Global Partnerships and Local Narratives Challenge Diplomatic Coherence

Dr Sara Fatima

India’s foreign policy in recent years has increasingly revealed a troubling pattern of hypocrisy and contradictory posturing that seriously undermines its credibility as a responsible global actor. While New Delhi eagerly showcases high-profile partnerships with Western powers, particularly the United States, it simultaneously tolerates or even encourages domestic political rhetoric that vilifies those very allies when their policies don’t align perfectly with India’s preferred narratives. This duplicity is not just an embarrassment; it jeopardizes long-term strategic alliances and diminishes India’s stature on the world stage.

Mature diplomacy demands coherence, recognizing that global partnerships transcend domestic political grievances.

A glaring example of this diplomatic double standard is visible in India’s relationship with the US. On one hand, India celebrates the historic journey of Group Captain Shubhanshu Shukla, who is set to blast off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in a landmark Indo-US space mission; an emblem of scientific cooperation and shared ambition. Yet, at the same time, powerful pro-BJP political voices within India frequently criticize US leadership, particularly when American officials express concerns or adopt positions that do not align with India’s stance on sensitive issues like Kashmir’s Pehalgam region. This contradictory posture, lauding American technological prowess while simultaneously demonizing its political leadership, is not diplomacy. It is political opportunism that damages India’s trustworthiness.

This is not merely a matter of political rhetoric at home. It reflects a deeper inconsistency in India’s approach to international relations. Can a nation openly criticize a US president as “bad” one day and then celebrate NASA’s scientific achievements as “good” the next? Such selective engagement signals immaturity in India’s diplomatic practice. Mature diplomacy demands coherence, recognizing that global partnerships transcend domestic political grievances and require a commitment to long-term, principled collaboration.

Beyond the Indo-US relationship, India’s diplomatic duplicity extends to its engagement with Western countries at large. In the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and several European nations, India projects an image of partnership, friendship, and shared democratic values during official state visits and bilateral talks. The same Indian government and affiliated organizations have often fostered nationalist and communal narratives among the Indian diaspora that clash with the multicultural and tolerant ethos of these host countries.

For example, the rise of hardline Hindu nationalist rhetoric in diaspora communities has sometimes led to social tensions and criticism from Western governments. When these countries raise concerns about human rights, religious freedom, or democratic norms in India, New Delhi responds defensively or dismissively, viewing these concerns as interference rather than legitimate diplomatic dialogue.

India cannot have it both ways, celebrating U.S. technological achievements while demonizing its leadership at home.

This inconsistent behavior erodes trust and complicates India’s ability to cultivate enduring partnerships. True diplomacy requires not just polished public statements but a consistent approach that aligns values with actions, whether at home or abroad.

India’s duplicity is also evident in multilateral arenas. While it loudly champions causes like climate change action, global trade reform, and a multipolar world order, India often resists meaningful accountability or criticism regarding its domestic policies. It uses nationalist rhetoric to deflect international scrutiny, portraying external feedback as neocolonial interference rather than a legitimate part of global governance. This selective cooperation undermines India’s claim to be a responsible global power and weakens multilateral efforts that require transparency and mutual respect.

The cost of this hypocrisy is more than reputational. It risks alienating key partners and destabilizing strategic alliances just as India seeks to enhance its geopolitical influence. In a world where diplomacy depends heavily on trust and predictability, India’s “have it both ways” approach raises doubts about its reliability.

If India wishes to assert itself as a global leader, it must embrace a foreign policy grounded in consistency and principled engagement. It must learn to separate domestic political frustrations from strategic imperatives. Criticizing a foreign government when justified is legitimate but this must not extend to undermining foundational partnerships or rejecting collaboration on essential areas like science, technology, and security.

Moreover, India needs to address the export of divisive nationalist narratives within diaspora communities in Western countries. Its diplomatic approach must be one of dialogue and respect for the host countries’ social fabric, not a tacit endorsement of political extremism that strains bilateral ties.

True partnerships are forged not by convenience but through mutual respect, honesty, and a willingness to accept differences.

True partnerships are forged not by convenience but through mutual respect, honesty, and a willingness to accept differences without resorting to hypocrisy. India’s leaders must reflect on whether they want to be seen as pragmatic and reliable or as inconsistent opportunists.

The historic Indo-US space mission is indeed a moment of pride for India, but it must also serve as a wake-up call. India cannot have it both ways, celebrating the US technological achievements while allowing political discourse to demonize the US leadership at home. Hypocrisy has no place in diplomacy, and India must move beyond selective narratives to build foreign relations based on coherence and integrity.

In the interconnected world of the 21st century, global leadership demands mature, consistent policies. India’s future as a respected power depends on its ability to align its words cum actions and reject the dangerous allure of diplomatic double standards.

The author holds a PhD in Strategic Studies.