India’s Foreign Policy: Bold Moves, Bitter Fallout

Introduction

In the last 20 years, In recent years, concerns over India’s foreign policy failure have dominated geopolitical discussions. India has sought to become a responsible global power as it has a booming economy and enjoys a strategic geographic position and growing presence on international forums such as the G20, the BRICS, and the QUAD. But in recent years the criticism of its foreign policy at the hands of the Modi government, especially under its foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, has begun to increase.

From a diplomatic row with Canada to a clash with other neighbors such as the Maldives and Nepal and support of Israel during an international crisis at the time of a financial meltdown, critics opine that India is increasingly turning unpredictable, reactive, and excessively personalized in its foreign policy. Some may cite successes in military and trade, but there are strident accounts that rhetorical greatness is mandated at the expense of long-range strategic planning.

This article examines what many now call a “ India’s foreign policy failure ”—a pattern of decisions and incidents that, collectively, have weakened India’s global standing, strained long-standing alliances, and risked its role as a stable regional leader.

Background: Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy

India’s foreign policy journey began with Nehru’s doctrine of non-alignment, where the newly independent nation chose not to align with either the U.S. or the USSR during the Cold War. This policy emphasized sovereignty, peace, and moral diplomacy, setting India apart as a principled voice in a polarized world.

India started taking on a more practical and economy-oriented approach towards foreign affairs over time, particularly after the economic liberalization process that occurred after 1991. Institutional framework influenced the diplomacy of capable PMs such as Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, who preferred to create stable relations on a great scale: multilateral agreements, defense pacts, and economic ties on a global scale.

Nevertheless, foreign policy has also changed to be more personality-focused under Narendra Modi. The romance of diplomacy makes India more theatrical, with Modi himself representing India on the international stage not only through the massive rallies of the diaspora, symbolic hugs with other leaders, and headline-seeking summits. S. Jaishankar, the Foreign Minister, supplements such style with swashbuckling rhetoric and off-the-cuff one-liners, and it is shifting the India blood into a form of leader-led diplomacy.

Although this aggressive approach has gained prominence, critics also claim that there is a danger of institutional shallowness, which this aggressive approach compromises long-term strategic stability, which candid foreign policy requires.

Case Study 1: India–Canada Fallout

Nijjar Assassination Controversy

Canadian PM Trudeau accused India of involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistan separatist. India strongly denied the claim.

Diplomatic Escalation

Both nations expelled top diplomats, India halted visa services for Canadians, and Canada reduced its diplomatic staff, citing threats.

Impact on Global Image

The West viewed India’s response as overly aggressive, damaging its reputation as a democratic ally and casting doubt on its commitment to diplomatic norms.

Case Study 2: The United States and Overdependence on Trump

Strategic Overreliance on Trump

India established a good personal relationship with Donald Trump and focused on such optics as rallies and demonstration meetings. But this was never done deep-rooted with bipartisan institutional underpinnings.

Policy Shift Under Biden

The momentum generated and cultivated under Trump slowed down with the introduction of the more values-based foreign policy by the Biden administration. Such essential matters as human rights and religious freedom started to shape bilateral relations.

Missed Institutional Opportunities

India has lost the opportunity of long-term structures; instead, over-personalized diplomacy has led to an erratic strategic depth and a shaky base of continuity.

Case Study 3: Middle East and Muslim World Backlash

Nupur Sharma Controversy

Remarks made by a BJP spokesperson about Prophet Muhammad in 2022 triggered widespread anger across the Muslim world, sparking a major diplomatic crisis.

Gulf Nations’ Reactions

Countries like Qatar, UAE, Iran, and Kuwait issued official condemnations, summoned Indian envoys, and demanded public apologies, reflecting a rare collective outrage.

Diplomatic Fallout

The ideology of the ruling party in India seemed to meddle with foreign policy. The case deteriorated ties with major economic actors and impaired areas of India’s connections to the Islamic world.

Case Study 4: India’s Neighborhood in Distress

1. Maldives Rift & “India Out” Movement

Bilateral relations between the Maldives and India were adversely affected by an anti-Indian wave in the Maldives due to a wave of nationalism and political agitations that advocated the removal of the Indian military presence.

2. Border Tensions with Nepal & Others

Old tensions revived because of the Lipulekh-Kalapani conflict with Nepal, diplomatic friendliness with Bhutan froze, and in Sri Lanka, India was finally challenged when it took a turn to cope with economic difficulties.

3. China’s Expanding Footprint

As India’s regional ties wavered, China filled the void through aggressive investment, loans, and infrastructure projects, weakening India’s traditional strategic dominance in South Asia.

Israel-Palestine and the Abandonment of Neutrality

1. India’s Open Support for Israel

However, in the 2023-2024 Gaza conflict, India made a definite show of support for Israel, diverting from its long-held traditional neutral stand between Israel and Palestine.

