India's foreign policy pragmatism is not a betrayal of principles. It cannot afford grandstanding
Take the Hamas attack on Israel — one of the most horrific terrorist acts in recent memory. For India — a victim of terrorism — moral clarity on such acts is not optional; it is foundational. To hesitate in condemning such violence is not intellectual sophistication — it is moral evasiveness.
India rightly condemned this attack as terrorism. This was not a partisan statement. It was a reflection of India's consistent stance against terror. At the same time, it made clear its support for the Palestinian people — urging humanitarian access to Gaza, calling for the release of hostages, and providing over 65 tonnes of aid. India has donated over $65 million for Palestine's development in recent years and continues to fund infrastructure and education projects in the West Bank. Yet critics accuse it of abandoning its moral compass. On what basis? That it refused to take a simplistic, one-sided view of a multidimensional conflict? Or that it chose to engage both sides while prioritising the safety of Indian citizens and regional stability? Let us not forget: Diplomacy is not Twitter. It is not built for viral outrage. It is about safeguarding interests while promoting peace. Condemning terrorism while extending humanitarian support is not a contradiction — it is coherence.
What often passes for foreign policy critique today seems a deliberate misreading of strategic imperatives. This becomes glaring when examining how critics invoke Iran, Israel, and the larger West Asian theatre. For example, the portrayal of Iran as an innocent, misunderstood actor wilfully ignores the concerns over its nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, Iran now holds over 400 kg of 60 per cent-enriched uranium — dangerously close to weapons-grade. Multiple inspections have found uranium traces at undeclared sites, and Iran continues to block full transparency. Yet, such critical developments are conveniently omitted. This is not nuance; it is misdirection. It seeks to equate Iran's opaque nuclear manoeuvres with Israel's alleged nuclear capabilities — a comparison that collapses under scrutiny. Israel has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, nor has it been found in violation of IAEA safeguards. Iran, by contrast, is a signatory and repeatedly non-compliant. To conflate the two is agenda-driven.
Some romanticise India-Iran ties by citing Tehran's support for India at the 1994 UN Human Rights Commission vote on Kashmir. But this overlooks the evolving nature of Iran's foreign policy. Iran is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation — a bloc that routinely criticises India on Kashmir. In recent years, Tehran has echoed calls for 'restoration of rights' in J&K, aligning with positions India considers deeply problematic. Even the strategic relevance of the Chabahar Port is twisted into a narrative of Iranian altruism. The port's development depended heavily on India's backchannel diplomacy with the US, which provided a sanctions waiver. India's relationship with Iran has been cautious and transactional, shaped by oil trade, connectivity goals, and regional deterrence, not emotional solidarity.
When it comes to Israel, let us not forget that full diplomatic ties were established not by today's government but under former prime minister P V Narasimha Rao. That decision reflected strategic foresight. Since then, ties have deepened. To now paint this trajectory as a betrayal of India's historical commitments is a politically convenient case of forgetting one's own legacy.
India's nuanced response to the Iran-Israel escalation is another case in point. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a firm, balanced statement urging de-escalation, emphasising dialogue and diplomacy, and reiterating concern for Indians in both countries. Emergency protocols were activated to ensure the safety of thousands in the region. Critics labelled this approach muted. But what was the alternative? Publicly taking sides in a conflict — one with nuclear implications, energy security risks, and the diaspora's safety at stake? Is that responsible statecraft or reckless signalling? India's foreign policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is shaped by geography, history, and hard power realities. Surrounded by two nuclear adversaries, locked in a matrix of regional alliances and dependencies, India cannot afford to grandstand. It must calculate every move with precision. Pragmatism is not a betrayal of principle — it is about preservation in a hostile world.
The danger today is not India's diplomatic caution, it is the trend of a partisan foreign policy critique. Turning complex international issues into tools for domestic political attack is hazardous. It undermines national unity on external affairs, weakens credibility abroad, and sends conflicting signals. Foreign policy is not the arena for point-scoring. It demands strategic consistency, institutional memory, and national coherence. When every international issue is filtered through the lens of electoral calculations or ideological grievances, we do not get a better foreign policy — we get a fragmented one. What India needs today is clarity without chaos, values without vanity, and vision without vendetta. The world is not waiting for India to moralise. It is watching to see if India can lead — with balance, wisdom, and strategic resolve.
