Bharat on the World Stage: At UNGA, India Articulates a Doctrine of Sovereign Confidence and Demands Reformed Multilateralism 

In a candid address at the 80th UN General Assembly, India’s External Affairs Minister delivered a stark audit of a multilateral system in crisis, citing the UN’s gridlock over conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, the failure of climate justice, and discriminatory practices during the pandemic as evidence of an institution failing to meet its founding ideals.

The statement unequivocally identified a neighboring country as an “epicentre of global terrorism” and challenged the international community to end double standards, while simultaneously articulating India’s confident foreign policy doctrine rooted in self-reliance (Atmanirbharta), self-defense (Atmaraksha), and self-confidence (Atmavishwas).

Positioning itself as a reliable “First Responder” and voice for the Global South, India argued that the UN’s credibility hinges on urgent Security Council reform to reflect 21st-century realities, declaring its readiness to assume greater responsibilities within a framework of reformed multilateralism.

Bharat on the World Stage: At UNGA, India Articulates a Doctrine of Sovereign Confidence and Demands Reformed Multilateralism 

In the hallowed halls of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), where diplomatic language often veils sharp differences in a fog of consensus, the statement by India’s External Affairs Minister (EAM) on September 27, 2025, was a striking departure. Delivered on the cusp of the UN’s 80th anniversary, the speech was less a routine address and more a candid, clear-eyed audit of a multilateral system in crisis, coupled with a confident articulation of India’s own philosophy for navigating a turbulent world. 

Speaking on behalf of “the people of Bharat,” the EAM wove together sharp criticism, a firm commitment to global good, and a strategic vision rooted in national strength. The message was unambiguous: the post-war order is failing, and India is ready to assume a larger role in building what comes next, but only on terms that reflect the realities of the 21st century. 

A Candid Audit: The UN’s Report Card is Failing 

The EAM began by acknowledging the UN’s founding ideals—preventing war, building peace, upholding human dignity—but quickly pivoted to a sobering assessment of the present. The speech painted a picture of an institution struggling to keep pace with a world ravaged by conflict, climate inaction, and deep-seated inequities. 

The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza were highlighted not merely as regional tragedies but as symptoms of a broader institutional paralysis. The EAM pointedly noted that “innumerable other hotspots don’t even make the news,” a damning indictment of a selective global conscience. This theme of double standards resurfaced powerfully throughout the address, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where “open discrimination in access to vaccines and to travel” exposed a hollow commitment to global solidarity. 

Perhaps the most scathing critique was reserved for the handling of global economic and security challenges. The speech identified a new and dangerous form of fragmentation: not just military, but economic and technological. The EAM spoke of “heightened technology control,” a “grip on supply chains and critical minerals,” and the “shaping of connectivity” as the new frontiers of geopolitical competition. In this environment, concepts like “de-risking” are no longer mere policy choices but a “growing compulsion” for nations seeking to protect their economic sovereignty. 

The central question posed was stark: “Each [of these challenges] makes a compelling case for more international cooperation, not less. But are we really headed in that direction? And where has the UN actually made a difference?” The implied answer, echoed in the conclusion that the UN is in a state of “gridlock,” set the stage for the speech’s core demand: urgent and meaningful reform. 

Zero-Tolerance on Terrorism: Naming and Shaming the “Epicentre” 

In one of the speech’s most anticipated and forceful segments, the EAM left no room for ambiguity on the issue of terrorism. Directly calling out a neighbouring country—a clear reference to Pakistan—as “an epicentre of global terrorism,” the statement was a bold rejection of diplomatic euphemisms. 

The language was deliberate and legally grounded. The EAM noted that “UN’s designated lists of terrorists are replete with its nationals,” leveraging the UN’s own frameworks to bolster India’s longstanding accusations. The reference to the murder of tourists in Pahalgam in April 2025 served to contemporize the threat, linking past grievances with present-day violence. 

This was not just about holding a rival accountable; it was a challenge to the international community’s inconsistent approach. The speech condemned nations that “openly declare terrorism as state policy” and warned that “those who condone nations that sponsor terror will find that it comes back to bite them.” This is a strategic move to frame counter-terrorism not as a bilateral issue, but as a litmus test for the credibility of the entire multilateral system. By doing so, India positions itself as a frontline state in a global fight, demanding that its concerns be central to any serious discussion on international security. 

The “Bharat” Doctrine: Atmanirbharta, Atmaraksha, Atmavishwas 

Beyond the critique, the most significant part of the address was the formal enunciation of the principles guiding New Delhi’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Framed as three key Sanskrit-derived concepts, this “Bharat Doctrine” offers a coherent philosophy: 

• Atmanirbharta (Self-Reliance): This goes beyond economic protectionism. It is a strategic imperative to develop indigenous capabilities—from manufacturing and pharmaceuticals to space and digital infrastructure. The EAM made clear that a self-reliant India is not an isolated India; rather, “Make, innovate and design in India also benefit the world,” positioning the nation as a reliable and alternative source of goods, technology, and solutions. 

• Atmaraksha (Self-Defence): This encompasses a robust, zero-tolerance approach to terrorism, securing borders, and a commitment to protecting Indian citizens and interests globally. It signals that while India is a benevolent power, it will not be a vulnerable one. 

• Atmavishwas (Self-Confidence): This is the overarching theme. It reflects the mindset of a “civilizational state” that is now the world’s most populous nation and a rapidly growing major economy. This confidence translates into a fierce defense of India’s “freedom of choice” in foreign policy and an unwavering commitment to being a “voice of the Global South.” 

This triad of principles explains what might otherwise seem like a paradox: a nation deeply engaged in global humanitarian efforts (HADR), peacekeeping, and development projects, while simultaneously asserting its right to act decisively and independently in its own security and economic interests. 

First Responder and Voice of the Global South: Action Over Rhetoric 

The speech was careful to back its philosophical claims with tangible evidence of India’s global role. The listing of over 600 development projects in 78 countries, its status as a “First Responder” in humanitarian crises from Afghanistan to Myanmar, and its continued contributions to UN peacekeeping from Cyprus to the Congo are all part of a conscious statecraft. 

This narrative serves a dual purpose. First, it builds India’s soft power, demonstrating reliability and capability. Second, it starkly contrasts India’s actions with the “sanctimonious lectures” and “creative accounting” the EAM accused richer nations of employing. By highlighting its efforts in fuel, fertilizer, and food security for its neighbours during crises, India positions itself as a net provider of stability, a role traditionally associated with great powers. 

The Unavoidable Conclusion: Reform or Irrelevance 

The thread tying the entire address together was the urgent, non-negotiable demand for UN Security Council (UNSC) reform. The EAM labeled the resistance to reform as “cynicism” and called for addressing the “historical injustice done to Africa.” The statement that “India stands ready to assume greater responsibilities” was not a request, but a declaration of intent. 

The message to the permanent members of the UNSC, particularly those who have been hesitant, is clear: the legitimacy of the entire multilateral project is at stake. A body that claims to represent the world but excludes its largest democracy and a fifth of humanity from its highest decision-making table cannot credibly address the challenges of this century. 

As the UN prepares to enter its ninth decade, India’s address has set down a marker. It has articulated a vision of a “reformed multilateralism” where leadership is earned not by legacy but by contribution, and where sovereignty is respected as the foundation of a truly diverse and cooperative world. The world may be turbulent, but as Bharat’s statement made clear, it has no intention of simply weathering the storm. It is preparing to help steer the ship.