India foreign – A sweeping look at how rising conflict, fraying institutions, and U.S. tariff and Iran-related pressures reshape India’s security and development strategy.
India is being forced to rethink foreign policy at the same time the international environment is being stripped of many of the guardrails that once helped the world function.. The central challenge described is a “disordered world” marked by rising conflict. weakening multinational institutions. and the gradual dismantling of stability mechanisms such as the international trading system and the nonproliferation regime.
In this picture. the world still runs in some practical ways—international flights continue. and phones still work across borders—but the deeper constraints have eroded.. Powerful states. the essay argues. increasingly treat norms and international law with contempt. leaving fewer rules or inhibitions to restrain them from attacking other countries even when the United Nations Charter and related commitments exist.
That shift matters because it makes India’s core foreign and security mission harder: enabling the transformation of the country into a modern. prosperous. and secure society.. A disorderly environment is unlikely to deliver the peace, predictability, and security that development depends on.. Yet the moment also offers, in the author’s view, an opportunity to adjust how India approaches external pressures.
Rather than trying to insert itself into other states’ disputes or serve as a mediator. the essay says India’s greatest contribution would be to focus on managing its own development and security effectively.. That includes working with partners and neighbors to supply stability across the subcontinent. the Indian Ocean littoral. and parts of southeast and west Asia.. It also calls for strengthening predictability and stability on international issues that are critical to India’s future when circumstances make cooperation feasible.
The argument is framed as more than self-interest.. The essay contends there is a “coincidence of interest” between India and many countries in its broader neighborhood. suggesting that stability efforts can align with others’ needs as well.. And it adds a realistic constraint: no country. regardless of its power. can fully insulate itself from the consequences of international disorder.
There is also a strategic rationale tied to India’s approach long described as “strategic autonomy.” With the post–World War II institutional architecture portrayed as defunct. power is said to be distributed more evenly than in the past.. In this assessment. the United States and China together account for less than half of world GDP and military power today. creating an opening for non-status-quo states that want to improve the existing system rather than overturn it.
But the essay warns that the absence of “world order” does not mean the absence of an international system.. Instead. it points to fragmentation—an environment in which countries pursue clearer. more prioritized national interests while avoiding the kinds of broad. performative goals that can escalate conflict.. It cites examples across regions where actors are engaged in disputes or power-driven moves. including wars and territorial or political contests involving Russia in Ukraine. Rwanda in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Israel and the United States in West Asia. China in the South China Sea. and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia.
For India, the practical implication is coalition-building around issues that shape everyday life and future outcomes.. The essay highlights areas such as renewable energy, maritime security, and the international trading system.. It argues that this “variable geometry”—different groups of partners in different issue areas—is essential when traditional multilateral institutions can’t deliver because member states are quarrelling with one another.
The stakes are high because Asia’s recent experience of decades-long peace is linked to unprecedented economic development across much of the region. But the essay describes how that development is now threatened not only by disputes within Asia, but also by great-power rivalry extending beyond it.
Two developments are pointed to as especially damaging for the region’s stability and growth prospects.. First is the disruption of the globalized trading system, described as ruptured by U.S.. President Donald Trump’s unilateral tariffs.. Second is the unraveling of the nonproliferation regime in northeast Asia and west Asia, and even in Europe.. As extended deterrence weakens in credibility—along with experiences involving Ukraine. Libya. and Iran. which either gave up nuclear weapons or lacked options—the essay argues that public opinion has shifted in places including Scandinavia. South Korea. Japan. and others toward acquiring nuclear weapons or gaining access to them.
That shift is framed as a shared risk even among nuclear-armed states. The essay says there is a common interest among nuclear weapon states—including India—in preventing further “horizontal proliferation.”
Against that backdrop, the essay describes India as already beginning to adjust policy.. One step is an effort to mend difficult bilateral relations with China.. Another is cooperation with neighbors in the subcontinent aimed at mitigating disruptions to energy. fertilizer. and other markets caused by the United States and Israel attacking Iran.. The argument connects these external shocks to the broader reality that many neighboring countries are undergoing complex social and political transformations. renegotiating their social and political “contracts.”
In that context, India is cast as potentially an “island of stability” that can help manage transitions peacefully, with improved connectivity and economic integration offered as concrete benefits for the wider region.
The essay also looks beyond immediate regional management. arguing that Asia needs new ways to minimize the harm that the rest of the world’s policies can cause to its peace and security.. It describes. over roughly a decade. repeated exposure to “self-centered and erratic” policies by major players—policies that. in the essay’s view. have harmed both global security and economic prospects. especially for Asia and Africa.
It then makes a policy case for diplomacy of the highest quality, insisting that binding international agreements of significance have been absent for more than a decade. In the essay’s framing, that makes interpersonal and cross-border negotiation more essential than ever.
Here, India’s role is tied to regional and organizational habits.. The essay says India. the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. and Asia more broadly—drawing on traditions of working across international fault lines since the Cold War—can help.. It emphasizes that India’s strategic autonomy is described as an active choice, not a passive posture.
Finally, the essay draws a distinction between neutrality and engagement.. It argues that a disordered world demands the opposite of passivity: applying the “mind” to identify what serves India’s enlightened and common international interest and acting accordingly.. It also contends that India’s tradition of working across political divides and avoiding bloc constraints can support plurilateral and bilateral links and agreements needed to keep progress moving even as the international environment becomes more chaotic.
The piece is presented as part of an effort associated with the Asian Peace Programme at the National University of Singapore’s Asia Research Institute.
India foreign policy disordered world U.S. tariffs nonproliferation regime nuclear proliferation risk maritime security strategic autonomy