Saahil Menon’s scathing critique of India’s foreign policy decisions reflects a worrying trend of viewing the world through a binary, Cold War-style lens of moral absolutism. The framing of India as a “sorry excuse for democracy” simply for pursuing its strategic interests in a multipolar world is not only reductive, but also hypocritical. The real question is not whether India has “gone rogue,” but whether the West is uncomfortable with a world where nations no longer toe the line of Western foreign policy orthodoxy.
India-Russia Relations: Realpolitik, not rogue behavior
India’s ties with Russia are not an endorsement of war, authoritarianism, or human rights abuses. They are rooted in decades of strategic cooperation, especially in defense and energy. Russia has long been a reliable supplier of military hardware to India-particularly important given India’s complex security environment, which includes two nuclear-armed neighbors with whom it has fought wars.
Menon criticizes India’s purchase of discounted Russian crude as being “at the expense of Ukrainian lives.” Yet many Western countries-including EU states-continued buying Russian energy long after the invasion of Ukraine began. The difference is that India is demonized for pragmatism while the West is excused for convenience. Like the Minister of External Affairs of India, Dr. S. Jaishankar mentioned “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems,” during the Globsec 2022 forum in Slovakia when asked on India’s official position on the Ukraine conflict.
The multipolar shift: not everything is about the West
India’s engagement with BRICS and the Global South isn’t just a rejection of democracy-it’s a recognition that global governance must reflect a more diverse set of voices. The G7 no longer monopolizes global decision-making. India, with its 1.4 billion people, cannot be expected to subordinate its national interests to the foreign policy preferences of a few Western capitals.
Menon’s fixation on Modi’s attendance at summits with so-called “pariah states” conveniently ignores that diplomacy requires engaging with all actors-even uncomfortable ones. If realpolitik is acceptable for Western powers (as seen in arms sales to Gulf monarchies or support for autocratic rallies), why is India held to a different standard?
Weaponizing Modi’s past and internal politics
Criticism of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s domestic record, including concerns over press freedom and minority rights, is fair game in a democratic society. But linking these issues to foreign policy decisions regarding Russia or Iran is disingenuous. By that logic, should Western democracies also sever ties with every country whose domestic politics clash with liberal ideas-including their own allies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
India’s relationship with Russia predates Modi and will likely outlast him. The personalized vilification of Modi as “Russia without snow or gas” may make for provocative headlines, but it glosses over the complexities of democratic India, which remains noisy, pluralistic, and fundamentally different from autocracies.
On Iran and INSTC: strategic autonomy is not a crime
India’s investment in the Chabahar port and the International North South Transport Corridor is aimed at enhancing regional connectivity and trade, especially to Afghanistan and Central Asia. These projects also offer alternatives to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which the West often criticizes but rarely matches with viable infrastructure alternatives.
Rather than “rehabilitating” the Iranian regime, India is seeking to carve out an independent foreign policy that prioritizes regional stability and economic access-without being caught in the crossfire of Western sanctions or geopolitical vendettas.
Conclusion: Let’s drop the double standards
To label India “Janus-faced” for maintaining partnerships with both Russia and the West is to misunderstand the very nature of modern diplomacy. Strategic autonomy is not the same as duplicity. India is not obliged to choose between loyalty to the West or alliance with the East. It is crafting its own path-one that reflects its size, its values, its geography, and yes, its interests.
Rather than asking whether India has gone rogue, perhaps it’s time to ask whether the West is willing to accept a world where leadership and influence are not monopolized by the few, but shared by the many.
[Photo by Prime Minister’s Office, India, GODL-India, via Wikimedia Commons]
Respectfully,
Jasleen Gill
Jasleen Gill is an Independent Researcher and Fellow at the International Relations Society of Kenya (IRSK) and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung. She holds a degree in International Relations from United States International University Africa (USIU-A). Her research focuses on geopolitical and intelligence analysis and global security.
Read the full article here