2. Backlash from the Global South

India was also criticized by various developing countries to have disregarded humanitarian anxieties in Gaza and compromised its reputation as an impartial and peace-building force.

3. Loss of Strategic Balance

This change of position of India weaken not only decades of work of diplomatic neutrality but also puts in jeopardy its relations with Arab countries and interrupts its credibility as the Global South leader.

Is Jaishankar’s Mic-Drop Diplomacy Hurting India?

Public speeches by the foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, are well known as being sharp, clear, and commanding, usually in short viral form or English-style mic-drop form. Although such aggressive reactions have boosted the international presence of India and played favourites among national markets, their real impacts on real-life diplomacy have been mediocre.

• Rhetoric vs. Policy: High-impact quotes create headlines, but critics argue that they lack the substance needed for long-term strategic gains. Soundbites rarely translate into treaties, consensus-building, or conflict resolution.
• Social Media Diplomacy vs. Institutional Negotiation: In an age where optics matter, Jaishankar’s presence on global stages can shape narratives. However, foreign policy success depends on behind-the-scenes negotiations, trust-building, and quiet diplomacy—which some believe has taken a backseat under the current style.
• Global Perception Risk: While admired for standing firm on issues like Western hypocrisy or defending India’s sovereignty, the tone can appear combative, potentially alienating key allies or neutral nations.

In essence, while Jaishankar’s communication has rebranded India’s diplomatic posture as bold and unapologetic, the overreliance on performance diplomacy may be eroding the deeper, institutional credibility essential for sustaining complex international relationships.

What India Did Right (Balance View)

Despite criticisms, India has made notable strategic strides that reflect its growing global stature:

• Robust Defense Agreements: India signed key military deals with the U.S.—COMCASA, BECA, and LEMOA—which enhance interoperability, secure intelligence sharing, and enable better logistical support, especially in Indo-Pacific defense strategy.
• Active Role in QUAD and G20: India positioned itself as a central player in the QUAD alliance (with the U.S., Japan, and Australia) and successfully hosted the G20 Summit in 2023, signaling leadership in global economic and strategic affairs.
• Vaccine Diplomacy & FTAs: During the COVID-19 crisis, India launched ‘Vaccine Maitri’, supplying vaccines to over 90 countries, boosting its humanitarian image. Additionally, it advanced Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with nations like the UAE and Australia, strengthening its economic footprint.

These moves showcase India’s ability to engage constructively on the global stage—even amid criticisms of style or ideology—proving that its foreign policy has substance as well as symbolism.

Expert Opinions & Contrasting Views

The new foreign policy course of India has raised intense arguments among international observers, intellectual bodies and foreign ambassadors.

• Critics’ Perspective: Specialists in organizations as the Brookings and the writers in the Financial Times suggest that India is gambling with its strategic depth by engaging in excessive personalized diplomacy and strongman demagoguery. The aggressive language which they say is speaking well nationally might back Cairo in denouncing many friends and creating inflexibility in foreign relationships particularly during crisis such as the Canada row or the Gulf backlash.
• Supporters’ View: On the other hand, many foreign policy strategists—especially in Indian diplomatic circles—see this assertiveness as a necessary evolution. Just as Jaishankar has no patience with strident assertions of national interest, former diplomats and analysts enthusiastically support the former foreign secretary arguing that India is merely catching up with the realities of a multipolar and transactional India-dependent global order and that moral pieties like grandstanding no longer delivers.

Think Tanks & Institutions

• Brookings has highlighted the trade-offs India faces between global ambition and regional tension.
• The Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and Vivekananda International Foundation defend India’s current approach as one of strategic autonomy.
• FT has expressed concern over “eroding institutional diplomacy” in favor of media moments and bilateral spectacle.

Critics are sounding reputational and relationship costs whereas proponents claim India is establishing itself as a grown-up, self-interest focused power, having shed the inhibitions of post-colon feelings of post-colon restraint in international politics. The reality of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle: India diplomacy is growing muscle, but it should make sure that it has a bone of strategy backing it.

Conclusion

India today is an internationally acknowledged power marching up, economically, militarily and strategically at the center of Asia and the world at large. It is a major participant in such global forums as the G20, the BRICS, and the QUAD, and it has established closer relations with some of the world powers. However, its recent foreign policy approach—marked by assertive rhetoric, reactive decisions, and leader-centric diplomacy—has also drawn serious criticism.

On the one hand, boldness is good, but, on the other hand, sustainable diplomacy demands more than temporary ovation. The fallout with Canada, strained neighborhood ties, and ideological clashes with the Muslim world suggest that India’s external engagement needs recalibration. In order to restore its international credibility and extend its power India needs to revert to institutional, multi-aligned and interest- driven diplomacy – one based on strategic patience, regional confidence and international credibility. It will not take away the strength instead it will provide it with a long-term direction.