Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/
India’s foreign policy has long been celebrated for its flexibility, a willingness to work with diverse partners, avoid rigid alignments, and prioritise national interest over ideology. This approach has given New Delhi valuable manoeuvring space in a world marked by geopolitical turbulence. Yet, a sharper debate is now emerging: has India’s celebrated pragmatism gradually morphed into a form of transactional diplomacy that sacrifices long-term strategic depth for short-term tactical wins?
Pragmatism vs. Transactionalism: A Question of Time Horizon
There is an important distinction between pragmatism and transactionalism. Pragmatism weighs short-term actions against long-term goals. Transactionalism, by contrast, prioritises immediate outcomes even when they undercut future influence. In recent years, India appears to be drifting toward the transactional end.
This shift is visible in how India manages sudden political shifts with its neighbours. New Delhi often reacts briskly, resets quickly, and seeks short-term accommodation, but these recalibrations increasingly lack the follow-through and consistency required to win durable influence. Whether it is the oscillation in relations with Nepal, the abrupt hard and soft swings with the Maldives, or the diminishing attention to Myanmar despite its value for India’s Act East policy, the pattern suggests a reactive diplomatic cycle rather than a strategic one.
India’s ability to respond swiftly is not in question. What is uncertain is whether its actions are being integrated into a long-term blueprint.
A Neighbourhood in Flux: High Engagement, Low Patience
India’s immediate neighbourhood is the clearest arena where transactional echoes are emerging. India expects greater sensitivity from its neighbours. Yet smaller states often perceive India’s firmness as conditionality, where assistance, access, or diplomatic warmth appears too closely linked to political posture.
New Delhi’s challenge is not a lack of capability or intent. It is the absence of sustained political investment that spans political cycles in these countries. Transactional diplomacy delivers tactical wins but struggles to shape the enduring strategic environment. In South Asia, India’s influence has never rested on economic size alone; it has depended on consistent engagement that signals reliability. That consistency is now being questioned.
The Indo-Pacific: Strong Optics, Weak Strategic Depth
Beyond the subcontinent, India’s approach to the Indo-Pacific shows a similar tension between ambition and execution. India has made substantial diplomatic investments in QUAD, trilateral mechanisms, and maritime dialogues. But many regional actors still see India as more visible during high-profile summits than in year-round engagement.
Southeast Asian states often remark that while India speaks in support of ASEAN centrality, it has not yet emerged as a dependable economic or security partner. Pacific Island nations appreciate India’s presence but describe it as episodic, activated mainly around major multilateral events. Even African littoral states, natural partners in the Western Indian Ocean, note the absence of sustained developmental financing compared to China or even middle powers such as the UAE.
The gap between India’s aspirations and its long-term economic statecraft is widening, especially in a region undergoing intense great-power rivalry.
The Cost of Short-Termism: Losing Strategic Depth
India’s foreign policy elite often highlight the country’s skill at balancing rival actors, managing ties with the US and Russia, courting Iran while deepening relations with Israel, or navigating West Asia’s shifting rivalries. That flexibility is real and valuable. But flexibility without long-term commitment risks ceding ground to more patient competitors.
The consequences are visible. China is now the dominant external actor in India’s neighbourhood. The United States, despite the deepening partnership, still expresses concern about India’s unpredictability during key decisions. Middle powers such as Indonesia and Vietnam increasingly hedge their engagement, unsure of India’s long-term intentions.
Strategic depth cannot be accumulated through improvised bursts of diplomacy. It requires consistent effort, long-term investments, and a willingness to nurture influence even when the short-term returns are uncertain.
Rebuilding India’s Long-Term Strategic Compass
India does not need a wholesale reset of its foreign policy. What it needs is a return to strategic patience. Neighbourhood First must become a genuinely long-horizon project, not a slogan. India must re-energise economic statecraft, using targeted credit lines, infrastructure partnerships, and private sector coordination to reinforce influence. And in the wider Indo-Pacific, New Delhi must demonstrate that its commitments extend beyond optics to long-term partnerships in connectivity, climate resilience, and maritime security.
At a time when China’s influence rests not only on money but on consistency, India cannot afford a posture that appears driven by immediate reciprocity.
Strategy Cannot Be Sacrificed for Speed
India’s rise will be judged not simply by economic scale or military power, but by the maturity and predictability of its foreign policy. Pragmatism remains one of India’s greatest strengths, but only when tethered to a long-term vision. If New Delhi allows transactional habits to overshadow strategic goals, it risks shrinking its influence at a moment when its ambitions are the highest in decades.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.