top of page

By:

Anil D. Salve

21 March 2026 at 2:41:09 pm

From 'Vishwaguru' to Middle Power

The ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran are more than a routine geopolitical crisis; they offer a clear view of how power operates in the international system. For India, this moment provides a sobering perspective. While the country increasingly speaks of its role as a “Vishwaguru” (global guide), the reality is more measured-India continues to function as a middle power, adapting to global shifts rather than directing them. A key reason lies in India’s deep...

From 'Vishwaguru' to Middle Power

The ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran are more than a routine geopolitical crisis; they offer a clear view of how power operates in the international system. For India, this moment provides a sobering perspective. While the country increasingly speaks of its role as a “Vishwaguru” (global guide), the reality is more measured-India continues to function as a middle power, adapting to global shifts rather than directing them. A key reason lies in India’s deep dependence on West Asia. A significant share of its energy imports originates from this region, much of it passing through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. Any instability there quickly translates into higher fuel costs, supply uncertainties and broader economic pressures at home. In such situations, India does not influence the course of events; instead, it responds to their consequences. This imbalance-being affected without being able to shape outcomes-is a defining characteristic of a middle power. India’s diplomatic response to the crisis reflects this reality. Rather than taking a firm position, it has maintained a careful balance, mindful of its relationships with multiple stakeholders. Its strategic partnership with the United States, defence cooperation with Israel, and longstanding energy and connectivity interests with Iran make outright alignment difficult. Often described as “strategic autonomy,” this approach provides flexibility, but it also highlights a limitation: India must prioritise caution because it lacks the leverage to determine how events unfold. In effect, it manages risks more than it defines directions. The economic dimension further reinforces this position. Conflicts of this nature tend to disrupt oil markets, unsettle trade routes and trigger volatility in financial systems-all of which directly impact India. Despite being one of the world’s largest economies, it does not yet possess the capacity to fully shield itself from such external shocks or to independently secure its interests during crises. Unlike major powers, it cannot decisively influence the trajectory of conflicts or stabilise regions critical to its national interests. Moral Leadership At the same time, India has sought to project moral leadership on the global stage, emphasising dialogue, peace and cooperation. While this enhances its international image, moments of conflict test not only principles but also the ability to act decisively. In the present situation, the principal actors are shaping events according to their strategic priorities, while India’s role remains largely supportive-focused on safeguarding its citizens and limiting economic fallout. Even in a region where it has deep historical and economic ties, its influence remains constrained. Recognising India as a middle power should not be viewed negatively. Such nations often play constructive roles by maintaining balance, engaging with diverse partners and avoiding overreach. India’s approach fits this pattern, enabling it to navigate a complex global environment with a degree of flexibility. However, there remains a clear distinction between aspiration and capability. The idea of being a “Vishwaguru” implies not only moral authority but also the material strength and strategic reach to shape global developments-an area where India is still evolving. Moving beyond this stage will require sustained effort. Reducing dependence on external energy sources, strengthening economic resilience, expanding defence and strategic capabilities, and taking greater initiative in regional affairs are essential steps. Progress in these areas would gradually enhance India’s ability to influence outcomes rather than merely adapt to them. For now, the ongoing crisis serves as a reminder that global stature is built as much on tangible capacity as on vision. India’s trajectory is undoubtedly forward-moving, but it remains a work in progress. In a rapidly changing world, the country stands as a pragmatic middle power-ambitious in outlook, yet grounded in the realities it must navigate. (The writer is the Principal of Podar International School, Ausa, Latur. Views personal.)

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page