Is Aggressive Majoritarian Politics Weakening India’s Global Rise?
India’s internal political image, relations with the Muslim world and an increasingly difficult neighbourhood raise serious questions about the country’s long-term diplomatic stratergy.
India is undoubtedly rising.
It is one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies, an increasingly important geopolitical power, a major voice of the Global South and an emerging force in international trade, technology, defence and diplomacy.
But the rise of a nation depends on more than economic growth.
A country aspiring to become a global power must possess military strength, economic capacity, political stability, diplomatic credibility and international trust.
This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:
Is India’s increasingly aggressive majoritarian political image beginning to create diplomatic, strategic and economic costs for the country?
The question is not whether India should be proud of Hindu civilisation.
Of course it should.
India’s Hindu cultural and civilisational heritage is one of its greatest strengths. There is nothing wrong with celebrating Indian civilisation, Hindu traditions or the cultural identity of the majority.
The concern begins when the international perception emerges that political Hindu nationalism is being increasingly projected in a manner that makes India appear less inclusive towards its own religious minorities.
For a rising global power, perception matters.
And today, India’s domestic political debates are increasingly becoming part of international political discourse.
The Mamdani-RSS Controversy: A Warning Beyond New York
The recent controversy involving New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and an event featuring RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat demonstrates how India’s internal ideological debates have travelled beyond Indian borders.
Mamdani publicly opposed the event and criticised the ideology associated with the RSS, while the RSS and its supporters rejected such accusations and presented the programme as one promoting unity and dialogue. The controversy has created intense discussion within the Indian diaspora and international political circles.
The question is not whether Mamdani is right or wrong.
One politician in another country cannot define India.
But the incident demonstrates something strategically important:
India’s domestic politics are now becoming part of international political debate.
Indian political speeches are now globally circulated.
Communal incidents receive international coverage.
Statements by political leaders can influence public opinion in foreign countries.
And allegations of discrimination against minorities are increasingly discussed by foreign governments, rights organisations and political institutions.
The Indian government has consistently rejected allegations of official discrimination and maintains that its policies benefit citizens of every community. At the same time, international criticism continues to shape the global conversation around India’s political image.
For India, the strategic issue is not whether every criticism is justified.
The strategic issue is that the narrative itself is becoming internationalised.
India’s Secular and Pluralistic Image Was a Diplomatic Strength
For decades, India possessed an extraordinary diplomatic advantage.
It was a Hindu-majority nation with one of the world’s largest Muslim populations.
It was home to Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Jews and numerous other religious and cultural communities.
This diversity was not merely a constitutional principle.It was also a diplomatic asset.
India could maintain close relations with Israel while simultaneously enjoying strong relationships with the Arab world and other Muslim-majority countries.
India could speak to the West as a democracy.It could speak to the Islamic world as a country with a massive indigenous Muslim population.It could present itself internationally as a civilisation rather than a narrowly religious state.
That strategic balance gave India enormous diplomatic flexibility.
If that image weakens, India risks losing part of its soft power.
The question therefore is not whether India should stop celebrating its Hindu identity.
The real question is:
Can India proudly celebrate Hindu civilisation while simultaneously convincing the world that Muslims and every other minority are equal and respected citizens of the Indian Republic?
The answer must be yes.
And India must demonstrate that answer not merely through speeches, but through political conduct, governance and social stability.
The Muslim World: Not Against India, But Increasingly Watchful
It would be incorrect to claim that Muslim-majority countries have united against India.
They have not.
India continues to maintain major strategic and economic relationships with several Muslim-majority countries.
The relationship with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries remains important to India’s economic and strategic interests.
Therefore, the argument should not be that “Muslim countries are abandoning India.”
The more serious question is whether sections of the Muslim world are becoming increasingly cautious about India’s internal religious politics.
Foreign governments do not operate independently of public opinion forever.
If people in Muslim-majority countries increasingly believe that Indian Muslims face political discrimination or insecurity, their governments may eventually find it more difficult to publicly align with India during sensitive international controversies.
