Does India’s foreign policy lack clarity? Analysts believe so. The general sentiment among experts is that India’s policy signals hesitation, not conviction. Decisions are delayed and positions are vague.
This approach, an editorial in a national daily notes, is widely described as the “trial balloon” method. It reflects a pattern of tentativeness, half-steps, and rhetorical posturing. According to analysts, this weakens India’s global credibility.
Experts have pointed out that when trial balloons become the norm, diplomacy suffers. Foreign policy becomes reactive, not strategic. This is where India stands today, between shifting postures, with no clear direction.
It’s held that India has no visible grand strategy. Foreign policy has been reduced to a series of short-term moves. This uncertainty is visible in major geopolitical issues.
The Russia-Ukraine war is one example.
India has tried to balance its old ties with Moscow and its growing alignment with the West. But this balancing act is widely seen as unclear. It suggests ambiguity more than autonomy.
Undermining India’s Image
A similar pattern exists in the Indo-Pacific. India shows strong support for the Quad one day. The next, it appears overly cautious, the editorial outlines. Analysts say this undermines India’s image as a regional power.
More recently, India’s silence over the Gaza crisis has raised concern. Thousands of civilians have been killed. India’s statements have been carefully worded. They neither criticise Israel nor support the victims.
This silence could be interpreted as complicity. Such neutrality may serve immediate interests but damages India’s moral standing.
India once spoke up for the voiceless. Now, it seems hesitant to take a stand. The pattern extends to trade and diplomacy.
India pulled out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). But this came after years of unclear negotiations. The exit appeared indecisive, not principled.
Promises, then retreats
According to experts, the same holds true in multilateral forums. India has shifted between bold promises and quiet retreats. This includes platforms like the WTO, RCEP, and climate talks. Partners are often unsure where India stands.
Analysts have pointed out that these mixed signals come at a cost. India starts to look hesitant, not confident and reactive, not proactive.
A country of India’s weight cannot afford to be seen as unsure. It must act with purpose, not just explore possibilities.
Observers say that since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister, foreign policy has changed in style but not in depth. The image is of a rising global power. But that image often depends more on spectacle than on substance.
Lack of depth
There is no shortage of optics. Grand summits, foreign visits, and public events dominate headlines. From hugs with world leaders to rallies in Madison Square Garden and Wembley, the visuals are strong. These moments play well at home. They build a narrative of global recognition.
Yet, experts warn that beneath the showmanship, India’s strategic depth is eroding. High-profile meetings have produced few results. Modi’s summits with Xi Jinping in 2018 and 2019 were widely publicised but delivered little.
The apparent closeness with Donald Trump faded.
The 2020 Galwan clash with China was a turning point. Despite years of personal rapport between Modi and Xi, diplomacy failed. According to analysts, this exposed the weakness of personalised diplomacy without institutional support.
Such a model may help domestic politics. But it weakens India on the world stage.
Real foreign policy, as experts believe, is judged by outcomes. It means secure borders, strong ties with neighbours, expanded trade, and influence in shaping global norms. By these standards, India has underperformed. The 2019 Balakot airstrikes are a case in point.
They were popular domestically. But experts say they failed to create a lasting deterrent against Pakistan’s proxy attacks.
Nehru’s vision
Every era of Indian diplomacy reflects its leadership. Jawaharlal Nehru’s foreign policy had principle and purpose. He led a poor, militarily weak country with moral clarity.
Non-alignment was not indecision. It was a principled choice. He stood for peace, decolonisation, and justice. His speeches at Bandung, his role at the UN, and disarmament efforts reflected a clear worldview.
Experts have reminded that India once had more moral influence than material power. That was a result of Nehru’s consistent vision.
PM Modi’s foreign policy, in contrast, is often described as driven by image. According to analysts, this puts India’s moral capital at risk.
The world has changed. But they argue that pragmatism must not replace principle.
Even AB Vajpayee mixed bold moves with long-term planning. He conducted nuclear tests in 1998. He also reached out to Pakistan. The Lahore bus diplomacy, though it failed, was part of a clear strategy.
PM Modi’s diplomacy often seems to lack this strategic foundation. It chases headlines, not global influence.
Experts agree that diplomacy is not theatre. India must show consistency, courage, and vision. It must return to strategic autonomy rooted in principle. Communication must be clear and firm. Actions must be steady.
Nehru gave India a voice larger than its economy or military. PM Modi, despite growing national strength, risks shrinking that voice to passing images. In the end, substance lasts and symbolism fades.
India must recover the depth of its earlier diplomacy. It must move past the politics of performance.
Trial balloons may help in domestic politics. Global leadership demands more. India must stop hesitating when the world expects it to lead.
Also Read: Indian Railways Tests Drones For Train Cleaning https://www.vibesofindia.com/indian-railways-tests-drones-for-train-cleaning/