The writer is a policy analyst and PhD scholar at Bennett University
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka HC questions suspension of 5 cops, seeks govt reply
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court on Thursday sought an explanation from the state government over the suspension of five police officers in connection with the June 4 stampede outside Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium, which left 11 people dead, questioning whether a milder action—such as transferring them to other posts—might have been more appropriate. The June 4 stampede outside Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium left 11 people dead. (PTI) A bench of Justices SG Pandit and TM Nadaf said the state will have to 'justify whether it was proper to keep the officers under suspension, or, whether shifting them to another post would have been sufficient?' The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Karnataka government challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) July 1 order quashing Indian police service (IPS) officer Vikash Kumar Vikash's suspension. Terming the state's suspension order 'mechanical' and not supported by sufficient material, the tribunal had directed the state to 'immediately' reinstate Vikash. It had also suggested that the government extend similar relief to the other four officers suspended along with Vikash, including the then commissioner of police B Dayananda. Urging the court to stay the tribunal's order, advocate general Shashikiran Shetty on Thursday said that the tribunal had acted in haste and had also overstepped in suggesting the remaining four officers, who were not even parties before it, also be reinstated. Shetty said the state was ready to show the court that all five officers who had been suspended were guilty of 'dereliction of duty.' 'I will be able to show from the records that the suspension order was justified,' Shetty added. Shetty told the court that the tribunal had granted Vikash relief on July 1 and he had reported to duty in his uniform on July 2 without waiting for any formal order from the state reinstating him. The high court, however, said it will hear the matter further on July 9 and until the next hearing, Vikash must show restraint and not precipitate the matter any further. Also Read: Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka moves HC against quashing of officer's suspension Vikash's counsel, senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, assured the court that his client will 'not do anything' until the next hearing before the high court. Vikash and the four other officers of Bengaluru police were suspended on June 5, a day after the stampede. Vikash had challenged his suspension before the tribunal, claiming he was not responsible for the tragedy and that the police had no prior notice of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB)'s Indian Premier League (IPL) victory parade, which triggered the stampede. It blamed RCB for unilaterally announcing the event via Instagram without informing the authorities. Also Read: HC allows govt to file reply on stampede plea in sealed cover In its order, the tribunal held that RCB announced free public entry, drawing massive crowds to the stadium, and failed to formally seek police permission or coordinate with authorities for the victory parade and celebrations. The Karnataka government, however, has challenged the tribunal's order claiming that the revocation of suspension of the officers while the magisterial and judicial inquiries into the stampede were ongoing was likely to adversely impact the probes. Vikash's 'presence in service during this period might adversely affect the examination of witnesses' and undermine the process of justice, the state has argued.
