In recent years, India has increasingly positioned itself as a proponent of a “rules-based international order” — a vision that Prime Minister Narendra Modi articulated in a landmark speech at the 2018 Shangri-La Dialogue. Modi’s call for an international system built on respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the consent of all nations seemed to align India with the West, particularly as a counterweight to the rising authoritarianism of China and Russia. However, beneath this grand vision lies a deep strategic incoherence in India’s foreign policy, one that undermines its own strategic advantages and the very world order it seeks to build.
India’s attempt to shape this rules-based world order is beset by contradictions: its ambivalent ties with Russia, its inconsistent stance toward China, and its increasingly adversarial rhetoric toward the West. This complex web of relationships has left India’s geopolitical strategy fragmented and often at odds with its stated objectives.
The Appeal of a ‘Rules-Based’ Order’
At first glance, India’s dedication to a rules-based international order appears closely aligned with the principles of Western liberal democracies. The phrase itself—often invoked by the U.S. and its allies—echoes the post-World War II period when global institutions were established to avert future large-scale conflicts. This order, built on multilateralism, respect for international law, and peaceful conflict resolution, ostensibly serves as a safeguard against the kind of geopolitical revisionism seen in China’s expansionist ambitions and Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine.
India’s articulation of this order taps into two registers: the global and the regional. Globally, India seeks a reformed multilateralism that addresses the power imbalances of institutions like the United Nations, calling for permanent membership in the Security Council. Regionally, India’s push for a rules-based Indo-Pacific — emphasizing open seas, regional stability, and adherence to international norms — is a direct counter to China’s militarization and coercive diplomacy in the region.
Yet, despite this rhetorical alignment, India’s actions often fall short of its declared ambitions.
China: A Strategic Challenge, but an Inconsistent Approach
China looms large over India’s foreign policy calculus. Beijing’s rise has been both an existential threat and an opportunity for India. On one hand, China’s assertiveness along the disputed border, its growing influence in the Indian Ocean, and its opposition to India’s global ambitions (such as vetoing its bid for the UN Security Council and the Nuclear Suppliers Group) represent clear challenges to India’s vision of a rules-based order.
On the other hand, India has been reluctant to fully align with the West’s more confrontational approach toward China. India’s balancing act is most visible in its cautious participation in the Quad – a security grouping with the U.S., Japan, and Australia aimed at countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. While India has engaged in military exercises and diplomatic coordination through the Quad, it has stopped short of fully embracing the group as a formal security alliance, wary of antagonizing Beijing further.
India’s hesitancy stems from its geopolitical realities. Unlike Japan or Australia, which have formal security guarantees from the U.S., India faces the China challenge alone. Any misstep could lead to an escalation along its northern borders, where China holds significant military and logistical advantages. This creates an inherent tension in India’s approach: it seeks to contain China’s rise through multilateralism and strategic partnerships, but it cannot afford to push Beijing too far.
This inconsistency weakens India’s credibility as a champion of a rules-based order. While New Delhi decries China’s disregard for international norms, it remains cautious in its efforts to counterbalance Beijing, undermining the very order it seeks to protect.
Russia: An Enduring Partnership, but at What Cost?
India’s longstanding relationship with Russia adds another layer of complexity to its foreign policy. During the Cold War, India relied heavily on Soviet military support, and today, Russia remains a key arms supplier. However, this historic partnership sits uneasily with India’s claim to support a rules-based order, particularly in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
While the West views Russia’s actions as a blatant violation of international law, India has been reluctant to condemn Moscow outright. Instead, India has adopted a neutral stance, calling for dialogue and peaceful resolution while continuing to engage with Russia diplomatically and economically. This balancing act allows India to maintain its strategic autonomy, but it also risks alienating its Western partners.
India’s refusal to join Western sanctions against Russia and its continued purchase of Russian oil have been viewed with skepticism by many in the West. While India argues that it cannot afford to jeopardize its energy security and military readiness, this stance undermines its credibility as a defender of international norms.
Moreover, India’s engagement with Russia complicates its relations with the U.S. and Europe, both of which are keen to see New Delhi as a counterweight to China. India’s attempts to maintain strong ties with Moscow while simultaneously deepening its partnership with the West creates a strategic dilemma: how can it credibly advocate for a rules-based order while engaging with a regime that flagrantly disregards it?
Adversarial Rhetoric Toward the West: A Self-Defeating Strategy
In recent years, India’s assertive foreign policy has included sharp rhetoric directed at the West. This adversarial tone — particularly in response to Western criticism of India’s domestic policies on human rights and democratic backsliding — has strained relations with key partners like the U.S., Canada, and the European Union.
For example, India’s alleged involvement in the extraterritorial killings of Sikh separatists in Canada has further complicated its relationship with the West. While India has denied any involvement, these accusations have raised questions about its commitment to the rule of law, a key tenet of the rules-based order it claims to champion.
India’s combative stance toward the West, while popular domestically, risks alienating its most important partners. As India seeks to play a larger role on the global stage, its willingness to engage in adversarial diplomacy with the very countries that support its rise is counterproductive. The erosion of goodwill in Western capitals, combined with India’s inconsistent approach toward China and Russia, leaves its foreign policy fragmented and lacking coherence.
The Strategic and Economic Costs of Incoherence
India’s strategic incoherence has broader economic implications as well. As it seeks to attract foreign investment and integrate into global supply chains, India’s unpredictable foreign policy could deter potential partners. Western businesses and governments may view India’s balancing act with suspicion, unsure of its long-term commitment to the rules-based order that underpins global trade and investment.
Moreover, India’s reliance on Russian arms and energy complicates its efforts to modernize its military and diversify its energy sources. As the West imposes sanctions on Russia and tightens controls on technology transfers, India’s ability to maintain its defense and energy security may be compromised.
A Grand Vision in Need of Coherence
India’s aspiration to build a rules-based world order is a noble one, and its potential to play a leading role in shaping global governance is undeniable. However, its strategic incoherence — manifested in its ambivalent ties with Russia, inconsistent approach toward China, and adversarial rhetoric toward the West — undermines its credibility and limits its effectiveness.
To realize its vision, India must align its actions with its stated goals. This will require difficult choices: deepening its engagement with the West, recalibrating its relationship with Russia, and adopting a more consistent and assertive stance toward China. Only then can India emerge as a true champion of the rules-based order it seeks to build.