In the chessboard of global politics, often dominated by capitalist and imperialist forces, multi-alignment is presented as a pragmatic diplomatic strategy. In reality, it often appears opportunistic and weak, where transactional relations define foreign policy and countries pursue their interests in what resembles a moral vacuum. Multi-alignment can dilute strategic independence and autonomy while compromising national interests when dealing with powerful states such as the United States or the former colonial powers of Europe.
As a strategy, it struggles to navigate conflicting global interests in a manner that genuinely safeguards national priorities. In many ways, multi-alignment tends to operate within a framework shaped by dominant global powers rather than challenging it.
An independent and autonomous foreign policy requires a principled path that upholds international peace, solidarity and strategic independence from competing power blocs. It involves building friendships based on mutual respect, shared interests and ethical commitments. For decades after independence, India largely pursued such an approach through its commitment to non-alignment. Until the early 1990s, India attempted to balance its relations with different global powers while maintaining a moral voice in international politics. However, since the liberalisation era, Indian foreign policy has increasingly gravitated towards closer engagement with powerful Western countries in the name of economic reforms, energy security and cooperation in the global war on terror.
India’s gradual shift from non-alignment to multi-alignment reflects a broader transformation in its diplomatic orientation. Critics argue that this shift has often led to compromises with dominant global powers and has diluted India’s earlier image as an independent moral voice in international affairs. According to this view, Indian policymakers have moved away from the legacy of principled diplomacy that once characterised the country’s foreign policy, thereby weakening India’s credibility among many nations of the Global South.
The evolution of India’s foreign policy since the late 1990s has coincided with the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party in national politics. From the tenure of Atal Bihari Vajpayee to that of Narendra Modi, critics contend that domestic political strategies have also influenced the conduct of international relations. They argue that the majoritarian and populist style of Hindutva politics—often framed as cultural nationalism—has shaped India’s diplomatic posture as well. According to this perspective, such politics risks aligning India too closely with certain Western geopolitical positions, thereby weakening the country’s historic role as a balancing force in global affairs.
One example often cited is India’s cautious and sometimes ambiguous position on conflicts involving the United States and Israel in West Asia. Critics argue that such positions risk damaging India’s longstanding ties with countries such as Iran, while also complicating relations with Russia. Iran has historically been an important partner for India, particularly in the energy sector and in regional connectivity projects. Any perception that India is tilting too strongly towards the strategic positions of Washington or Tel Aviv could strain these relationships. Such tensions would also have broader implications, given that the Gulf region hosts millions of Indian workers and remains central to India’s energy security.
Historically, the Soviet Union—and later Russia—has been regarded as one of India’s most reliable partners. During crucial periods of India’s development, Moscow provided support in areas ranging from food supplies and fertilisers to heavy industry, scientific cooperation and defence technology. This relationship was built over decades through strategic trust and diplomatic understanding. However, critics of India’s current foreign policy argue that New Delhi’s growing strategic partnership with the United States may be complicating its relations with Russia. Shifts in global alliances and energy markets have already altered the dynamics of India–Russia economic cooperation, with consequences that ultimately affect ordinary citizens through energy prices and broader economic pressures.
India’s diplomatic standing in parts of Africa, Asia, the Arab world and Latin America has historically been shaped by its leadership role in anti-colonial solidarity and the Non-Aligned Movement. Many of these countries once viewed India as a moral voice advocating global justice and equality among nations. Critics now suggest that this perception has weakened under the current geopolitical environment. They argue that India’s increasingly close strategic partnership with the United States risks eroding its traditional relationships with developing nations that remain sceptical of Western geopolitical dominance.
In this context, developments in Asia also hold significant implications. China remains a major global power and an important neighbour with whom India shares a complex relationship marked by both cooperation and competition. Some observers argue that diplomatic engagement and expanded people-to-people exchanges could help reduce mistrust and stabilise bilateral ties despite ongoing geopolitical and border challenges. They warn that if India becomes deeply embedded in security frameworks perceived as directed against China—such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), which includes the United States, Japan and Australia—it could further intensify regional rivalries rather than promote stability.
Critics of India’s present foreign policy therefore argue that a mixture of short-term calculations and ideological motivations risks pushing the country into diplomatic isolation. In their view, multi-alignment does not necessarily represent strategic independence; rather, it can resemble opportunistic balancing that lacks a coherent moral or strategic foundation. India’s earlier diplomatic tradition, by contrast, allowed the country to criticise the Soviet Union when necessary while maintaining a strong friendship with it. At the same time, India stood alongside countries in Africa, Asia, the Arab world and Latin America in opposing colonialism and great-power domination.
That legacy of principled diplomacy helped establish India as a respected voice for fairness and justice in global politics. Critics argue that this tradition is now under strain as contemporary political leadership prioritises strategic partnerships with major powers over broader multilateral solidarity. Whether this shift ultimately strengthens or weakens India’s global standing remains a subject of intense debate.
For many observers, the challenge facing India today is how to reconcile national interests with ethical leadership in international affairs. Reviving the spirit of non-alignment—adapted to contemporary realities—may offer one pathway. Such an approach would emphasise independence in decision-making, balanced relations with all major powers, and solidarity with developing nations while promoting global peace and cooperation.
In an increasingly polarised world, a principled and independent foreign policy could help India rebuild trust across regions and reaffirm its historic role as a bridge between competing global powers. Non-alignment, reinterpreted for the twenty-first century, may still provide the foundation for a foreign policy that safeguards sovereignty, promotes fairness and contributes to international peace.
---
*Academic based in the United Kingdom
Comments