UNDER Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s foreign policy has undergone a significant evolution, aiming to position the nation as a leading voice for the Global South while simultaneously strengthening strategic, economic, and technological ties with the Western world (Global North). This dual orientation, often termed a “bridge-builder” approach, has led to intense debate regarding whether India is championing the developing world or prioritising its own aspirations to become a global thought leader -a ‘Vishwa Guru’ – at the expense of Southern solidarity.
At this particular point, there is something deeply unsettling about the spectacle of Narendra Modi preparing, almost eagerly, for yet another engagement with the Group of Seven. It is not merely diplomacy. It is not routine statecraft. It is symbolic – painfully symbolic – of a deeper psychological and political shift in India’s global posture. A shift away from solidarity with the oppressed, toward proximity with power. A shift away from the Global South, toward the corridors of Western dominance.
India today stands at a civilisational crossroads. And under Modi, it appears to be choosing the wrong side.
From Non-Alignment to Neo-Alignment
India’s moral and political inheritance is rooted in the vision of the Non-Aligned Movement – a project shaped by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Sukarno, who imagined a world beyond Cold War binaries and imperial hierarchies. India was not meant to be a subordinate power-seeking validation. It was meant to be a voice of conscience – standing with Africa, Asia, and Latin America in their struggles against colonialism and domination.
That vision was imperfect. But it had dignity. Today, that dignity is eroding.
Repeated overtures to Western platforms—particularly the G7, where India is not even a member—suggest not strategic confidence but a deeper insecurity. The G7 represents a cluster of historically dominant economies whose wealth and influence are deeply intertwined with colonial extraction and contemporary global inequalities.
Why, then, this persistent desire to belong?
The Aryan Gaze: A Question We Must Dare to Ask
Let us scrutinise things plainly.
There is an unsettling psychological undertone to India’s current foreign policy orientation—a leaning toward Western approval that goes beyond pragmatic engagement. It reflects what may be described as an “Aryan gaze”: a civilisational impulse shaped by colonial hangovers, where validation from predominantly white, Western powers is seen as a marker of global legitimacy.
This is not an abstract accusation. It is visible in patterns. Three hard queries.
Why prioritize optics in Western capitals over substance in the Global South?
Why seek affirmation from power rather than solidarity with struggle?
Why does India appear more eager to be seen in elite Western forums than to lead transformative Southern alliances?
This is not diplomacy alone. It is orientation.
BRICS and the Abandoned Possibility
The BRICS grouping represents one of the most significant geopolitical possibilities of the 21st century. With its expanding membership and economic weight, it offers a credible alternative to Western-dominated institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—institutions that have historically imposed austerity, conditional lending, and structural dependency on developing nations.
India should be leading this transformation. Instead, it appears hesitant—torn between its potential as a Global South leader and its desire for Western approval. This ambivalence weakens not only BRICS but the broader project of building a more equitable world order.
Leadership demands clarity. It demands conviction.
Why Are We Even There?
Why does India feel compelled to seek space in forums like the G7 at all?
The European Union has not approached India as an equal partner. Trade negotiations have repeatedly reflected asymmetries—on intellectual property, agricultural access, digital governance, and regulatory standards—favouring European corporations and strategic interests over India’s developmental priorities.
The United States operates similarly. Through sanctions regimes, strategic pressure, and conditional partnerships, it has institutionalised a system where alignment is rewarded and independence is penalised. This is not a partnership. It is a structured inequality.
Dignity Matters
If the G7 wishes to engage the Global South, the conversation must shift—from security frameworks and geopolitical containment to justice, reparations, and historical accountability. European wealth was built, in no small part, on colonial extraction, slavery, and systemic exploitation. That history cannot be erased by contemporary rhetoric on democracy and rules-based order.
Colonialism was violent. Neo-colonialism, though more subtle, continues that violence through economic coercion and institutional dominance.
Iran and the Politics of Demonisation
Consider the treatment of Iran.
Rather than engaging Iran as a civilisational state with legitimate historical grievances and security concerns, Western powers have persistently framed it as a destabilising force. Sanctions, isolation, and military threats have replaced meaningful diplomacy. The result is prolonged suffering for ordinary people and a deepening of global instability.
Labelling nations as “terrorist” while ignoring centuries of colonial violence reflects a troubling moral inconsistency. The language of terrorism has often been selectively applied—weaponised to delegitimise resistance while absolving historical aggression.
If the G7 seeks credibility, it must begin by confronting these contradictions.
Israel and the Moral Collapse
India’s deepening relationship with Israel represents perhaps the most visible rupture with its historical commitments.
Once a steadfast supporter of Palestinian self-determination, India now engages Israel through defence partnerships, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic alignment. This shift reflects not merely strategic recalibration, but a broader abandonment of moral clarity.
At a time when global awareness of Palestinian suffering is intensifying, this alignment places India in direct contradiction with its own anti-colonial legacy.
It is not just a policy shift. It is a moral rupture.
The Global South and a Leadership Vacuum
The Global South faces interconnected crises—climate injustice, debt dependency, economic inequality, and political marginalisation. What it lacks is not potential, but leadership.
India has the capacity to fill that role. But leadership requires independence. It requires resisting the gravitational pull of dominant power structures. It requires building coalitions grounded in equity, not proximity to privilege. A foreign policy driven by the desire to be seen among the powerful is not leadership. It is alignment.
A Crisis of Identity
At its core, this moment reflects a deeper crisis.
What does India stand for? Is it a post-colonial nation committed to justice and solidarity?
Or an aspiring power-seeking validation from those who once ruled it?
The answer will shape not only India’s future, but the trajectory of global power itself.
Choosing Dignity Over Approval
The question before India is simple, but profound:
Will it choose dignity, or approval?
Will it stand with the Global South, or seek acceptance from those who have historically dominated it?
At the heart of this choice lies something we rarely confront – our own complexes. The shadow of colonialism lingers not only in institutions, but in the mind. In the quiet desire for Western validation. In the belief that recognition by powerful nations confers legitimacy. This is not a strategy. It is a psychological residue of subjugation.
Narendra Modi has made his orientation clear. But a nation is larger than its leadership. Its people still retain the power to demand a different path – one rooted in self-respect, solidarity, and independence.
To lead the Global South, India must first free itself – from this need for approval, from inherited insecurities, from the illusion that proximity to power equals power itself.
To break from these complexes is to reclaim dignity. To remain bound by them is to remain, in spirit, colonised.
History will judge this moment. The only question is: On which side will India stand?
________________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
