• Adv. Nabeel Kolothumthodi

The recent escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict and last month’s India-Pak, have exposed a critical vulnerability in India’s foreign policy, its increasing subordination to domestic political imperatives at the expense of strategic, long-term national interests. Nowhere is this more evident than in New Delhi’s refusal to condemn Israel’s attack on Iran, a nation that has long-served as a vital strategic partner for India. This diplomatic miscalculation is not an isolated incident; it is emblematic of a broader trend in which foreign policy has been politicized for short-term electoral gain, undermining India’s global stature, regional ambitions, and hard-won reputation for strategic autonomy.

For decades, India’s foreign policy was defined by a careful balancing act, rooted in non-alignment, soft power, and a nuanced understanding of global and regional complexities. The country’s relationships with Iran, Pakistan, China, and its smaller neighbours were managed with a mix of pragmatism and principle, allowing India to punch above its weight on the world stage. In recent years, however, this approach has been steadily eroded. The central government’s increasing reliance on hyper-nationalist rhetoric and performative diplomacy has not only frayed ties with key partners but has also left India dangerously exposed to the shifting tides of global geopolitics.

The Israel-Iran Crisis: A Diplomatic Blunder with Strategic Costs

Apart from the pathetic comments of saffron goons, the Israel-Iran conflict has placed India in a particularly precarious position. Iran is not just another country in West Asia; it is a cornerstone of India’s regional strategy. The partnership between the two nations is built on shared interests in energy security, regional stability, and connectivity. Iran provides India with a crucial gateway to Central Asia and Afghanistan, bypassing the hostile territory of Pakistan. The Chabahar port, developed with Indian investment, is the linchpin of this strategy, offering access to landlocked markets and counterbalancing the influence of China’s Gwadar port in Pakistan. The broader lesson was loud and clear: strategic assets like Chabahar cannot be safeguarded through ambiguity or inaction. But..

India’s refusal to condemn Israel’s attack on Iran, shifting the position on Palestine, is a diplomatic blunder with far-reaching consequences. This silence may have been intended to avoid antagonizing Israel or the United States, but it sends a clear message to Tehran and the wider region that India is willing to sacrifice long-standing partnerships for short-term political convenience. Such a stance risks alienating Iran at a time when regional stability is already under severe strain. It also jeopardizes India’s investments in Chabahar and its broader ambitions for connectivity and influence in Central Asia.

The implications of this approach extend beyond the immediate fallout with Iran. India’s carefully cultivated image as a neutral, independent actor—capable of engaging with all sides—has been a key asset in its foreign policy toolkit. By appearing to side with Israel and the United States, India risks being drawn into zero-sum conflicts that undermine its strategic autonomy. The possibility of increased American dominance in West Asia, especially if the conflict leads to regime change in Iran, could further marginalize India’s role in the region and reduce its diplomatic leverage.

When the Government Politicizes the Country’s Foreign Policy

In the past, India’s approach to international relations was guided by a long-term vision, balancing competing interests and maintaining flexibility in a volatile world. Today, however, foreign policy has become an extension of domestic politics, with decisions increasingly shaped by the need to appeal to nationalist sentiments and electoral calculations.

This shift is most evident in the government’s approach to Pakistan. The bilateral relationship, always fraught, has deteriorated to the point where diplomatic engagement has all but ceased. Following the 2019 Pulwama-Balakot episode, dialogue was replaced by hardline rhetoric designed to score points with voters at home. Legitimate concerns about cross-border terrorism were handled through symbolic aggression rather than strategic statecraft, reinforcing the perception that India is willing to jeopardize regional stability for the sake of domestic optics.

The government’s attempts to block international support for Pakistan, such as efforts to derail IMF loans, have exposed the limits of India’s influence in global institutions. These moves, more about signaling toughness to a domestic audience than achieving real strategic outcomes, have backfired, highlighting India’s inability to shape outcomes in multilateral forums and damaging its credibility as a responsible international actor.

The role of the media in this process cannot be overstated. Hyper-nationalist coverage, often encouraged or at least tolerated by the government, has further poisoned the diplomatic environment. Personal attacks on foreign diplomats and inflammatory rhetoric have replaced the measured discourse that once characterized Indian diplomacy. This toxic atmosphere undermines formal channels of communication and reinforces negative stereotypes about India’s approach to international relations.

