A Foreign Policy Structure Sans A Drawing Room
India’s diplomacy in recent years has swung between gestures of intimacy and public theatrics with little space for quiet, serious, strategy and relationship building.
The art of diplomacy has often been compared to a well-appointed home with different rooms for different purposes. There’s the drawing room for formal and businesslike conversations, the bedroom for intimate, beyond public gaze discussions between close allies, and the outdoor spaces for public displays. But India’s foreign policy approach seems to have forgotten this analogy relating to a well-designed structure, especially in terms of the importance of the drawing room.
The SCO Summit in Tianjin on August 31, 2025 offered a textbook example. Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping met with exchange of handshakes and warm platitudes asserting that the two neighboring countries are “partners, not rivals”. Media headlines, especially in India, followed the rule book of the contemporary era and went to town with texts and images of unity. This was classic outdoor diplomacy: spectacular, theatrical, and designed for applause. But behind the scenes, little was settled ; no development of institutional mechanisms, no behind-the-scenes breakthroughs. India once again chose optics over substance, leaving its diplomacy exposed to swings in global moods rather than taking it forward on an anchored strategy.
The American Relationship: From Houston to Complexity
The story of recent India-US relations can be summed up as the tale of some massive rallies and personal gestures. The “Howdy Modi” event in Houston (2019) drew 50,000 people and seemed to cement a personal bond with then-President Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The “Namaste Trump” rally in Ahmedabad (2020) too brought large crowds to welcome the then US President.
But outdoor events, however spectacular, don’t substitute for institutional relationships. When Trump left office, the personal chemistry had to be rebuilt with the Biden administration. The relationship has seen both cooperation and tensions over various issues including trade, technology transfer, and India’s energy relationships.
The Adani Factor: Corporate Scandals and Diplomatic Complications
The influence of the Adani Group in India’s corridors of power and the many national – international controversies this has triggered have added an altogether new and unseemly dimension to India’s international relationships. In January 2023, US-based Hindenburg Research accused the business conglomerate of orchestrating “the largest con in corporate history,” leading to severe stock market losses. The Adani Group has completely rejected these allegations, calling them “malicious, mischievous and manipulative” and noting they were dismissed by India’s Supreme Court.
Questions have been raised about the connection between Modi’s diplomatic visits and the business deals struck by the Adani group following these visits, with critics suggesting that India’s foreign policy outreach seemed geared towards promoting the group’s global expansion. This has led to concerns about maintaining domestic integrity while pursuing economic goals abroad. Obviously, the exposure and the discussions surrounding them have hugely negative implications for India’s foreign policy. One of the key developments in this regard relates to the findings of the US Security and Exchanges Commission (SEC) about the bribes worth $265 million paid by the Adani group to Indian officials. It is expected that the summons to the Adani group from the US SEC will to be served through proper diplomatic channels. This would naturally create an additional layer of complexity in India-US relations.
Media Control: When Message Management Backfires
One of the most damaging aspects of India’s recent foreign policy has been the systematic effort to control media narratives, which has, paradoxically, worsened international relationships rather than improving them. Media coverage has swung to extremes with every headline. One moment Trump is the best friend India ever had; the next, Xi is portrayed as the more prudent partner. These narrative acrobatics have left a significant number of foreign diplomats perplexed and skeptical.
Parallelly Indian authorities have escalated their use of restructive measures against foreign correspondents, including by denying them access to several regions of India, shortening visas, or refusing permits. Journalists who write “negative stories” are given visas valid for less than a year, putting their jobs at stake.
The pattern has become systematic. Australian journalist Avani Dias was forced to leave the country after a government official told her she had crossed the line with reportage on Sikh separatist issues. Since 2014, the Modi government has frequently denied or shortened visas for foreign journalists who publish stories deemed negative and critical of the government.
The diplomatic costs of this restrictive regime are significant. When France’s journalist Vanessa Dougnac was denied visa renewal, it created tensions with Paris. The number of Chinese journalists in India has dropped from 14 to just one, hampering people-to-people understanding at a time when both countries need better communication channels.
This media management strategy reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how international opinion is formed. Instead of engaging with critical coverage through transparent communication, India’s approach has been to restrict access and control messaging. The result is that international media outlets increasingly rely on external sources and opposition voices, making coverage even more critical.
The domestic media landscape compounds the problem. Polarised television debates and social media campaigns often force diplomatic positions into extreme corners, leaving little room for the nuanced give and take that successful diplomacy requires. When every foreign policy issue becomes a matter of national pride or betrayal, quiet negotiation becomes nearly impossible.
