A World of Our Making: India’s Foreign Policy and the Myth of Realism
(Source: The Indian Express, Editorial Page)
Also Read: The Indian Express Editorial Analysis: 17 July 2025
Also Read: The Hindu Editorial Analysis: 17 July 2025
| Topic: GS Paper 2 – International Relations, Foreign Policy, Global Governance |
| Context |
|
Current Foreign Policy Landscape
India’s approach to foreign affairs increasingly relies on populist optics rather than pragmatic strategy. Diplomatic successes are projected as major achievements, while fundamental issues—such as nuclear risk management, border disputes, and multilateral engagement—remain unresolved. This tendency to focus on domestic narratives rather than international realities creates a fragile foundation for foreign relations.
Key Challenges and Their Implications
1. Hyper-Nationalism and Policy Myopia
India’s policymakers often prioritize political messaging over strategic outcomes. While assertive rhetoric resonates domestically, it does little to resolve issues such as border tensions, trade negotiations, or global security concerns. Symbolic triumphs overshadow substantive dialogue, resulting in a credibility gap.
2. Loss of Moral Authority
India’s historic reputation for principled diplomacy is eroding. Inconsistencies in human rights stances, selective condemnations, and the pursuit of short-term geopolitical gains have diminished India’s ability to claim moral high ground. This weakens India’s influence in international forums like the UN and G20.
3. Mismanagement of Nuclear Escalation Risks
India and Pakistan’s reliance on nuclear deterrence, coupled with weak crisis management protocols, heightens the risk of accidental escalations. Current mechanisms lack clarity and fail to reassure the global community of stability in South Asia.
Interpreting Realism in Indian Foreign Policy
Realism, in international relations, demands aligning ambitions with capabilities. However, India often equates muscular posturing with strategic strength. For example, high-profile visits and headline-driven diplomacy dominate narratives, but institutional weaknesses persist—such as inadequate trade negotiations and slow progress in multilateral climate agreements.
Broader Implications of Strategic Gaps
-
Security Risks: Limited engagement with key partners like the U.S., EU, and ASEAN makes India vulnerable amid rising China-U.S. competition.
-
Credibility Deficit: Inconsistent positions on issues like global governance and climate change reduce trust among allies.
-
Diplomatic Isolation: Failure to manage neighborhood relations risks pushing smaller South Asian states closer to China.
Comparing Strategic Realism vs. Populist Diplomacy
| Aspect | Strategic Realism | Populist Diplomacy |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Aligns ambitions with capabilities | Prioritizes optics over substance |
| Engagement Style | Institutionalized, consensus-driven | Event-based, media-driven |
| Crisis Management | Focus on prevention and stability | Reactionary and symbolic |
| Global Image | Reliable, proactive partner | Reactive, inconsistent, and credibility gap |
Conclusion and Way Forward
India must recalibrate its foreign policy to reflect pragmatic realism rather than nationalist rhetoric. This includes:
-
Establishing a bipartisan strategic consensus on long-term goals.
-
Investing in institutional capacity for trade negotiations, crisis diplomacy, and multilateral engagement.
-
Rebuilding moral credibility through consistent, values-based foreign policy.
-
Strengthening nuclear and border stability frameworks to minimize escalation risks.
By aligning ambition with capability and focusing on substance over symbolism, India can transform its diplomatic posture into one that commands global respect and secures national interests effectively.
| Practice Question: (GS-2 | 15 Marks | 250 Words) “India’s foreign policy often confuses hyper-nationalism with strategic realism, weakening its global influence.” Critically analyze with suitable examples. |