The Hindu
34 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Priyanka Chopra Jonas, John Cena on filming their action comedy ‘Heads of State'
In a world of bulletproof protagonists and high-stakes diplomacy, Heads of State finds its sweet spot — somewhere between action comedy and genre disruption. Directed by Ilya Naishuller, the film presents an unusual premise: a buddy comedy set against the backdrop of a fraying NATO alliance. Two clashing world leaders — the embattled UK Prime Minister Sam Clarke (Idris Elba) and the newly elected President of the United States Will Derringer (John Cena) — find themselves under threat from a terrorist organisation. The only person who can save them is the sharp-witted and steel-spined MI6 operative Noel Bisset (Priyanka Chopra Jonas). From Quantico to Citadel, Priyanka Chopra Jonas is no stranger to high-octane, femme-forward face-offs. In a conversation with The Hindu Weekend in London, the actor describes her character in Heads of State as 'the muscle of the film.' 'I think it was fun for me that the film was intentionally written like that,' says Priyanka. 'My character is surrounded by these men and still holds her own. It makes me really proud to be at a point in my life where I have always fought to have agency in characters — and to actually be at a point in entertainment where that's important to the filmmaker. That took a lot of conversations. I'm really proud to be here, and to be part of a film where, from the producers to the actors to the director, this was always the North Star for my character.' That shift — from fighting for inclusion to influencing the terms of inclusion — has taken nearly a decade of perseverance. 'Ten years of pounding the pavement,' she recalls, reflecting on her transition into global entertainment. 'To be cast in roles with agency, versus being a diversity check — like 'cast the Indian woman' — that's a big deal. This movie was written like that from the start, and that makes me love it even more,' she says. Director Ilya Naishuller, known for his outlandish action-comedies such as Hardcore Henry and Nobody, calls Heads of State his most creatively fulfilling project to date. He says that although he was familiar with Priyanka's work in both Hollywood and Bollywood, he was struck by her commitment on set. 'She's not one of those actors who leaves once their scenes are done — she hangs around, wanting to observe and understand the process. We're similar in that sense — two outsiders (he is a Russian film director) wanting to make it big in America,' says Ilya. WWE legend John Cena has successfully transitioned into the second act of his career — from wrestler to action star to a somewhat chaotic American President. Unpacking the many layers of his character, John reflects on the fine balance between its contradictions. Talking about his role, John says, 'The chaos magnet? Maybe that's his stubbornness. The reluctant diplomat? That's a search for admiration. The movie star? That comes from thriving in an environment that values performance over policy. I think you can take your character's traits as written on the page and then figure out the 'why.' Why are they the way they are?' The genre-blending film is also a career pivot for John, who has played everything from a peacekeeper in The Suicide Squad to a villain in the Fast and Furious franchise, and a soldier in The Wall. 'You're comparing apples to apples, in that they're both entertainment,' he says. 'But this is a family-friendly action comedy — not an R-rated, dark superhero movie. The only real similarity is that they're both made to entertain.' Though he confesses that a complex wrestling move is tougher than delivering a comedic monologue on screen, he adds with a grin — 'Whether it's a back body drop or a funny line — only one gets edited. The stunt happens live. That's the harder one to pull off.' Bringing her signature self-deprecating charm, Priyanka matches John beat for beat, saying, 'I want you to believe I do it for real, and that I'm that strong.' She then mock-confesses, 'Okay, fine — when I'm busting through a door? The stunt team pulls it off the hinges.' Priyanka will be playing avenger once again, in Frank E. Flowers' swashbuckling action drama The Bluff, followed by S.S. Rajamouli's SSMB29, which marks her return to Indian cinema. In the real world, she has busted down doors — and claimed her seat at the table. Reflecting on her journey from seeking access to becoming a central part of the narrative, she says, 'As a girl, and as an Indian actor from outside America, wanting to be a part of Hollywood or global entertainment is a dream many share around the world. To actually get a seat at that table takes a lot of work. I feel very grateful to be here — and I want to create space for others, even as I continue seeking opportunities for my own community.' Heads of State is currently streaming on Prime Video.
