Why India’s rise hasn’t won it friends

The Tribune

Core Theme and Context

The article interrogates a paradox in India’s foreign policy trajectory: rapid economic and strategic rise without a commensurate expansion of goodwill among neighbours and partners, especially in the immediate neighbourhood. It questions the assumption that material rise automatically translates into diplomatic influence.

The piece is written against the backdrop of India’s growing GDP, military capacity, and global visibility, juxtaposed with persistent trust deficits in South Asia and parts of the Indian Ocean region.

Key Arguments Advanced

Power does not automatically convert into influence
– The article draws a distinction between hard power accumulation and usable influence
– Economic size and military capability have not translated into comfort or reassurance for neighbours

Neighbourhood discomfort persists
– Despite India’s assistance (economic aid, disaster relief, connectivity projects), countries like Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Myanmar exhibit hedging behaviour
– China’s presence exploits these gaps, even when India is geographically and culturally closer

Strategic ambiguity and mixed signalling
– India’s assertiveness sometimes lacks narrative consistency
– Neighbours perceive Indian actions as episodic, reactive, or transactional rather than predictably benign

Absence of surplus diplomacy
– Unlike China, India lacks large surplus capital, export overcapacity, or massive outward investment firepower
– This limits India’s ability to buy long-term strategic patience or goodwill

Domestic priorities constrain external generosity
– With large internal development needs, India cannot sustain large-scale economic statecraft abroad
– This structural limitation weakens its neighbourhood leverage

Author’s Stance

The stance is analytical and cautionary, not accusatory.
– India’s rise is acknowledged as real and consequential
– However, the author argues that influence requires more than growth—it requires reassurance, predictability, and narrative clarity

The tone is that of strategic realism, urging introspection rather than self-congratulation.

Biases and Editorial Leanings

Realist bias
– Heavy emphasis on power dynamics, leverage, and material constraints
– Less attention to ideational, civilisational, or soft-power gains

Neighbourhood-centric lens
– Focuses primarily on South Asia and immediate periphery
– India’s growing acceptance in Africa, West Asia, and the Indo-Pacific is underplayed

China-comparison bias
– China is used as a constant benchmark, sometimes overlooking the different political economies of the two states

Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros
– Cuts through triumphalist narratives of India’s rise
– Forces policy debate on how influence is built, not just declared
– Highlights limits of coercive or muscular signalling
– Useful corrective for aspirants prone to linear thinking on power

Cons
– Understates the agency of neighbouring states and their domestic politics
– Risks portraying India as diplomatically underperforming despite structural constraints
– Less engagement with long-term trust-building measures already underway

Policy Implications

Foreign policy recalibration
– Shift from episodic engagement to sustained neighbourhood diplomacy

Narrative management
– Greater clarity and consistency in India’s strategic messaging

Economic statecraft
– Need for creative, non-capital-intensive influence tools (standards, training, institutions)

China strategy
– Competing with China requires patience and differentiated strengths, not imitation

Real-World Impact

Short term
– Explains persistent hedging by neighbours despite India’s rise
– Helps policymakers understand resistance to Indian leadership claims

Medium term
– Encourages focus on reassurance, predictability, and sensitivity in neighbourhood policy

Long term
– If internalised, could lead to a more mature, less reactive foreign policy posture

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II – International Relations
– India and its neighbourhood
– Foreign policy challenges
– Power vs influence

GS Paper III – Internal Constraints
– Developmental priorities shaping external policy

Essay Paper
– “Power without influence is incomplete power”
– “The limits of hard power in international relations”

Concluding Assessment

The editorial delivers a necessary strategic reality check. It does not deny India’s rise but warns against assuming that growth alone dissolves mistrust. Influence is relational, not arithmetic. For a country surrounded by smaller, more vulnerable neighbours, reassurance matters as much as strength.

Future Perspective

India’s challenge is not to rise further, but to rise in a manner that others find non-threatening and dependable. This demands patience, narrative discipline, and acceptance of constraints.