power pressure
India has long described “strategic autonomy” as a core principle of its foreign policy. In practice, this autonomy has faced significant constraints. One example is the Chabahar port project in Iran, which was publicly framed by the Modi government as a symbol of independent regional strategy and connectivity to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Yet US sanctions on Iran have repeatedly limited India’s operational freedom. While India has sought waivers and engaged diplomatically with Washington, the project has progressed slowly and under clear external constraint. This does not amount to a complete abandonment, but it does demonstrate that India has limited ability to insulate strategic projects from American sanctions policy.
Similarly, under the second Trump administration, India has faced renewed trade and economic pressure. US tariffs on Indian goods remain in place, and negotiations have not produced broad exemptions. Immigration and visa regimes affecting Indian nationals have also tightened, reflecting US domestic priorities rather than Indian diplomatic leverage. These developments illustrate the asymmetry in the relationship: India is an important partner to the United States, but not one that can meaningfully alter core US economic or political decisions when interests diverge.
India’s continued purchase of Russian oil despite Western sanctions does show a degree of autonomy. However, this autonomy is partial and transactional, enabled by market conditions and Russia’s willingness to offer discounted crude, rather than by India’s ability to reshape Western policy or prevent secondary pressure.
Russia, citizens abroad, and limits of protection
India’s relationship with Russia remains formally strong, but the war in Ukraine has exposed vulnerabilities. There have been verified cases of Indian nationals being recruited to work in Russia under misleading terms, some of whom ended up in proximity to active conflict zones. While there is no evidence of a deliberate Russian policy to forcibly conscript Indians, the episode highlights gaps in India’s ability to prevent exploitation of its citizens abroad and to respond rapidly when such cases emerge. Government engagement has occurred, but outcomes have been slow and uneven, underscoring the limits of consular protection when host countries are uncooperative.
China: unresolved security and economic asymmetry
China remains India’s most significant long-term strategic challenge. Since 2020, border tensions have persisted without a clear political resolution, despite multiple rounds of military and diplomatic talks. At the same time, economic dependence has deepened rather than diminished. India’s trade deficit with China has expanded sharply since 2014, reaching well over $100 billion by the mid-2020s. This reflects structural weaknesses in India’s manufacturing base and supply-chain competitiveness rather than short-term policy choices.
India has restricted Chinese investment and apps on national security grounds, but these measures have not translated into reduced import dependence. In this sense, India has absorbed security costs without securing corresponding economic leverage.
Europe and narrative management
Relations with European states have expanded in scope, including negotiations over trade and high-level political engagement. However, European leaders have at times publicly articulated expectations about India’s energy purchases from Russia or its defence diversification. Such statements are not unusual in diplomacy, but they do underscore that India is often responding to external pressure rather than setting the terms of debate. The contrast between assertive domestic rhetoric and cautious external positioning has become increasingly visible.
Domestic governance and international credibility
Foreign policy credibility is inseparable from domestic governance capacity. On this front, the Modi government’s record includes several decisions whose negative consequences are well documented.
The 2016 demonetisation exercise caused a sharp disruption to the informal economy, with limited evidence that its stated goals—such as eliminating black money—were achieved. No comprehensive official evaluation has been released to date.
The 2020 farm laws were enacted with limited consultation and eventually repealed after prolonged protests, raising questions about policy process, federal consultation, and political risk assessment.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, especially the second wave in 2021, India experienced severe health-system stress, with shortages of oxygen and hospital capacity widely reported. While no country handled the pandemic perfectly, the scale of suffering exposed weaknesses in coordination and preparedness.
Persistent urban air pollution, water quality issues, and recurring infrastructure-related disasters continue to affect public welfare. The prolonged ethnic violence in Manipur, and the delayed visible response from the central leadership, further reinforced perceptions of governance drift.
These domestic challenges matter internationally because they shape perceptions of state capacity, institutional reliability, and long-term stability—key components of power.
Narrative versus capability
India today is larger, more visible, and more economically significant than it was in 2014. It remains well ahead of Pakistan and Bangladesh in aggregate economic and military terms, and it is not objectively “re-hyphenated” with them in global rankings. However, domestic political discourse increasingly uses these countries as reference points, which reflects a narrowing of ambition rather than a realistic assessment of India’s peer group.
The central problem, therefore, is not decline but disjunction: a widening gap between expansive claims and constrained outcomes. Participation in global forums, personal diplomacy, and symbolic leadership roles cannot substitute for institutional strength, manufacturing depth, policy stability, and the ability to absorb economic or diplomatic shocks.
Conclusion
India under Narendra Modi has pursued an assertive narrative of power and autonomy. In practice, the country has achieved selective gains but remains structurally constrained by economic asymmetries, external dependencies, and domestic governance challenges. Power in international politics is ultimately the capacity to say no, to protect citizens, and to shape outcomes when interests conflict. On that test, India’s performance has been uneven.
The resulting tension between promise and performance is not merely rhetorical. It has material consequences for India’s credibility abroad and trust at home. Addressing it will require less emphasis on spectacle and personalization, and greater investment in institutions, policy coherence, and long-term economic capability.
No comments:
Post a Comment