Diplomacy by photo-op—How India lost its strategic voice

Foreign policy, at its best, is an articulation of national vision, rooted in clarity, consistency, and long-term strategy. Unfortunately, in recent years, India’s foreign policy has been marked by a troubling tendency.

For lack of better words, it can only be described as the trial balloon approach. Instead of setting the agenda with conviction, New Delhi has too often signalled tentativeness, half-commitments, or rhetorical postures, waiting to see which way the global winds blow before deciding its real position.

The problem is when this becomes the dominant mode of engagement, reducing foreign policy to short-term experiments, rather than principled strategy. And this is where India finds itself today: drifting between postures, unable to anchor itself in a clear grand design.

Sri Lanka and Nepal

Consider India's immediate neighbourhood. With Pakistan, the official stance oscillates between tough rhetoric and sudden back-channel dialogues. With Nepal, friendly gestures are punctuated by avoidable irritants. The blockade of 2015-2016 and recent border disputes at Kalapani and Lipulekh exemplify how tactical reactions have replaced strategic foresight. The result is that neighbours can no longer read India's intent with certainty.

Ties with Nepal and Sri Lanka have seen avoidable frictions that smaller states have exploited to tilt towards China. Even with Bangladesh, a supposed success story, the relationship rests precariously on the political fortunes of one leader, instead of sustainable institutional ties.

Ambiguity, loss of credibility

Ambiguity has cost India dearly on the global stage as well. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a striking example: India has sought to balance its historic ties with Moscow while courting the West, but the balancing act came across less as strategic autonomy and more as calibrated ambiguity, pleasing neither side fully.

In the Indo-Pacific, India appears committed to the Quad one day, but overly cautious the next, undermining its role as a regional balancer.

More recently, as Gaza burns, as thousands of civilians are slaughtered, India's voice is muted, reduced to carefully calibrated statements that neither condemn Israel's actions nor express solidarity with the victims. This silence is complicity, plain and simple. The so-called balanced position may serve short-term strategic interests, but it erodes India's credibility as a civilisational power that once spoke for the voiceless.

Reactive, not proactive

Trade and multilateral diplomacy tell a similar story. India's abrupt withdrawal from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was preceded by years of half-hearted negotiations that gave the impression of indecision rather than principled resistance. In multilateral forums — whether the WTO, the RCEP, or climate change negotiations — India has oscillated between bold declarations and quiet retreat, leaving its partners unsure of its real intent.

This reliance on trial balloons has tangible costs. Partners begin to see India as reactive rather than proactive, and hesitant rather than confident. A nation of India's civilisational weight and geopolitical importance cannot afford to be seen as merely testing waters; it must lead with clarity of purpose.

Hollowness of personalised diplomacy

Since Narendra Modi assumed office as prime minister, India’s foreign policy has undergone a dramatic change in style without depth. The government has projected the image of a nation striding confidently onto the global stage, but much of this projection has been built on spectacle rather than substance.

From grandstanding at international summits to headline-chasing foreign visits, symbolism has taken precedence over the hard, patient work of diplomacy.

The Modi years have been filled with high-voltage optics: hugs with world leaders, diaspora rallies in Madison Square Garden and Wembley, carefully choreographed images of ‘India rising’.

These have provided television-friendly moments that play well at home, feeding a narrative of global recognition. Yet beneath this showmanship lies a disturbing reality: India's strategic depth and credibility are eroding. The much-hyped informal summits (in 2018 and 2019) with Xi Jinping produced little; the supposed bonhomie with Donald Trump vanished with a change of administration. The 2020 Galwan clash with China, despite years of ‘chemistry’ between Modi and Xi exposed the hollowness of personalised diplomacy divorced from institutional mechanisms. Such an approach may suit domestic politics, while weakening India's standing as a global player.

Substance in foreign policy is measured by outcomes, rather than the number of handshakes or photo-ops: securing borders, strengthening neighbourhood relations, enhancing trade networks, shaping international norms, and active participation in shaping and maintaining a rule-based order. On these counts, India has delivered far less than the spectacle it generates. The 2019 Balakot airstrikes, while politically popular at home, failed to establish credible deterrence against Pakistan's proxy warfare.

Short-term optics

Every era of India’s foreign policy reflects the temperament of its leadership. Jawaharlal Nehru's stewardship in the early years of the Republic was marked by clarity of principle and consistency of purpose.

In contrast, the Modi years have been defined by symbolism without substance, where optics often outweigh strategy. Nehru, at a time when India was weak militarily and struggling economically, articulated the doctrine of non-alignment. It was a deeply principled stance, far from fence-sitting. India would remain a sovereign voice for peace, decolonisation, and justice, refusing to be a pawn in Cold War rivalries. His speeches at Bandung, his advocacy at the United Nations, and his initiatives on disarmament all reflected a coherent worldview. India's moral stature far exceeded its material power, a triumph of principle over weakness.

Where Nehru expanded India's moral capital, Modi risks squandering it in short-term optics. Critics may argue that the world has changed, and that India must act pragmatically in a multipolar order. While that may be true, pragmatism cannot mean substituting principle with photo-ops. Even A B Vajpayee combined bold strategic choices, such as the 1998 nuclear tests and outreach to Pakistan, with consistency and long-term vision. The bus diplomacy to Lahore, despite its ultimate failure, represented sustained engagement based on clear strategic objectives. By contrast, Modi's foreign policy seems more concerned with headline management than with shaping global norms.

Foreign policy is not stagecraft

For India to reclaim its rightful place in the world, it must move beyond the politics of spectacle. True diplomacy demands consistency, vision, and the courage to make difficult choices rooted in principle rather than propaganda. India must, therefore, return to the foundations of a coherent foreign policy: strategic autonomy anchored in principle, clarity in communication, and consistency in conduct. Foreign policy cannot be reduced to stagecraft. Nehru, despite his limitations, gave India a voice larger than its material weight. Modi, despite India's growing economic and military strength, risks shrinking that voice into a series of fleeting images.

In the end, substance endures while symbolism fades. India must recover the clarity and depth of earlier eras and resist the temptation of turning diplomacy into a travelling roadshow. Trial balloons may suit political propaganda or domestic signalling, diplomacy, especially for a country that aspires to be a global leader, and demands more. India cannot afford to be tentative when the world expects it to be decisive.

(Manoj Kumar Jha is an RJD leader, Member of the Rajya Sabha, and the author of ‘In Praise of Coalition Politics and Other Essays on Indian Democracy’. X: @manojkjhadu.)