From Vishwa Guru to Strategic Drift: Decoding India’s Precarious Moment on the Global Stage 

Currently, India finds itself in a state of unprecedented strategic drift and diplomatic confusion on the global stage, having alienated its traditional neighbors like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka through a combination of hostile rhetoric, coercive policies, and a loss of moral clarity, while its much-hyped great power gambits have yielded diminishing returns—leaving it with a transactional relationship with Russia, a fraught and costly courtship of the United States, a loss of influence in the Global South to China, and a values vacuum from its unqualified embrace of Israel, all of which have collectively humiliated a nation that once aspired to be a “Vishwa Guru” and forced a defensive pivot toward self-reliance.

From Vishwa Guru to Strategic Drift: Decoding India’s Precarious Moment on the Global Stage 

For a nation that has, for the past decade, been relentlessly marketed as a rising superpower destined for global leadership, the current geopolitical reality presents a stark and unsettling contrast. The triumphant narrative of “New India”—a confident, assertive Vishwa Guru (world teacher)—is colliding with a complex international landscape where old friendships are strained, new alliances are transactional, and the country’s strategic compass appears increasingly muddled. To understand this moment is to move beyond the headlines of grand summits and symbolic hugs, and to examine the sobering erosion of India’s diplomatic capital. 

The Crumbling Neighborhood: A Fortress Without Friends 

A nation’s true strategic depth is first measured in its immediate vicinity. Here, the picture for India is alarmingly bleak, representing a significant departure from its historical, albeit often challenging, regional role. 

• Pakistan: The relationship remains frozen in a cycle of hostility, trapped between a “war” that wasn’t formally declared and a peace process that is non-existent. This perpetual state of limbo benefits neither nation but has become a politically convenient, if strategically costly, status quo. 

• Bangladesh: Once a shining example of India’s “Neighbourhood First” policy, the relationship is now frayed. Public rhetoric from Indian leaders perceived as anti-Bangladeshi, combined with Delhi’s refusal to repatriate a former prime minister facing charges, has created significant political friction. The sentiment on the street in Bangladesh is shifting, and India’s leverage is diminishing accordingly. 

• Nepal and Sri Lanka: The 2015 blockade of Nepal, a profound act of coercion, remains a deep scar in the bilateral relationship. The recent termination of the 200-year-old tradition of recruiting Gurkhas into the Indian Army via the Agnipath scheme severed another vital, human link. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka, despite its economic woes, demonstrated a moral clarity on the Gaza conflict that India, wary of offending its new friend Israel, could not muster. 

• The Maldives and China: The orchestrated boycott of the Maldives over a diplomatic spat revealed a foreign policy driven more by nationalist sentiment than long-term strategy. With China, the situation is even more paradoxical. After public displays of destroying Chinese goods and a deadly Himalayan standoff that remains unresolved, the relationship exists in a state of strategic ambiguity. There is no clear path to de-escalation, nor a coherent policy to counter Beijing’s overwhelming influence in the region. 

This collective alienation in South Asia is not merely a diplomatic failure; it is a direct national security vulnerability. A isolated India in its own neighborhood is a India whose influence is easily contained by competitors. 

The Great Power Gambit: Transactional Relationships and Diminishing Returns 

Beyond the subcontinent, India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy has, in practice, often resembled a series of transactional bargains that are yielding diminishing returns. 

• The United States: The relationship with the U.S. is perhaps the most telling. The investment was immense: grand rallies for a visiting president, significant domestic policy shifts like corporate tax cuts, and perceived alignment with a particular American political faction. The returns, however, have been poor. Under the same administration India so assiduously courted, it faces higher tariffs than rivals like Pakistan and Bangladesh, punitive visa fees for its skilled professionals, and additional duties on key exports like pharmaceuticals. The message is clear: the relationship is valued, but not on the preferential terms India might have expected. 

• Russia: The historic partnership with Russia has been reduced to a purely transactional one: a buyer of discounted oil and military hardware. Moscow now views Delhi not as a non-aligned partner of the Cold War era, but as a client state. This dependence, particularly on military spares, severely constrains India’s ability to align with Western democracies on issues like Ukraine, where Russian aggression is clear. Europe’s conviction that Russia is an existential threat places India on the wrong side of a fundamental values-based divide. 

• The Middle East: The unqualified embrace of Israel, culminating in the diplomatic faux pas of applauding a UN speech justifying actions in Gaza, has come at a cost. While Arab governments may maintain state-level relations, public opinion across the Muslim world, a key constituency for India’s soft power, has soured. This ideological shift risks alienating a diaspora and undermining India’s long-standing ties with the Arab world. 

• The Global South: Here, India’s decline is most pronounced. The African continent and ASEAN nations are now firmly within China’s economic orbit through the Belt and Road Initiative. India’s trade with ASEAN is a mere 10% of its trade with China itself, revealing a staggering lack of economic integration with its eastern neighbors. In forums like BRICS, a country like Brazil has shown more backbone in challenging Western hegemony, a role India once aspired to but now seems reluctant to fill. 

The Core of the Confusion: An Identity Crisis in Foreign Policy 

The current state of “adrift-ness” stems from a fundamental confusion about India’s identity and interests on the world stage. 

• The Values Vacuum: India’s traditional foreign policy was rooted in the moral authority of anti-colonialism, non-violence, and democratic solidarity. The current approach has jettisoned this in favor of a realpolitik that is often inconsistent. It stands with the “liberal, rules-based order” in the Indo-Pacific but remains silent on Ukraine. It champions the Palestinian cause rhetorically but is Israel’s closest friend in the Global South. This ideological flexibility is perceived not as strategic genius but as an absence of core principles. 

• The Over-reliance on Spectacle: Foreign policy has been heavily reliant on spectacle—the grand welcomes, the social media-friendly “hugs,” the hosting of the G20. While these have domestic propaganda value, they are no substitute for the unglamorous, grinding work of diplomacy: building institutions, negotiating trade deals, and cultivating long-term partnerships. When the spectacle fades, the substantive foundation is often found to be weak. 

• The Domestic-Foreign Policy Nexus: A domestic political project centered on majoritarianism has external repercussions. It alienates liberal democracies in Europe and makes it harder to build genuine partnerships based on shared values. It also complicates relations with Muslim-majority nations, who must balance state interests with the sentiments of their populace. 

Conclusion: The Uncomfortable Pivot to “Atmanirbharta” 

It is no coincidence that in the face of this strategic isolation, the government’s mantra has pivoted decisively to “Atmanirbharta,” or self-reliance. This is a tacit admission that the world is a less welcoming place for India than was promised. The global partnerships needed for seamless integration have not materialized as envisioned. 

The path forward requires a sober reassessment. It demands a foreign policy less driven by domestic political posturing and more by consistent, long-term national interests. It requires rebuilding bridges in the neighborhood with humility and respect, and articulating a clear, principled stance on global issues that goes beyond transactional calculations. 

India is not adrift because it lacks potential; it is adrift because it has traded a steady, principled, if sometimes slow, diplomatic hand for a flashy but ultimately hollow performance on the world stage. Recovering its footing will require less self-inflation and more genuine introspection. The wonder, as the old hymn goes, may need to be performed not by a mysterious god, but by a clear-eyed and strategic Indian state.