Media Spectacle Over Substance
Indian media’s approach to foreign policy has increasingly prioritized sensationalism over serious analysis, often complicating international relationships. Several patterns illustrate this challenge.
During Operation Ganga (India’s evacuation of citizens from Ukraine in 2022), the operation successfully evacuated about 23,000 Indian citizens along with foreign nationals. However, while students stuck in the war-torn country claimed the government’s response wasn’t enough and advisories came too late, a parallel narrative emerged hailing the government, showing how media coverage became polarised even during humanitarian operations.
The coverage often focused on promotional aspects rather than substantive analysis of the diplomatic complexities involved in coordinating with multiple countries during wartime, or the genuine challenges faced by stranded students.
Recent developments in India-US relations show similar media dynamics. When Trump announced 25% tariffs on Indian goods in July 2025, later doubled to 50%, Indian media coverage swung between defensive nationalism and criticism of Trump personally. Trump’s social media posts castigating India for purchasing Russian arms and energy, and his mocking suggestion that India could end up buying oil from Pakistan, received extensive coverage that often focused on the insults rather than the underlying policy issues.
This created a veritable diplomatic challenge: international observers noted that Trump has “openly criticised India’s foreign policy”, yet Indian media’s polarised response made it harder to address the substantial concerns beyond the rhetoric.
The broader problem is that Indian media’s approach makes every international development a domestic political issue. Foreign leaders and their officials follow Indian media coverage, and dramatic swings in tone create uncertainty about India’s actual policy positions. When ministers often respond to media narratives rather than setting independent diplomatic courses, the line between media opinion and government policy becomes blurred.
The China Challenge: From Mamallapuram to Galwan
When Chinese President Xi Jinping visited India in 2019, the Mamallapuram summit was projected as a breakthrough in personal diplomacy. Prime Minister Modi and Xi spent hours walking through ancient temples, with media praising the “informal diplomacy.”
But when border tensions with China erupted in Galwan (2020), resulting in the first deadly clash in 45 years with 20 Indian soldiers killed, the Mamallapuram warmth proved insufficient for managing real strategic competition. Evidently , it was a sort of repetition of what one is seeing in the Modi-Trump relationship in these “ mounting Tariff days . “ The pattern, of course , illustrates a broader challenge: impressive photo opportunities do not and cannot substitute for institutional frameworks to manage complex relationships.
BRICS: Multilateral Hopes and Realities
India joined BRICS hoping for a multipolar alternative to Western-dominated institutions. The grouping represents significant global economic weight, with member countries accounting for substantial portions of global population and GDP.
In practice, the effectiveness of BRICS as a counterweight to Western institutions remains debated. China’s economic dominance within the group (contributing the largest share of combined GDP) influences decision-making processes.
The New Development Bank (NDB), BRICS’ financial institution headquartered in Shanghai, has approved projects worth billions since 2015, though its impact compared to established institutions like the World Bank remains a subject of analysis and conjecture.
The Pannun Controversy: Allegations and Diplomatic Fallout
In November 2023, US prosecutors unsealed an indictment alleging that an Indian government employee had directed a plot to assassinate Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun on US soil. The case created diplomatic tensions between India and the US. The allegations involve claims that an Indian intelligence official allegedly hired someone (who turned out to be an undercover federal agent) to carry out the assassination. India has denied the allegations but agreed to investigate.
The controversy has affected India’s relationships with other countries as well. Canada’s relations with India hit a low point after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Indian agents of killing Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia. India rejected the allegations and both countries expelled diplomats. The relationship between the two countries is now “ limping back to normalcy “.
Neighborhood Challenges: Complex Regional Dynamics
India’s relationships with South Asian neighbors present a mixed picture of cooperation and challenges, illustrating what critics call the decline of the “Neighborhood First” policy.
Bangladesh: The Hasina Hangover
India invested heavily in its relationship with Sheikh Hasina’s government $8 billion in credit lines, support for the Padma Bridge project, and extensive intelligence cooperation. When student protests led to Hasina’s departure in August 2024, it left India diplomatically stranded.
The interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus has taken a more cautious approach to India relations, suspending defense cooperation agreements and reviewing several bilateral projects. China has already stepped in with new investment proposals, highlighting India’s reduced influence.
Myanmar: Betting on the Wrong Side
India’s support for Myanmar’s military junta after the 2021 coup was driven by security concerns about northeastern border stability. But backing what appears to be the losing side has cost India relationships with pro-democracy forces and ethnic groups that now control significant territory along the Indian border.
