India in a ‘Liminal Space’: Foreign Policy at a Turning Point

As conflict deepens in West Asia, major powers recalibrate their positions and global alliances grow more uncertain, India’s foreign policy choices are drawing sharper attention. Should the world’s largest democracy speak more clearly in moments of crisis, or does strategic restraint serve its interests better? Those questions were at the heart of a recent high-level discussion featuring some of India’s most experienced diplomatic and political voices.

India right now is in a bit of an in-between phase. The country is navigating a transition, still shaping its foreign policy while the global landscape shifts around it, said Nirupama Menon Rao, Ambassador & Former Foreign Secretary, Government of India.

Speaking at a recent discussion, Rao suggested that India’s engagement with the world is no longer anchored in older certainties but is instead evolving in response to new and often unpredictable pressures.

The panel discussion - (from left to right) - Salil Shetty, Nirupama Menon Rao, Suhasini Haidar, and Salman Khurshid. Image supplied/AMC

Rao was one of the speakers at a recently held panel discussion around the book India’s Tryst With the World, co-edited by Salman Khurshid, Former Union Law Minister & External Affairs Minister of India and Salil Shetty, Former Secretary General, Amnesty International. Shetty moderated the panel, which also included Khurshid, Rao and Suhasini Haidar, Diplomatic Editor, The Hindu. Framed by questions of diplomacy, values and global responsibility, the discussion reflected on India’s foreign policy record and its evolving role in a changing international landscape. The discussion was held at the Bangalore International Centre in Bengaluru.

Much of the conversation centred on recent developments in West Asia, where tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran have raised fresh concerns about regional stability and wider geopolitical fallout. The renewed prominence of Donald Trump in shaping US foreign policy was also noted as a factor contributing to a more assertive and at times unpredictable global environment. In such a climate, India’s responses, or restraint, have come under closer scrutiny.

It was in this context that the moderator posed a pointed question: “Is this silence inexplicable?” It referred to India’s responses, or at times lack of them, to ongoing global crises. What followed was not one clear answer, but a range of perspectives that revealed both concern and complexity.

India had faced criticism in some quarters over its muted response when the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran.

Khurshid was among the most direct in his assessment. Drawing a contrast with earlier eras, he recalled a time when foreign policy could be shaped through consultation across party lines.

“There was a time when Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao sent Leader of the Opposition Atal Bihari Vajpayee to lead a delegation on the Kashmir issue. That was an example of a broader consensus-driven approach,” Khurshid said.

“That has changed,” he added, describing recent developments as a conscious departure from how Indian foreign policy had traditionally been understood. He pointed to the absence of dialogue between government and opposition, saying more recent outreach did not reflect a genuine effort to build consensus.

“What was once standard practice has given way to a situation where India no longer projects a single voice,” he said.

He also raised concerns about what he described as an increasingly transactional approach, particularly during global conflicts.

“Either we don’t have the courage, or we’re ill-prepared,” he said, questioning whether India’s current posture reflects strategic choice or strategic constraint.

At the same time, he acknowledged the role of pragmatism. “While self-interest is inevitable, there remains a difference between self-interest and enlightened self-interest.”

Rao returned to the title of the book itself, noting that the word “tryst” suggests a sense of idealism, even romance.

“But that is not how India’s major relationships can be understood today. Instead, they are uneven and evolving, more like the British phrase ‘curate’s egg’ — good in parts and bad in others,” she said.

She reiterated that India remains in a “liminal space”, still working out what its core interests are. While relationships such as the one with Iran carry civilisational weight, she said India has also asserted its commitment to strategic autonomy. Yet she warned that today’s crises do not stay contained.

“What’s happening in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East.”

Haidar widened the frame further, particularly on India’s regional role. She suggested that what is often described as a “ring of fire” around India could instead be imagined as a “circle of trust”, stretching across maritime and neighbouring spaces. But that role, she said, comes with expectations.

“India has, in the past, acted as a first responder in crises, such as during the 2004 tsunami, and such a role requires a willingness to speak more clearly in moments of conflict,” Haidar said.

She also pointed to shifts in how India is viewed by its neighbours.

“The idea of India as an exemplar of secularism, diversity and democratic values has come under question. Questions are now being asked about our democracy and pluralism,” she said, linking this to changing regional dynamics.

On changing global power structures, particularly the United States, Haidar said recent actions suggested a more unilateral approach, raising doubts about coordination and partnership even in regions that directly affect India’s interests.

She also noted the outsized influence of Trump on the global conversation. While few would openly admit he is shaping India’s foreign policy environment, she suggested his impact is hard to ignore.

“He is definitely commandeering my assignments,” she said, referring to how his statements increasingly drive the daily news agenda.

Across the discussion, there was a shared sense that India’s foreign policy is being tested in unfamiliar ways. The concerns raised were not only about silence, but about process: the absence of consultation, the drift from consensus, and the challenge of speaking clearly in a world of overlapping interests and fragile partnerships.

What emerged was not a settled verdict, but a larger question. As global power balances shift and crises become more interconnected, can India preserve strategic autonomy while also projecting moral and political clarity? How New Delhi answers that may shape not only its standing abroad, but the kind of power it seeks to become in the years ahead.

-Asia Media Centre