Modi@12: India's Global Rise and the Limits of Diplomatic Power

When Narendra Modi took office in 2014, he promised a more confident India on the world stage. Foreign policy, traditionally the domain of diplomats and strategic experts, became a central pillar of political messaging. Through energetic summit diplomacy, diaspora outreach and ambitious geopolitical initiatives, India sought to project itself as a leading power rather than a balancing one. Twelve years later, Modi's foreign policy has undoubtedly increased India's visibility and influence. Yet it has also exposed the gap between diplomatic ambition and strategic outcomes.

The most visible success of the Modi era has been India's emergence as a more active global actor. The Neighbourhood First policy signaled this shift from the outset. Inviting South Asian leaders to the 2014 swearing-in ceremony conveyed the message that India's rise would begin in its immediate region. Development assistance, infrastructure projects and humanitarian support expanded across South Asia. This was complemented by the Act East policy and the SAGAR vision, strengthening India's engagement in the Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific.

India's G20 presidency in 2023 represented the high point of this diplomatic activism. At a time when divisions over Ukraine threatened to paralyze multilateral institutions, New Delhi secured consensus on the New Delhi Leaders' Declaration and championed the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent G20 member. Initiatives such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor and the Global Biofuels Alliance reinforced India's image as a bridge between developed and developing worlds.

The revival of the Quad similarly elevated India's Indo-Pacific role. Cooperation with the United States, Japan and Australia expanded across maritime security, critical technologies and supply chains. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Vaccine Maitri further enhanced India's soft power by supplying vaccines to countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America, reinforcing its reputation as the "pharmacy of the world."

Yet the Modi era's foreign policy cannot be assessed solely through diplomatic successes and symbolism. The most persistent criticism is that visibility often outpaced results.

The clearest example lies in India's neighbourhood. Despite the promise of Neighbourhood First, relations with several neighbours became increasingly strained. Nepal witnessed tensions arising from perceptions surrounding the 2015 blockade and later territorial disputes. Political changes in Bangladesh introduced fresh uncertainties into what had been one of India's strongest regional partnerships. Sri Lanka and the Maldives periodically witnessed anti-India political narratives, culminating in the Maldives' "India Out" campaign and the withdrawal of Indian military personnel. Meanwhile, SAARC stagnated amid India-Pakistan tensions. The result was a paradox: while India expanded its global profile, China steadily increased its influence across South Asia through investments, infrastructure and diplomatic engagement.

China remains the greatest test of Modi's foreign policy legacy. The early years were characterized by informal summits and personal engagement between Modi and Xi Jinping. However, events moved in the opposite direction. The Doklam standoff in 2017 demonstrated China's willingness to challenge India's strategic interests, while the deadly Galwan clash in 2020 shattered assumptions that political engagement could stabilize the relationship. Despite years of negotiations, border tensions persist and military deployments remain elevated.

Equally troubling is the economic dimension. Even as political tensions intensified, India's dependence on Chinese imports continued and the trade deficit widened significantly. The contradiction between strategic competition and economic dependence highlights the limits of India's China strategy. Efforts to diversify supply chains and reduce vulnerabilities have achieved only partial success.

The challenge has been compounded by the deepening China-Pakistan partnership. One of New Delhi's objectives has been the diplomatic isolation of Pakistan over cross-border terrorism. While India has succeeded in drawing global attention to terrorism concerns, Pakistan remains far from isolated. Beijing continues to provide diplomatic, economic and strategic backing to Islamabad, strengthening a two-front challenge that shapes India's security environment.

Recent events have further exposed the limits of diplomatic influence. During Operation Sindoor, India expected stronger international support for its position. Instead, most major powers emphasized restraint and de-escalation. While several countries acknowledged India's security concerns, few unequivocally backed New Delhi or openly condemned Pakistan. The episode highlighted a difficult reality: international recognition of India's importance does not automatically translate into diplomatic alignment during crises.

Questions have also emerged regarding the practical limits of strategic autonomy. Modi's government deserves credit for maintaining ties simultaneously with the United States, Russia, Europe, the Gulf states, BRICS and the Quad. This balancing strategy allowed India to protect energy security, preserve policy flexibility and avoid bloc politics.

However, strategic autonomy increasingly operates within a world of geopolitical and economic pressures. The return of protectionist tendencies in the United States, including tariff disputes, demonstrated the transactional nature of major-power relationships. Similarly, debates surrounding Russian oil imports highlighted the constraints that external pressure can impose on foreign policy choices. India's cautious response to tensions involving Iran, Israel and the United States reflected the difficult trade-offs inherent in multi-alignment.

Another criticism concerns the personalization of diplomacy. Modi's energetic outreach undoubtedly raised India's profile, but it also concentrated foreign policy around leader-to-leader relationships and summit diplomacy. Critics argue that durable influence requires deeper institutional relationships capable of surviving leadership transitions and geopolitical shocks.

Twelve years later, the verdict on Modi's foreign policy remains mixed but significant. India is more visible, more confident and more influential than it was in 2014. It has elevated the voice of the Global South, strengthened its Indo-Pacific presence and secured a larger role in global governance. Yet visibility is not the same as influence. An India that hosted the G20 and emerged as a pivotal global player still faces an assertive China, a strengthened China-Pakistan axis, challenges in its neighbourhood and the transactional realities of great-power politics.

The central challenge for the next decade is not projecting power but converting diplomatic visibility into lasting strategic outcomes. That will require stronger economic foundations, greater military capability, institutionalized partnerships and renewed regional leadership. Only then can India's global ambitions mature into enduring geopolitical influence.