The Exposed Chinese Conundrum

India’s relationship with China offers another stark example of the dangers of politicizing foreign policy. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash marked a turning point, with public discourse turning bellicose and calls for boycotts of Chinese goods dominating the headlines. The government’s push for self-reliance under the “Atmanirbhar Bharat” campaign was presented as a bold response to Chinese aggression. Yet, the reality tells a different story.

Despite the rhetoric, India’s trade dependency on China has only deepened. In the 2024–25 fiscal year, imports from China reached a record $113.5 billion, while exports to China totaled just $14.3 billion—a staggering trade deficit of $99.2 billion, the highest ever recorded between the two countries. The government’s performative economic nationalism has failed to address the underlying structural imbalances, exposing the disconnect between public posturing and actual policy outcomes.

The military balance remains equally unfavorable. India continues to rely heavily on arms imports, including from Russia, while China has rapidly modernized its own military-industrial complex. The government’s focus on symbolic gestures and nationalist rhetoric has done little to strengthen India’s position vis-à-vis its most formidable neighbour. Instead of addressing the real strategic challenges posed by China, the government has opted for short-term political gains at the expense of long-term security.

Alienating the Neighborhood: with Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives

India’s foreign policy missteps have not been limited to adversarial nations; they have extended to its smaller neighbors as well. Traditionally, India was seen as a benevolent regional leader, one that prioritized cooperation, aid, and mutual respect. That image has taken a hit as recent policies appear more focused on appeasing domestic constituencies than maintaining regional goodwill. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a glaring example. Intended to grant citizenship to non-Muslim minorities from neighboring countries, the law was perceived by Bangladesh as an indirect indictment of its treatment of minorities. This offended Dhaka, which had otherwise maintained strong ties with New Delhi. Instead of allaying fears through diplomatic engagement, Indian leaders doubled down on the nationalist narrative, thereby straining one of India’s most important regional partnerships.

India’s decision to overtly support Sheikh Hasina, despite widespread public unrest and her government’s contested legitimacy, has also backfired diplomatically. By appearing to side with an unpopular regime, India alienated large sections of the Bangladeshi population and civil society. This has strained traditional people-to-people ties and fueled anti-India sentiment in Dhaka. Instead of creating regional goodwill, New Delhi’s interventionist posture has weakened its moral authority and damaged its long-term strategic depth in Bangladesh, a critical neighbor in South Asia. In Nepal, the government’s dismissal of concerns raised during the map controversy, when Nepal released a new political map including territories claimed by India, further damaged bilateral ties. Rather than engaging constructively, Indian leaders responded with patronizing rhetoric. The fallout was swift: Nepal’s public and political discourse shifted in favor of China, with Kathmandu increasingly looking northward for economic and infrastructural support.

Sri Lanka, once a steadfast partner despite occasional diplomatic frictions, is now drifting into China’s orbit under the weight of Beijing’s strategic ”debt trap” diplomacy. Meanwhile, the Maldives serves as a stark warning. India’s overt military footprint and perceived interference in domestic affairs fueled the “India Out” movement, paving the way for the rise of a pro-China regime. In its attempt to counter Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean, through the newly elected government’s propaganda, New Delhi’s overreach has backfired and squandered the regional goodwill and trust it painstakingly built over decades.

The High Cost of Hyper-Nationalism

India stands at a crossroads. The path it chooses will determine whether it emerges as a respected global power or remains trapped in a cycle of domestic populism and international irrelevance. The current trajectory, shaped by hyper-nationalist fervor, has undermined India’s greatest asset: its soft power. Through decades of diplomatic engagement, cultural outreach, and moral leadership, India had cultivated a reputation that transcended its economic and military limitations. Today, that reputation is under threat.

Rather than leveraging its soft power, India has turned to bluster, symbolic gestures, and media theatrics. The immediate gains may be applause from a domestic audience, but the long-term costs are far greater: alienated neighbors, diminished credibility, and a foreign policy increasingly adrift.

If India wishes to reclaim its position as a moral and strategic leader in South Asia and beyond, it must urgently recalibrate. This means reining in toxic media narratives, prioritizing diplomacy over theatrics, respecting the sovereignty of neighbors, and pursuing foreign policy with the strategic patience it once so skillfully employed. India’s future as a global power solely depends on its ability to look beyond the narrow confines of domestic politics and embrace a foreign policy that is both principled and pragmatic.

The author is the Parliamentary Secretary to Ms. Praniti Sushil Kumar Shinde MP and an alumnus of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Courtesy: Counter Currents.ORG