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.)

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page