Foreign policy is perhaps the most misunderstood domain of governance. It is a long-haul enterprise shaped by uncertainty, incomplete information, and consequences that often unfold over years, not weeks. Yet it is also one of the easiest arenas to critique in real time. Decisions appear cautious, statements seem measured, and outcomes rarely offer the dramatic clarity that domestic policy sometimes does.

In India’s case, this tendency has produced a familiar criticism: that its foreign policy is passive, reactive, and lacking in strategic courage. From accusations of “strategic ambiguity” to charges of reviving a diluted version of Nehruvian non-alignment, India’s external posture is often portrayed as one that promises much but delivers little. This critique, however, misses the nature of the game India is playing and winning, said the BusinessWorld.

To the impatient observer, India’s diplomacy under Subrahmanyam Jaishankar can appear overly cautious. It avoids public confrontation, resists ideological alignment, and prefers calibrated responses over sweeping declarations. But what looks like passivity is often deliberate restraint.

Aligning too closely with one power risks alienating others whose cooperation is equally critical, whether for energy, trade, defence, or technology. In such a landscape, boldness is not always loud. Sometimes, it lies in the discipline not to choose prematurely. India’s approach reflects this reality. It is not abstaining from strategy; it is executing one.

Perhaps the most underappreciated feature of India’s foreign policy today is its ability to engage multiple, often adversarial, power centres simultaneously. Fewer still can do so when many of these actors are in direct conflict with one another. This is not diplomatic drift. It is strategic simultaneity.

In a polarised world, India has chosen not to be absorbed into any single pole, and that is a form of power.

This was not luck. It was the result of sustained diplomatic capital built over the years. Maintaining working relationships with both sides of a conflict is not an abstract virtue; it has tangible, material outcomes.

Critics often frame India’s approach as a return to non-alignment. The comparison is convenient but inaccurate. The non-alignment of the 20th century was, at times, a moral and ideological posture. Today’s strategy is far more pragmatic. It is less about staying neutral and more about maximising optionality.

This distinction matters. In a world defined by shifting coalitions and overlapping interests, rigid alliances can become liabilities. Flexible partnerships, on the other hand, allow countries to navigate uncertainty without overcommitting. What India is practising is not non-alignment, but multi-alignment with intent.

There is an inherent tension in foreign policy between visibility and effectiveness. Dramatic moves attract attention, but quiet diplomacy often delivers results. Under Jaishankar, India has leaned into the latter.

This does not mean the approach is flawless. There are valid questions around execution, capacity, and the long-term sustainability of balancing competing interests. But the broad direction of maintaining autonomy while expanding engagement is not one of indecision, but of design.

Strategic patience is rarely celebrated in real time. It lacks spectacle. It does not lend itself to easy narratives. But it is often the difference between short-term applause and long-term leverage.

India’s foreign policy reflects this reality. It is not about choosing between power centres, but about ensuring that India remains indispensable to each of them.

The criticism that India is too passive may say less about India’s strategy and more about our expectations of what power should look like. In the 21st century, influence may not lie in loud alignment, but in quiet indispensability.