Unlike China, which maintains relationships with all sides in Myanmar’s civil war, India finds itself with limited options as the military government loses territorial control.
Pakistan: Persistent Tensions
India-Pakistan relations remain characterised by periodic escalations and limited dialogue. The 2019 Balakot airstrikes following the Pulwama attack marked a significant escalation, though both countries eventually stepped back from further conflict. The lack of sustained diplomatic engagement means that every crisis risks spiraling into military confrontation.
The Maldives: Electoral Swings
The 2023 Maldivian election saw the victory of Mohamed Muizzu, who campaigned on an “India Out” platform, demanding withdrawal of Indian military personnel. While relations have somewhat stabilized, the episode demonstrated how quickly neighborhood relationships can shift, often due to domestic political calculations rather than strategic interests.
Sri Lanka: Emergency Relief, Limited Influence
Sri Lanka’s economic crisis in 2022 saw India provide over $4 billion in emergency assistance fuel supplies when pumps ran dry, food during shortages, and medical supplies during COVID. While this quick response was appreciated, China’s return with long-term infrastructure investments shows the limits of crisis-driven diplomacy.
Across South Asia, the pattern repeats: India provides emergency help during crises but struggles to build lasting influence through sustained engagement and economic integration.
The Russia Relationship: Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Isolation?
India’s relationship with Russia during the Ukraine war has drawn international attention. India has maintained its position of not condemning Russia while calling for dialogue and diplomacy, describing this approach as “strategic autonomy.”
The numbers tell the story: India’s crude oil imports from Russia increased dramatically from negligible amounts before the war to making Russia one of India’s top oil suppliers by 2023-24. The discounted pricing estimated at $15-20 per barrel below market rates has provided significant cost savings for India’s energy needs.
But the benefits came with diplomatic costs. Western partners, particularly in Europe and the G7, have repeatedly questioned India’s stance. The defense relationship with Russia also faces challenges as Western sanctions disrupt spare parts supplies for India’s Russian-origin military equipment, including delays in S-400 missile system deliveries.
Most problematically, India’s increased energy dependence on Russia creates new vulnerabilities. Western insurers have become reluctant to cover Indian tankers carrying Russian oil, and Indian refiners face difficulties finding international banks willing to finance Russian crude purchases.
The Technology Trap: Between Chinese Efficiency and Western Security
India’s technology relationships reveal the broader challenges of its foreign policy positioning. The country remains economically dependent on Chinese technology and manufacturing while facing Western pressure to reduce this dependence for security reasons.
The numbers show the dilemma clearly: China remains India’s largest trading partner despite border tensions and political rhetoric. Chinese investments in Indian startups totaled billions between 2015-2023, with major Indian companies like Paytm, Byju’s, and Ola relying on Chinese funding and technology platforms.
The 2020 app bans, affecting 267 Chinese applications including TikTok, WeChat, and UC Browser, were implemented following the Galwan border clash. While these restrictions demonstrated resolve, they also cost Chinese companies an estimated $15 billion in Indian market value while affecting millions of Indian users and content creators.
The challenge is that viable alternatives remain limited. India imports approximately 85% of its semiconductors, 70% of its telecom equipment, and 60% of its solar panels mostly from China. Despite massive investments in digital infrastructure through programs like Digital India, the country’s domestic technology manufacturing capabilities lag significantly behind its ambitions.
Western alternatives come with different challenges. US technology partnerships often demand data localisation requirements that conflict with global business models. European privacy regulations add compliance costs for Indian companies seeking to expand internationally.
Diplomatic Challenges and Institutional Capacity
India’s diplomatic approach has evolved significantly, right from the first government led by Jawaharlal Nehru , with emphasis that has grown over successive governments on factors like leader-to-leader diplomacy and public engagement. This has included major international visits, hosting of summits, and participation in multilateral forums. However , in the Modi regime since 2014 , questions have repeatedly come up about the institutional capacity and the balance between high-profile diplomacy and sustained institutional engagement that conventional and rooted diplomacy requires.
Looking Forward: The Need for Institutional Depth
India’s foreign policy challenges highlight the importance of institutional mechanisms that can sustain relationships through changes in leadership and political circumstances. The path forward requires strengthening diplomatic institutions, maintaining policy consistency, and balancing spectacular gestures with the patient work of building lasting international partnerships.
Real diplomatic progress often happens in quiet conversations and institutional mechanisms rather than in the glare of publicity. India’s challenge is to maintain its dynamic approach to international relations while building the institutional depth that sustains partnerships over time.
