Questions have been raised about the direction of India's foreign policy approach, with analysts noting that the foreign policy discussion has been avoiding certain key questions. Three core assumptions, observers contend, shaped the decisions India made at the dawn of the 21st century.
By the turn of the millennium, no other world power had come close to matching the level of dominance the United States held over its competitors. That dominance, according to analysts, left little practical alternative for alignment, while a shared wariness toward China was positioned as the strategic rationale for bridging the longstanding tensions and distrust between Indian and American interests.
The emerging narrative was said to appeal to national pride on one side and economic self-interest on the other. The arrangement was expected to enhance India's standing internationally, while providing the United States with trade opportunities and defence contracts. Had the scenario played out as anticipated, India would have served as a strategic partner for Western interests across Asia, reinforcing US dominance in the region through the coming decades.
By the early 2000s, while the global economy had expanded across multiple regions, the United States held a dominant position in facilitating ties between developing nations and the G-7 bloc. Some observers contended that the term "interdependence" functioned as diplomatic cover for a US-centred architecture intended to govern global technology flows, trade corridors, and commercial infrastructure.
Each of those three suppositions has been overturned over the course of recent years. Certain analysts contend that the country's ability to direct global affairs has weakened, with its influence over international outcomes now in question. Each policy gamble taken in recent years — the trade dispute with China, the standoff over NATO's relationship with Russia, and the tensions involving Iran — has generated consequences that appear to have compounded the underlying weakening trend.
Throughout recorded history, armed conflict has served as one means by which shifts in geopolitical dominance have been determined, and analysts argue this period proves no different. The conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have placed measurable strain on NATO stockpiles while also drawing attention to questions about the strategic foundations underpinning Western defence capabilities.
Over the past two decades, China has pulled considerably ahead of India in multiple areas of development, calling into question long-held assumptions about the two nations converging toward a rivalry for regional leadership. China's advantage, analysts note, extends beyond overall economic output to encompass foundational policy frameworks, workforce capabilities, and technological development.
Economic influence is gradually gravitating toward eastern regions of the globe. Spanning industries from advanced manufacturing and technology to energy extraction, raw materials, consumer markets, and investment flows, the broader Eurasian landmass and its surrounding regions are argued by some analysts to possess the foundational elements needed to support an autonomous and self-sustaining geoeconomic system. Throughout recorded history, a continental integration of this kind had never previously been feasible.
Yet as global developments have reshaped the landscape of Indian foreign policy, an established network of institutional actors has shown limited responsiveness to those shifts. Those who advocate for the existing approach have constructed a misleading argument, some analysts contend, to discourage policymakers from conducting a genuine review.
Some analysts argue that China should remain the central focus of Indian strategic planning, even as concerns persist over whether US actions are undermining India's autonomy and regional influence in the subcontinent. The relationship between the two nations shifted considerably from 2005, when the United States committed to supporting India's rise as a leading power, to 2026, when a diplomat publicly stated that India would not be allowed to develop the capabilities of a great power.
Pentagon official Elbridge Colby suggested that broader strategic priorities relating to China would remain separate from regional disputes within Asia. Whether India alone should maintain an inflexible position amid the shifting dynamics and strategic manoeuvring taking place around it remains an open question, according to analysts.
Building a durable policy framework for relations with China has been described by some analysts as a matter that transcends party divisions, given concerns about both the risk of military escalation along the Himalayan border and the vulnerabilities arising from an excessive dependence on Western alliances. Some analysts argue that India should move away from the subordinate positioning it adopted during the era of US dominance and reassert a regional power stance that accommodates both divergence and mutual obligations with China.
Global power is shifting toward a distribution among multiple nations. Maintaining global peace and stability would, in the view of some analysts, require accountable regional powers across Eurasia to take an active role, a role they argue aligns with India's broader strategic interests.
India's foreign policy discourse, some analysts contend, may need to move beyond an established approach that has long prioritised maintaining a calculated distance from the world's dominant powers. No major power currently holds the geopolitical capacity or available resources to absorb India's social, economic, and security needs, analysts note, adding that the period of geopolitical rivalry between the two superpowers has drawn to a close.
Shifts in the global order, according to analysts, call for a reconsidered strategic approach in which questions of national autonomy, cross-border economic ties, evolving trade and investment networks, and the provision of shared international goods occupy a central place in how India conducts its external relations. Analysts further contend that India's leadership may need to adopt a longer-term perspective if the country's direction is to shift.
