India’s Diplomatic Belligerence
The recent Indo-Pak conflict has illuminated India’s developing foreign policy stance, showcasing a progressively inflexible and unilateral approach to regional diplomacy. Although hostilities between India and Pakistan are longstanding, what is especially concerning this time is India’s overtly antagonistic reaction to peace measures suggested by neutral third-party nations, like the United States, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Saudi Arabia. Instead of accepting these gestures as chances to reduce tensions and restore regional peace, India reacted with severe criticisms, intolerance, and measures that not only eroded diplomatic goodwill but also estranged long-term allies.
India’s response to a unified ceasefire plan, promoted by the US and supported by many regional actors, including Turkey and the UAE, was among the most alarming events. India’s unequivocal rejection of the ideas, mainly due to their association with Pakistan, underscores a concerning rigidity in its diplomatic perspective. This zero-sum worldview, which perceives any collaboration with Pakistan as fundamentally illegitimate, undermines the concepts of peaceful negotiation and regional multilateralism. It conveys a distinct message that India prioritizes its own narrative over regional cohesion, even at the cost of world diplomatic standards.
The desecration of the Saudi flag during public protests in India was far more concerning. The Saudi flag, emblazoned with the Islamic profession of faith (the Kalma), transcends mere national symbolism; it possesses profound religious importance for over a billion Muslims globally. The act of defacing it during a demonstration not only affronted a sovereign nation but also profoundly hurt the religious sensibilities of many individuals worldwide. In any civil democracy, such activities would be universally denounced and legally rectified. The evident tolerance of such conduct in India raises significant concerns over the escalating Islamophobia and the increasing impunity with which religious sensitivities are disregarded for political objectives.
India’s boycott of Turkey and Azerbaijan underscores a troubling trend. Both nations conveyed their support for Pakistan throughout the military crisis, with Turkey providing diplomatic endorsement and Azerbaijan expressing solidarity through formal channels. India’s punitive actions, such as trade restrictions and diplomatic rebuffs, indicate a waning readiness to interact with any nation that slightly contests its geopolitical narrative. Azerbaijan, specifically, has no direct conflict with India; however, it has been the object of Indian animosity only for taking an independent position. This intolerance for divergent viewpoints indicates a more fragile foreign policy stance that prioritizes allegiance to Indian positions over mutual respect and sovereign diplomacy.
This conduct permeates public discourse, where hate speech and incendiary rhetoric are not merely allowed but occasionally seem to be implicitly sanctioned. A notable instance is the pejorative language employed by retired Major Gaurav Arya, a major media figure closely monitored by segments of India’s political and military elite. Arya publicly denigrated Iran’s Foreign Minister by referring to him as a “pig,” use a degrading and profoundly disrespectful term. Unchecked remarks, particularly by those in authority, foster a toxic atmosphere where diplomacy is supplanted by personal affronts and strategic discourse devolves into juvenile mockery. The normalization of such discourse in Indian strategic circles signifies a perilous decline in the decorum traditionally anticipated in international dealings.
These changes pose significant inquiries for nations contemplating alliances with India. In recent years, India has positioned itself as a dependable counterweight to China, an emerging economic powerhouse, and a stable democratic partner. However, its progressively severe actions against even putative allies who venture to articulate divergent perspectives or endorse de-escalation strategies present a markedly different narrative. India seems to promptly break or strain diplomatic relations whenever its inflexible nationalistic narrative is contested, even by longstanding allies.
This stance renders India a precarious participant in regional and global diplomacy. Rather than serving as a mediator or stabilizing force in South Asia, it appears to be increasingly inclined to adopt the position of an aggressive state that insists on total compliance from its allies. This not only jeopardizes its long-term strategic objectives but also engenders unwarranted discord in a region that urgently requires peace, collaboration, and mutual respect.
The Indo-Pak conflict has illuminated not only the tensions between two neighbouring nations but also a significant transformation in India’s diplomatic conduct, characterized by intolerance, retribution, and animosity towards any entity advocating for peace or offering divergent perspectives. Consequently, India, in its present trajectory, is an unreliable partner for anyone pursuing constructive, multilateral, and peaceful engagement in South Asia. For India to restore its status as a responsible global actor, it must reevaluate its zero-sum diplomatic strategy and reinvest in the ideals of mutual respect, dialogue, and regional cooperation. Until that time, its partners should proceed with caution.
