Dr Arun Mitra
The world is passing through a profound geopolitical transformation. The emerging international order is increasingly multipolar, with power and influence distributed among several centres. This marks a significant departure from the bipolar division that characterized international politics after the Second World War, when the United States led the Western and imperialist bloc while the Soviet Union led the socialist bloc.
The newly liberated countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America emerged from centuries of colonial exploitation with economies marked by poverty, underdevelopment and technological backwardness. Their priorities were economic development, social progress, sovereignty and freedom from external domination. It was in this historical context that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged.
NAM was initiated by five prominent leaders of the newly independent world: Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Sukarno of Indonesia. The objectives of NAM included peaceful coexistence, respect for national sovereignty, opposition to colonialism and imperialism, disarmament and cooperation among developing countries.
India played a particularly important role in articulating the concerns of the Global South. Its independent foreign policy earned it considerable international respect. India was not seen merely as a large developing country; it was regarded as a country capable of thinking independently, speaking for newly liberated nations and maintaining relations with countries belonging to different political and economic systems.
Today, discussions about the countries capable of decisively shaping the emerging global order focus largely on the United States, China and Russia. The government repeatedly projects India as one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies and an emerging global power. But economic growth alone does not automatically create geopolitical influence. Persistent inequality, unemployment, economic insecurity and weaknesses in the rupee raise questions about the sustainability and quality of growth.
The more fundamental question is whether the growth is inclusive and who is benefiting from it, and whether it is strengthening India’s economic sovereignty and international influence.
The Prime Minister has spoken of making India a ‘Vishwaguru’ by 2047. But global leadership cannot simply be postponed to 2047. International standing is built through policies and actions undertaken today. A country becomes influential because of the credibility, independence and consistency of its present conduct.
India’s foreign policy during the freedom struggle and the early decades after independence was deeply influenced by the anti-colonial experience. The RSS, however, did not develop the same anti-imperialist political orientation during the freedom struggle or in the decades that followed. This ideological difference has implications for how global power relations are viewed today. The present government’s foreign-policy approach increasingly gives the impression of close strategic alignment with the United States and the Western bloc.
The developments following the Pahalgam terrorist attack and the subsequent India-Pakistan military confrontation provide an important example. India launched Operation Sindoor, Pakistan responded militarily, and both sides suffered losses. Fortunately, the confrontation ended within days. US President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that he was responsible for stopping the conflict. The Indian government has not consistently and forcefully challenged these claims. This inevitably creates an impression about who exercised decisive influence.
India’s increasingly close alignment with Israel has further complicated its traditional diplomatic relationships in West Asia. When Narendra Modi visited the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, and expressed strong solidarity with Israel, questions arose about the balance and independence of India’s West Asia policy, particularly amid international criticism of Israel’s genocidal military actions in Gaza.
The consequences have been especially significant for India’s relationship with Iran. Iran has historically been important to India economically, strategically and diplomatically. India and Iran have maintained relations despite pressure from international sanctions and geopolitical tensions. When Iran came under military attack and Iranian civilians, including children, were killed, India’s response was widely perceived as meek. This is precisely where India’s traditional diplomatic strength could have been valuable. India once possessed the credibility to communicate with competing sides without being identified completely with any one bloc. That diplomatic space now appears narrower.
Perhaps the most striking development is the emergence of Pakistan as an intermediary in efforts to facilitate understanding between Iran and the United States. There was a time when India itself was regarded as a country capable of playing such a role in major international crises. India’s relations with the Arab world, Iran, Russia, the United States and other countries, combined with its history of non-alignment, gave it diplomatic space that few developing countries possessed.
Recent regional efforts involving Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye also indicate that West Asian countries increasingly want to develop their own mechanisms for security and diplomacy rather than depend entirely on external powers. This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: Where is India in this emerging regional diplomacy?
A major power cannot allow ideological proximity to one country or bloc to undermine relationships vital to its own long-term interests. Foreign policy must ultimately serve national interests while contributing to peace and stability. The issue is whether India can engage with countries of the world from a position of confidence and autonomy.
India’s earlier foreign policy rested on the principle that friendship with one country did not require hostility towards another. It sought to maintain relations across ideological and geopolitical divides. This approach provided India with diplomatic flexibility and considerable moral authority. It is time to examine whether India itself has surrendered some of the diplomatic space that it once possessed.
A country becomes a global power not merely because it has a large population, a growing economy or a powerful military. It becomes influential when other countries trust its word, respect its independence and believe that it can act as a credible and honest interlocutor. India therefore needs a serious national debate on the direction of its foreign policy. Is the present course strengthening India’s strategic autonomy—or gradually weakening it?
The answer will not merely determine India’s standing during the tenure of the present government. The choices being made today may shape India’s place in the world for decades. India once helped give political voice to the Global South. It helped create the Non-Aligned Movement and demonstrated that an emerging nation could pursue an independent path amid intense great-power rivalry.
India is the chair of the BRICS and its summit is to be held on 12-13 September 2026 at New Delhi. What will be India’s stance on several global affairs is an important question for this summit. The news is pouring in that the US might use tactical nuclear weapons to open and declare the strait of Hormuz as its territory. Will Indian government take a firm stand against the use nuclear weapons by the US is to be seen.
The question before us today is stark: Has India forgotten the diplomatic strength that came from standing on its own feet? And, if so, where did we falter?