The Print
34 minutes ago
- The Print
Modi govt reduced political interference in PSUs. It's how they became wealth creators
One sector that has seen massive transformation is defence manufacturing. This area was a virtual monopoly of PSUs and Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). They had a captive buyer in the form of Indian defence and paramilitary forces for their low-value and low-tech products, whereas more sophisticated products were imported from all over the world. The Modi Government nudged the armed forces to procure hi-tech platforms from domestic producers without compromising on their operational ability. The armed forces responded positively, and the defence PSUs have been a great beneficiary of this push. According to the defence ministry, 65 per cent of defence equipment is now manufactured domestically, a significant shift from the earlier 65-70 per cent import dependency. In the fiscal year 2023-24, defence public sector undertakings and other PSUs contributed approximately 79.2 per cent of the total production value, while the private sector contributed 20.8 per cent. Restructuring and corporatisation of Ordnance Factory Board into seven PSUs was a major reform that involved using political capital. Gross revenue from operations of PSUs has increased from Rs 20.67 lakh crore in 2013-14 to Rs 37.89 lakh crore in 2022-23, and the overall net profit has increased from Rs 1.28 lakh crore to Rs 2.12 lakh crore during the same period. The total paid-up capital of all PSUs was Rs 1.98 lakh crore in 2013-14 and had increased to Rs 5.04 lakh crore in 2022-23. The jump in investment (equity plus long-term loans) is even more impressive—it has skyrocketed from Rs 9.92 lakh crore in 2013-14 to Rs 25.34 lakh crore in 2022-23. The contribution of PSUs to the exchequer in the form of taxes and dividends has increased from Rs 2.20 lakh crore to Rs 4.58 lakh crore in the same period. These figures have been presented by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Finance. They are not only performing well and contributing to the government exchequer but are also matching the government's push in infrastructure investment with their own Capex of more than Rs 10 lakh crore annually, propelling India's economic growth. India's achievements in various fields over the last 11 years of the Modi Government are being rightly highlighted and celebrated. It fills Indian citizens with pride and generates hope about an even better future that awaits them. One of the areas for which the government deserves special accolades is the performance and revival of public sector undertakings. Public sector units were generally considered a drain on government resources. They were labelled lethargic and inefficient organisations that could survive only as a monopoly or through government patronage in various forms, such as allocation of contracts without competitive bidding, direct and indirect subsidies, implicit sovereign guarantee on their borrowings, etc. They were seen as destroyers of public wealth. However, things have changed dramatically under the Modi Government. This is evident from several metrics. PSUs have also become vehicles for strategic investments to meet India's long-term developmental goals. The massive investment in energy transition is primarily driven by the PSUs, be it NTPC, BPCL or NHPC, which are pouring billions of dollars in solar energy, green hydrogen and the planned nuclear energy projects based on small modular reactors. They are also making foreign investments to plug vulnerabilities in the supply chain of rare earth materials that are critical for India's growth. Also read: India's infrastructure revolution is powering its rise in manufacturing Journey to wealth creation The performance of public sector banks (PSBs) under the Modi Government deserves a special mention. Keen followers of Indian business and finance may still clearly recall that the first term of the Modi government had inherited an economy beset with a twin balance sheet problem. Massive equity infusion and governance reforms by the government led to a revival of the PSBs. Government-owned banks right now have growing loan books and an extremely healthy capital position. Their balance sheet is healthy with strong profitability and improved asset quality, and lower Non-Performing Assets. The gross NPA has reduced from 4.6 per cent in March 2015 to 2.6 per cent in September 2024, and the net NPA has reduced from 2.5 per cent to 0.6 per cent during the same period, according to the RBI's Financial Stability Report. Business per employee (BPE) of PSBs, an indicator of operational efficiency and cost rationalisation, has been increasing steadily. Annual reports of banks show State Bank of India's BPE has increased to Rs 13.23 crore, Punjab National Bank to Rs 26.86 crore, and Bank of Baroda to Rs 32.53 crore in the year 2024-25. The change in the performance of the PSUs has been recognised by the stock market. They have now become wealth creators. There was a time in the not-so-distant past when the public sectors traded at a massive discount to the wider markets, having a low Price to Earnings ratio, just because of government ownership. It's exactly the opposite now, PSUs now trade at a premium to their private sector peers. What has led to this transformation in the performance of PSUs under the Modi Government? The government has given PSUs much more autonomy in their business and operational matters, and political interference has been eliminated. The appointments at the top management level are merit-based, and there is zero tolerance for corruption. The government's approach to disinvestment is not dogmatic either. The disinvestment philosophy has been replaced with value creation and maximisation. There are a few loss-making PSUs on the disinvestment radar of the Government, but the goals are strategic and not revenue alone. Indian citizens now realise that economic growth is never an automatic byproduct of enabling factors. Rather, it is a result of conscious actions of the government that takes vital decisions and then monitors and responds to challenges that emerge along the way. The performance of the public sector in the last 11 years shows the competence of the Modi Government in putting public resources to optimal use, and this fact must be applauded. Gopal Krishna Agarwal is the National Spokesperson of BJP. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
