After the G20 Summit, a noted journalist Sanjay Baru wrote that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has claimed credit for turning what was traditionally a meeting of G20 heads of government into a large-scale public festival. He said ; Mr Modi argues that the world now looks to India to assume a leadership role. However, a recent Pew Research Institute survey tells a more nuanced story. While 68% of Indians believe their country’s global standing is on the rise, in other G20 nations (including the United States), only about one-third share this sentiment. Close to half say they have not noticed any meaningful change in India’s global influence.
This discrepancy may stem from the fact that global influence is not determined by governments alone but also by the broader interplay of people, civil society institutions, and other non-state actors. Official propaganda tends to inflate a nation’s self-image but often does little to foster substantial influence in international affairs.
A look at India’s responses to key global developments illustrates this point. When the United States decided to withdraw from Afghanistan, India was largely on the sidelines. Only after finding itself in a difficult position did it begin to engage with the Taliban to salvage its interests. In the Ukraine conflict, India’s stance has been similarly unclear. During Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Ukraine, he was first taken to a war museum to witness the civilian toll of the conflict—an uncomfortable contrast to earlier images of Modi embracing President Putin, whose missiles had tragically claimed children’s lives. The same ambivalence is reflected in India’s cautious approach to the Gaza crisis, as well as its strained relationships with neighboring countries. While India once publicly advocated for isolating Pakistan, that same nation is now set to host the Champions Trophy.
Mr Bhanu Pratap Mehta, a contributing editor with Indian Express in his forthright article – WE SHOULD DEEP SEEK, aptly described India’s relevance today in global politics.
He says “
" But the truth is that if you look at global politics right now without the blinkers of our propaganda, India is actually sliding into irrelevance. As an unserious country that is a victim of its own myth making. We are so much in the grip of feel-good anecdote that we cannot measure the scale of our own irrelevance.
Service exports are supposedly India’s success story but its just 4% of global trade of services. Recently a media report highlighting india’s achievement stated that FDI has gone up to 1 trillion dollars since 2000 but overall, India’s share in global fdi is barely 2.5 % and is declining. The supposed opportunity of attracting investments moving out of China has also not materialised in the size that India had anticipated and made a noise. India gets barely 1.5% of international tourists’ arrivals. The entertainment industry is barely 5% of world market and is surely not a soft power, export power -house. India is politically important, but if you read the history of 50s and and 60s dispassionately, you will find our relevance has not increased”.
Comparisons to India’s role in the 1950s and 1960s provide important historical context. Despite dire economic conditions, India was heard and respected on the global stage. It took a strong stand against apartheid in South Africa, supported the rights of Palestinians, and played a pivotal role as a neutral mediator during the Korean War—helping to resolve the critical prisoner-of-war issue that stood in the way of a ceasefire. India also led the Non-Aligned Movement, championing neutrality during the Cold War and advocating decolonization.
Although its military and economic power were limited, India nonetheless wielded significant moral authority and was recognized as a newly independent country working to help other nations achieve independence.