Dr Arun Prakash
In the shifting geometry of global politics, India now stands at a junction that history offers to nations only once in a generation. For much of the post-colonial era, India’s voice in international affairs was distinctive yet hesitant — shaped by the moral force of its independence struggle yet constrained by developmental priorities at home. Today, however, the global landscape has fractured into competing power blocs, each driven as much by suspicion as by ambition. The United States, once the near-undisputed organiser of global rules, finds itself distracted and polarised internally, with its foreign policy increasingly reactive and transactional. China has expanded its reach with ruthless efficiency, but its ascent has triggered equal measures of resistance and mistrust. Russia, once central to a bipolar order, now plays the role of a disruptive actor, seeking influence through conflict and energy leverage rather than constructive leadership. In this turbulent environment, there is a widening vacuum for a nation that can speak to all, bridge divides, and stand as a dependable broker of stability. Few countries have the moral capital, democratic legitimacy, and non-colonial credentials to occupy that space. India does.
What sets India apart in this moment is not just its size, economy, or population, but the combination of historic relationships, strategic geography, and a record — however imperfect — of engaging across ideological lines without being trapped by them. It is one of the few major powers that can speak in the same week to Washington, Moscow, and Beijing without triggering accusations of betrayal from any. That is not weakness; it is a diplomatic asset born of decades of balancing principle and pragmatism. In a world where trust is in short supply, such positioning is rare currency. Yet this currency loses value if India chooses passivity. The question is not whether India is ready to lead, but whether it will take the risks leadership requires.
The opportunity is clearest in the realm of global cooperation frameworks, which have grown stagnant or fractured. Institutions like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization were designed for a post-war world where economic interdependence and diplomatic compromise seemed inevitable. That world is gone. What remains are structures in need of reform, legitimacy, and renewed authority. India, with its G20 presidency experience, growing role in the BRICS bloc, and leadership in forums like the International Solar Alliance, has already demonstrated the ability to convene diverse actors around common agendas. But convening is not enough. The future will demand that India propose and push for concrete mechanisms — in climate action, digital governance, supply chain resilience, and equitable trade — that can survive political cycles and power shifts. Leadership here means not just advocating for reform but building coalitions that make reform inevitable.
Critics may argue that India’s domestic challenges — poverty, inequality, environmental degradation — weaken its moral authority to lecture the world. In truth, these challenges are part of its credibility. India does not speak from the Olympian heights of a post-industrial society insulated from hardship; it speaks from the trenches of development, where growth and sustainability, tradition and modernity, must be reconciled daily. This is precisely why countries in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia are inclined to see India not as a patronising power, but as a partner who understands their struggles. By consciously deepening South–South cooperation, expanding technology transfer on equitable terms, and resisting the temptation to mimic extractive models of engagement, India can turn solidarity into strategic influence.
Yet influence is not won in declarations alone; it is earned in moments of crisis. The last decade has seen multiple such moments — the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine war, global energy price shocks — and in each, India’s performance has been instructive. Vaccine Maitri, despite its logistical and political limits, showed how health diplomacy could win goodwill far beyond traditional alliances. Balancing trade ties with Russia while condemning civilian casualties in Ukraine demonstrated that nuance is possible in a climate of polarised rhetoric. Expanding infrastructure projects in the Indo-Pacific, from port connectivity to digital networks, has countered narratives of dependency that often accompany Chinese investments. These are not perfect case studies, but they are proof that India can act as a steadying force without being subsumed by the strategic anxieties of others.
To sustain and scale such influence, however, India must also confront the tension between strategic autonomy and strategic inertia. The former is a strength; the latter is a habit that squanders momentum. Strategic autonomy does not mean waiting for consensus to emerge before acting. It means leading the consensus by articulating visions that others can align with — whether that be a digital ethics charter, a climate resilience fund, or a new multilateral platform for mediating resource disputes. The world is far more receptive to such ideas from India than it was twenty years ago. The only missing ingredient is the willingness to move from cautious rhetoric to visible institutional creation.
This is especially relevant in the triangle of India–China–Russia relations. While Beijing’s Belt and Road ambitions have stalled in some regions due to debt distress and local pushback, China remains a formidable economic competitor and strategic challenger. Moscow, meanwhile, is seeking to diversify its partnerships to avoid overdependence on Beijing — a window India can use to deepen energy, defence, and technology cooperation on mutually beneficial terms. Managing these ties without alienating the West requires an agility few powers possess. If handled with foresight, India could emerge as the pivot that prevents either an entrenched US–China cold war or an unbalanced Eurasian order dominated entirely by Beijing.
The other arena where India’s leadership potential is undeniable is in the Global South’s search for a unified voice in climate negotiations, debt restructuring, and technology access. As climate disasters grow more frequent and debt crises deepen, there is a shared frustration among developing nations that the global rules remain written by and for the richest economies. India can harness this frustration into constructive diplomacy — positioning itself as the architect of a “New Development Compact” that links green finance, open technology, and inclusive trade. Such a compact would not only enhance India’s soft power but also align directly with its own developmental needs, making it a case of enlightened self-interest rather than charity.
Ultimately, leadership in this fractured era will belong not to those who can project the most military power, but to those who can build the widest webs of trust. India’s challenge is to realise that its greatest comparative advantage lies not in choosing sides, but in creating spaces where sides can be chosen without coercion. That is the essence of being a bridge nation — one that others cross not because they are forced to, but because it is the shortest, safest, and most dignified path available. In a century where uncertainty is the only certainty, the world is looking less for a saviour than for a steady hand. India can be that hand — if it reaches out decisively, with both confidence and humility.