India’s Foreign Policy at Crossroads: Moral Capital vs Realism
Embedded Files
WE NEED SUPPORT TO FIGHT IGNORANCE
Shift from Non-Alignment to Multi-Alignment
India’s foreign policy has moved from Nehru’s morally anchored non-alignment to Modi’s pragmatic multi-alignment.
The focus is now on flexible coalitions, transactional partnerships, and balancing U.S., Russia, and China rather than maintaining a single moral stance.
Border-Centric Realism
Confrontations with China and Pakistan define India’s immediate foreign policy. With China, the rivalry is structural and military; with Pakistan, the approach is one of containment and deterrence.
Military firmness and strategic partnerships, especially with the U.S., underpin this border management.
Balancing Great Powers and Tariff Pressures
India uses ties with Russia and China as bargaining chips to counter U.S. tariff pressures, while strategically deepening dependence on U.S. defense, technology, and supply chains.
This dual posture projects options but risks being read as inconsistency.
Maturity vs. Immaturity in Policy
Today’s policy is more mature in its recognition of hard realities—China’s rise, Pakistan’s terrorism, and the indispensability of the U.S.—but less mature in abandoning the moral grammar that gave India global credibility.
Without that, India risks appearing as just another power in balance-of-power politics.
Consequences for India’s Future
Economically, India remains vulnerable to trade wars and dependent on Chinese inputs despite diversification efforts. Strategically, deeper defense and supply chain ties with the U.S. are inevitable.
For lasting leadership, India must combine realism with moral clarity, blending hard power with principled diplomacy to lead the Global South credibly.
For more read the full article .....
Independent, fact-checked journalism URGENTLY needs your support. Please consider SUPPORTING the EXPERTX today.
SEPTEMBER 2025
From Non-Alignment to Multi-Alignment
India’s foreign policy has undergone a profound transformation from the idealism of Jawaharlal Nehru’s non-alignment to the present hard-edged realism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s multi-alignment.
Nehru’s legacy was rooted in a moral compass: non-alignment was not only a strategy to stay outside Cold War blocs but also a way of asserting an independent voice for the developing world.
His foreign policy lent India the moral stature to act as a peacemaker, whether in Suez, Korea, or through various UN peacekeeping operations.
Even India’s cautious recognition of Israel was framed with moral guardrails, always paired with a consistent commitment to Palestinian self-determination.
That tradition has steadily receded.
Today’s foreign policy is issue-based, transactional, and defined by a calculus of power rather than principle.
The pivot began under Atal Bihari Vajpayee with the rebellious 1998 nuclear tests and then deepened friendly 2005 India–U.S. civil nuclear agreement under Dr. Manmohan Singh.
“
Currently, diplomacy is limited to crisis prevention, not reconciliation, yet
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it has matured into a doctrine of multi-alignment: no permanent alliances, only flexible coalitions that serve India’s national interest.
India sits in the Quad with the U.S., Japan, and Australia even as it engages in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) with China and Russia.
It imports discounted oil from Moscow while simultaneously deepening defence cooperation with Washington.
This dual track reflects a recognition of structural 21st century multi-nodal geo-political realities.
Like, China’s rise and its aggression along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) represent the foremost security challenge to India.
Russia, once a strategic constant, is now a partner of necessity: its arms and energy remain vital, but its weakened defence industry and dependence on Beijing, erode its long-term utility.
The United States, despite trade tensions and current 50% tariff, remains the indispensable partner for technology, investment, and military balance.
Multi-alignment, therefore, is not ideological drift but the practical expression of strategic autonomy in a fragmented world order.
Yet this evolution has come at a cost.
The moral clarity that once amplified India’s influence in the Global South has thinned.
Abstentions at the United Nations on the Gaza conflict and equivocation over Iran have diluted India’s image as a principled mediator.
This shift from non-alignment to multi-alignment may be strategically mature, but it has narrowed the moral space India once occupied.
Managing Borders, Balancing Partners
India’s immediate foreign policy challenges are defined by its borders with China and Pakistan.
China’s assertiveness is structural: territorial claims in Arunachal Pradesh, its military build-up in Aksai Chin, and the bloody clashes at Galwan in 2020 underscore a rivalry that cannot be managed by diplomacy alone.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation provides a stage for optics, a photo-op with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin projects balance, but the underlying reality for India is confrontation.
India’s response has been pragmatic: strengthening infrastructure and deployments along the Line of Actual Control while deepening defence and intelligence cooperation with the United States and its allies like Britain, Germany and France.
