[Answered] Examine the dilemma between moral clarity and tactical ambiguity in India’s foreign policy. Justify the need for India to articulate its stance on global issues.

Introduction

India’s foreign policy today straddles moral idealism and strategic pragmatism—balancing principled non-alignment with realpolitik choices amid crises like Ukraine, Gaza, and Indo-Pacific tensions (MEA Annual Report, 2024).

India’s evolving foreign policy landscape

1. Since independence, India’s external posture has been rooted in “Panchsheel” and “Non-Alignment”, reflecting Jawaharlal Nehru’s moral diplomacy.
2. However, global power flux—Ukraine war, West Asia conflict, US-China rivalry—has compelled New Delhi to recalibrate between moral clarity and tactical ambiguity.
3. The dilemma lies in reconciling ethical leadership with strategic autonomy—a hallmark of India’s “multi-alignment doctrine”.

The Nature of the Dilemma

 Why the Dilemma Exists

1. Complex Geopolitical Multipolarity: In a fragmented order, alliances are transactional. India trades oil with Russia, partners with the U.S. in the Quad, and engages China in BRICS—reflecting “issue-based alignment”.
2. Strategic Autonomy Imperative: Rooted in the Indira Doctrine (1980s) and revived in the Jaishankar Doctrine, India aims to avoid bloc entrapment, maintaining flexible diplomacy amid power rivalries.
3. Economic and Energy Dependencies: Moral clarity on sanctions or wars may hurt economic interests—e.g., Russian crude oil (over 40% of India’s imports in 2024) ensures energy security amid global volatility.
4. Domestic Political Sensitivity: Positions on Israel-Palestine or West Asia directly affect India’s 8-million diaspora and energy corridors, requiring nuanced articulation.

The Case for Moral Clarity

1. Leadership of the Global South: As G20 President (2023) and host of the Voice of Global South Summit, India positioned itself as a bridge between developed and developing worlds—moral clarity enhances its normative leadership.
2. Upholding Democratic Values: As the world’s largest democracy, India’s silence on human rights or aggressive wars contradicts its foundational values under Article 51(c) of the Constitution—promoting international peace and justice.
3. Enhancing Credibility in Multilateral Forums: A clear, consistent voice on issues like climate finance, equitable trade, and global health governance enhances India’s reputation as a responsible stakeholder, not a passive participant.
4. Shaping Global Norms: Moral clarity strengthens India’s influence in UN reforms, WTO negotiations, and South-South Cooperation, aligning with the Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam ethos.

Balancing Moral Clarity and Tactical Ambiguity

1. Adopt “principled pragmatism”—clear moral objectives guided by context-sensitive strategy.
2. Institutionalize strategic communication for clarity in global crises.
3. Anchor policies in rules-based multilateralism, not great-power competition.
4. Promote human-centric diplomacy through initiatives like Vaccine Maitri and International Solar Alliance.

Conclusion

As Henry Kissinger notes in Diplomacy, power without purpose breeds instability. India’s moral clarity—tempered by strategic prudence—must define its global role as a principled yet pragmatic civilizational power.