India at a Crossroads: Superpower or Spectator?

The Moment That Demands Clarity

Nivedita’s comment on my Yalta post sparked this discussion, and it’s refreshing to see Brown Pundits alive with debate again. Overnight, the blog saw 15+ comments—a sign that there’s still energy here, still an appetite for deeper discussion.

Like any good Dharmic construct, the blog incarnates multiple times. And right now, we’re living through an inflection point in history—one that demands clarity. I’ve only felt this politically awake a few times in my life:

• 9/11, which jolted me into awareness of global power politics.

• Brexit, which shattered illusions about liberal internationalism.

• Trump 2.0, where we are living through a period of extreme history. There’s no going back.

The West’s Political Reset & India’s Place in It

In the U.S., power dynamics are shifting. Gavin Newsom’s sudden cultural pivot to the right signals something bigger: the Democratic Party is recalibrating in real time. They see where the wind is blowing.

And let’s be blunt—white men are back. Not just in America, but across the West. Is this their last gasp of power, or a genuine ideological correction?

As Western politics enters a new phase of identity reassertion, the global order is shifting. India must decide whether it navigates this realignment passively or actively shapes its role.

The Global Chessboard: India Among the Five Great Powers

The unipolar moment of U.S. dominance is over. The world is settling into a new balance of power, reminiscent of Yalta, except with five dominant players, each with its own Grand Strategy (GrS):

1. The U.S. → Still the preeminent power but increasingly transactional and inward-looking. • GrS: Military supremacy, financial leverage, intelligence dominance.

2. China → Expansionist, aggressive, and playing the long game. • GrS: Economic coercion, tech dominance, military expansion.

3. The EU → A powerful economy but politically fragmented and security-dependent on the U.S. • GrS: Economic rule-setting and regulatory power.

4. Russia → A disruptive force, lacking long-term strength but still a major player. • GrS: Hybrid warfare, destabilization, regional dominance.

5. India → The most unpredictable, still defining its own role.

Meanwhile, the Global South—Africa, the Muslim world, and Latin America—remains the battleground, while Eastern Europe and East Asia function as spheres of influence for competing powers (at the moment of course it’s vice-versa but over the long-term). That’s why:

• Trump’s foreign policy is focused on locking down the Americas.

• China is weaponizing trade and infrastructure (B&R).

• Russia is leveraging military unpredictability.

India’s Kautilyan Twist

India’s strategic thinking has deep roots in its own geopolitical tradition. Long before Western theories of realpolitik, Kautilya’s Arthashastra outlined a pragmatic, power-driven approach to diplomacy. His Mandala Theory of Interstate Relations conceptualized geopolitics not as static borders but as a fluid web of alliances and rivalries.According to Kautilya, the immediate neighbor is a natural adversary, the second neighbor is a potential ally, and distant powers can be manipulated as counterweights.

But beyond diplomatic balancing, Kautilya advocated for espionage, economic sabotage, subversion, and covert operations as essential tools to undermine rivals while strengthening one’s own position. Power was not about moral idealism—it was about ensuring the state’s survival through strategic maneuvering.

This ancient framework remains strikingly relevant today, particularly in India’s calculated diplomacy between the U.S., China, and Russia—engaging in Smart Balancing rather than committing to rigid alliances. In many ways, Modi and Jaishankar’s realpolitik approach is an instinctive evolution of this age-old strategy.

India’s Domestic Constraints: The Internal Reality Check

While India’s external maneuvering is sharp, any Grand Strategy must also account for domestic realities:

• Defense Budget & Capabilities → Can India afford full-scale military expansion without overextending?

• Political Will → How do domestic politics, coalition governments, and public opinion shape India’s global ambitions?

• Economic Constraints → Growth is strong, but can India sustain high-tech and defense spending to rival China?

India’s ability to translate ambition into real power projection will depend on how well it navigates these internal pressures.

China’s Grand Strategy in South Asia: A Direct Challenge

I’ve touched on earlier China’s expansionist policies, but it’s worth detailing how this impacts India’s strategic calculus.

i. Debt-Trap Diplomacy → Beijing is using loans and infrastructure projects to entrench influence in Sri Lanka, Pakistan (CPEC), and Nepal.

ii. Military Presence in the Indian Ocean → China is expanding its naval bases, challenging India’s dominance in the region.

iii. Belt & Road vs. India’s Countermoves → While China builds highways, ports, and pipelines, India is investing in Iran (Chabahar), Africa, and alternative supply chains.

Will India continue to counter China reactively, or does it need a more aggressive push?

India’s Three Strategic Options: Balancer or Power Player?

India stands at an inflection point. Will it continue to hedge, or will it shape the world order?

1. The Power Player: Full-Scale Global Ambition

India builds a world-class military and intelligence network to project power globally, using economic leverage to influence the Global South. Takes the lead in international institutions, shaping global rules rather than following them.

Trade-Off: Requires massive investment and abandoning its “non-aligned” comfort zone.

2. The Smart Balancer: A Permanent Middle Power Strategy

India continues its hedging game between great powers, strengthening tech, trade, and diplomacy while avoiding military entanglements. Like the Mauryan state under Kautilya, it leverages strategic ambiguity to maintain autonomy.

Trade-Off: Keeps India reactive rather than proactive in global rule-making.

3. The Regional Fortress: A South Asia-First Approach

India prioritizes dominating South Asia rather than competing globally. It counters China’s influence in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and the Indian Ocean while building a self-sufficient economy.

Trade-Off: Limits global influence and leaves rule-setting to others.

Conclusion: India Must Choose Its Path Now

India has already mastered Smart Balancing. It has successfully avoided being drawn into a U.S.-China rivalry while maintaining economic ties with both. But is that enough? Smart balancing has kept India stable—but does it make India powerful? Without a clear doctrine, does India risk always reacting instead of shaping? Can India afford to stay out of economic and intelligence warfare while others master it? Many questions that need to be addressed by Indians & India in how they want to shape their world at large.

The world isn’t waiting. China is building a global economic order. The U.S. is restructuring its alliances. Russia is shaping hybrid warfare. Meanwhile, India remains in calculated ambiguity. India’s rise is inevitable—but the path it takes is not. It can lead, hedge, or retreat. One thing is clear: history will not wait for India to decide. The time to choose is now—India must strike while the iron is hot.