The EXPERTX Analysis coverage is funded by people like you.
Will you help our independent journalism FREE to all? SUPPORT US
Hard power, not rhetoric, is the chosen deterrent.
Pakistan, by contrast, represents a brittle but stable rivalry. India continues to frame Islamabad as a sponsor of terrorism while shutting down dialogue except under strict conditions.
Military firmness remains the cornerstone, with surgical strikes like Operation Sindoor and Balakot signalling a readiness to escalate if provoked.
Currently, diplomacy is limited to crisis prevention, not reconciliation, yet.
On both fronts, India’s short-term posture is consistent: firmness at the borders, flexibility in forums.
New Delhi uses multilateral platforms like SCO and BRICS to signal that it has options beyond the West, while its operational reliance rests firmly on partnerships with Washington, Paris, and Tokyo alike.
This balancing act extends to trade and economic policy.
“
...Abstentions on issues of global conscience like Gaza humanitarian crisis undermine that legacy
Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 50 per cent tariff on imports from India was met with skilful signalling: Modi’s embrace of Putin and Xi was a reminder to Washington that New Delhi has other partners.
At the same time, India has quietly doubled down on U.S. supply chains, semiconductors, and defence co-production. The optics with Moscow and Beijing serve as bargaining chips, but the structural dependency remains tilted toward the United States.
The risk is that such hedging may appear muddled.
Partners may read India’s photo-ops with adversaries as inconsistency rather than leverage.
Yet for a country of India’s size, the capacity to hold contradictory alignments is itself a strategic resource. The challenge lies in ensuring that tactical optics do not obscure strategic clarity.
Power, Principle, and the Road Ahead
India’s present foreign policy raises a central question: is it more mature or more immature than the Nehruvian model?
In one sense, it is more mature.
It recognises that ideals in foreign policy do not deter the Chinese PLA at the LAC or prevent Pakistan-sponsored terror.
It accepts that the United States, despite its tariffs and occasional unpredictability, is the only partner capable of providing India with the technology and defence counterbalance required to offset China.
It uses Russia realistically for energy and arms, while preparing to diversify away from Moscow’s declining military-industrial base.
And it engages in issue-based coalitions, from Quad to SCO, without principled rigidity.
Yet in another sense, it is less mature.
By eroding the moral structure that once underpinned India’s diplomacy, it reduces the country’s convening power.
Non-alignment was never merely fence-sitting; it was a means of projecting India’s moral leadership in the Global South.
Today, abstentions on issues of global conscience like Gaza humanitarian crisis undermine that legacy.
Without a credible standardising framework, India risks being seen as just another great power playing balance-of-power politics, rather than as a distinct voice that others want to follow.
Thence, the consequences are profound.
Economically, India must brace for a turbulent global trade environment.
SCO and BRICS may offer platforms for alternative financing, but India’s growth will continue to depend on U.S.-aligned supply chains and Western investment.
Energy imports from Russia may provide short-term cushioning, but sanctions risk remains high.
Strategic decoupling from China will be gradual, not immediate; There is a compulsion. India’s manufacturing base is still dependent on Chinese inputs in electronics, chemicals, and machinery.
“
India must understand that a foreign policy that is merely tactical, as it currently appears, will yield leverage but not leadership.
National security will require not only deterrence at the borders but also deep interoperability with U.S. and allied forces, coupled with steady investments in infrastructure along the Himalayas.
The road ahead, then, requires a dual approach: strategic realism anchored in hard power and economic pragmatism, and a revival of the moral clarity that once amplified India’s influence.
India must show that it can be both a great power and a principled power, that it can balance China militarily while also leading the Global South with credibility.
India must understand that a foreign policy that is merely tactical, as it currently appears, will yield leverage but not leadership.
A foreign policy that restores a consistent moral compass, even in limited domains, will turn India from a balancer into a shaper of the international order.
Hence, India’s foreign policy stands today at a crossroads.
It has acquired the maturity of realism but risks losing the maturity of principle.
The task for New Delhi is not to choose between the two, but to combine them: to build the hard power in economics and defence, needed for a turbulent era while recovering the moral voice that once made India more than the sum of its alliances.
The EXPERTX Analysis coverage is funded by people like you.
Will you help our independent journalism FREE to all? SUPPORT US
To Comment: connect@expertx.org
Support Us - It's advertisement free journalism, unbiased, providing high quality researched contents.
Google Sites
Report abuse