India is a land rooted in a tradition of peace ~ one that fosters harmony and offers profound philosophical wisdom to the world. Yet, it is also a nation made up by “a million mutinies” that firmly set the legacy of resistance against injustice, demand accountability, and do not hesitate to confront adversaries. Following the Pahalgam attack, India delivered a strong message to Pakistan, underlining its unflinching resolve to protect its sovereignty. As a result, the recent IndiaPakistan conflict has brought bilateral relations to a historic low, with communication largely restricted and scurrilous, if not outlandish.

In this tense atmosphere, the intervention, and ambiguous statements of the global superpower ~ the United States ~ have added to India’s discomfiture, raising questions about the credibility and intent of the US. Just as wars between two countries often have global repercussions, the IndoPak conflict has impacted not only the South Asian theatre but also touched farflung regions like America and Europe. However, if we delve deeper into the broader implications of this conflict, it becomes crystal clear that there is a need to reassess India’s foreign policy.

Advertisement

A review of India’s foreign policy since independence reveals a grand vision synonymous with Nehruvian consensus in which advocacy of non-alignment not only connoted a position of keeping aloof from any major power bloc but also taking an active role in progressively replacing the cold war structure. This legacy continued for decades. Meanwhile India’s stance has significantly evolved in response to the pattern of American hegemony and the rise of revisionist powers through the 1990s.

Thus, while over the past two decades we have seen a noticeable tilt in India’s foreign policy towards multi-alignment, there is no gainsaying the fact that two trends clearly stand out, one is an a la carte approach, that is no fixed menu or region was considered most favourable, while on the other hand, political leaderships in both New Delhi and Washington walked extra miles to consolidate their global strategic partnership. Yet, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s strategic orientation has noticeably shifted from Russia towards the United States, with many experts noting a growing soft corner for America. Calling it a turning point might be a sweeping comment though, because one can clearly see intense diplomatic bargaining between both sides, whether on a nuclear deal or trade related facilities that are far from an outright alignment.

Even so, since 2014, the Modi government’s diplomacy has at times shown a perceptible desire to curry favour from Washington knowing fully well that the latter is highly erratic. As Fareed Zakaria aptly commented, despite power in ample supply, the US lacks in legitimacy. On the other hand, in our growing affinity toward the US, the core strengths on which India’s ruling elites counted came only from certain businesses and a segment of the tech-savvy middle class.

It implies a kind of disconnect with the lower tier of society in our frantic moves toward the United States. Hence the need for creating a halo effect could be discerned in the 2019 joint address by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump at the “Howdy Modi” mega event held at NRG Stadium in Houston, where they addressed the Indian diaspora. The following year, in 2020, President Trump visited India and participated in the “Namaste Trump” event, where he enunciated that America loves and respects India.

These two high-profile events fomented the narrative of personal chemistry between the leaders and added a new dimension to the Indo-US relationship, signaling a deepening strategic and diplomatic bonhomie. In this context, the central question arises: why did the two high-profile events between India and the United States fail to translate into a closer, cozier and more reliable partnership equation?

Why did the United States not openly support India during the recent India-Pakistan conflict? Moreover, why did America refrain from strongly condemning Pakistan, a country often accused of harboring terrorists? Was it oblivious of its tortuous and challenging over-stay in Afghanistan from 2001 till 2021? These questions cast doubt on the sincerity of the events ~ were they merely symbolic gestures or spurious diplomatic lip service without real substance?

The question reverberates. Another important aspect to consider is Europe’s alignment with the United States, often seen in how European nations respond to American influence. Despite Modi’s multiple visits to a number of European countries, most prominently France and Germany to meet leaders, woo investors, finalize deals and to attend conferences, Europe did not extend clear support to India during the recent Indo-Pak skirmish.

As a result, the close relationship that India claims to have with Europe, Nordic countries and the European Union appeared fragile when it mattered most. This, too, reflects a shortcoming in India’s foreign policy strategy and its ambition to cut a niche for itself. Does it subtly imply a significant message that India has offended Europe by its shrewd diplomatic balance vis-à-vis Russia’s Ukraine invasion.

If so, how to win back European confidence? On the other hand, if we consider India’s relationship with Turkey, it becomes evident that despite India’s generous support during Turkey’s time of crisis, the response has not been expectedly reciprocal. In the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in 2023, India was among the first countries to extend assistance, promptly deploying National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) teams, medical personnel, relief supplies, specialized equipment, and search-and-rescue dog squads.

However, rather than supporting India, Turkey has reportedly supplied drones to Pakistan, thereby strengthening a nation often at odds with India. This response raises questions in the media about Turkey’s foreign policy priorities under President Erdogan, suggesting that strategic and ideological considerations ~ possibly rooted in religious affinity ~ may outweigh humanitarian gratitude or moral obligation.

The key lesson India must draw from these experiences is that its foreign policy should be guided not only by emotive impulse but by a calculus of strategic awareness and discernment. While humanitarian aid and goodwill are important criteria, India must also focus on identifying its true allies. Whether dealing with the United States, Europe, Turkey or Azerbaijan, a reassessment of approach is necessary. In this context, India could take a cue from China, which often combines pragmatism with calculated diplomacy. Like China, India needs to pursue its foreign policy with strategic foresight, rather than being driven solely by sentiment. The recent decisions by Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Milia University to suspend MoUs with Turkey are correct decisions in the right direction.

Gone are those days when terrorism and trade were reckoned disparate, hence might continue. On the contrary, the mercury of discontent is running high as this time an unprecedented boycott mentality has quickly diffused and influenced the decisions of many top travel companies based in India to the extent of cancelling flight booking and holiday plans to different European destinations. Thus, today any discourse on India’s foreign policy can’t bypass this obvious shooting mood.

(The writers are, respectively, Professor and Head, Department of Political Science, and a former Research Scholar, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University)