This does not necessarily mean diplomatic hostility.
It can take more subtle forms:
- reduced political enthusiasm;
- greater diplomatic caution;
- less willingness to publicly defend India;
- increased influence of anti-India lobbying;
- greater space for Pakistan to influence public narratives;
- and increased international pressure on India over minority issues.
This is where domestic politics can gradually become foreign-policy risk.
India’s adversaries have always attempted to internationalise issues related to religion, Kashmir and minority rights.
India must ask whether aggressive domestic political messaging is providing additional material for hostile international narratives.
A powerful nation should never unnecessarily provide diplomatic ammunition to its rivals.
Global Narrative Politics Has Become a Strategic Battlefield
In the 21st century, geopolitics is not fought only through military power.
It is also fought through:
- public perception;
- social media;
- diaspora politics;
- international institutions;
- lobbying;
- media narratives;
- human-rights discourse;
- and political influence.
A country may have economic power but still suffer from reputational weakness.
It may have military strength but face political resistance.
It may have the strongest arguments strategically but still lose the battle of international perception.
This is why India’s international image must be treated as a matter of national strategy.
Soft power is not a luxury. For a rising power, soft power is national security.
The Neighbourhood Question: A Greater Strategic Challenge
Perhaps the most serious question before Indian diplomacy lies closer to home.
If India wants to become a global power, can it afford an increasingly complicated and strategically competitive neighbourhood?
India’s foreign policy itself recognises the importance of the Neighbourhood First approach. Yet South Asia today remains politically fragmented, with domestic instability, regime changes and external-power competition complicating India’s regional diplomacy.
It would again be incorrect to say that India has bad relations with every neighbour.
India continues to have important and strong relationships in the region.
But the larger strategic picture raises serious questions.
Pakistan remains hostile.
China remains India’s principal geopolitical competitor.
Bangladesh is passing through a difficult phase.
Nepal and Sri Lanka carefully balance their relations among major powers.
The Maldives has experienced political movements questioning India’s regional role.
Myanmar remains unstable.
And China’s strategic and economic influence across South Asia continues to grow.
India’s own neighbourhood policy therefore faces one of its most difficult tests.
Bangladesh: A Relationship Under Strategic Pressure
The most worrying example today is Bangladesh.
For years, India-Bangladesh relations were often presented as one of the major successes of Indian neighbourhood diplomacy.
But political changes in Bangladesh and the continued presence of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in India have created a difficult diplomatic situation.
Bangladesh has sought her extradition, while India has emphasised legal procedures and its desire for constructive relations. Prime Minister Tarique Rahman has also indicated that a more favourable diplomatic environment is required to reset relations, while uncertainty has surrounded his proposed visit to India.
The Bangladesh relationship is strategically vital for India.
Bangladesh is connected to:
- India’s northeastern security;
- regional connectivity;
- Bay of Bengal strategy;
- trade routes;
- border management;
- and the broader balance of power in South Asia.
Therefore, deterioration in relations cannot be viewed as an ordinary bilateral disagreement.
Recent reports that Bangladesh is considering participation in a broader security arrangement involving Pakistan and other Muslim-majority states add another layer of strategic complexity.
Bangladesh may not be “turning against India.”
But it is clearly attempting to expand its diplomatic options.
And that itself is a message.
Smaller neighbours do not want to be perceived as permanently dependent on India.
They want strategic autonomy.
They want respect.
They want space to balance relationships.
Indian diplomacy must understand this reality.
India and the Difficult Neighbourhood
India’s challenge is not that every neighbouring country is hostile.
The real question is whether India has succeeded in creating a durable sphere of trust in its immediate region.
That question deserves serious examination.
A global power needs a stable regional foundation.
History repeatedly demonstrates that countries aspiring to international leadership must first create a favourable environment in their immediate geography.
India is geographically the largest power in South Asia.
But size alone cannot create leadership.
Economic assistance alone cannot guarantee loyalty.
Security dominance alone cannot create trust.
Neighbouring countries must believe that India’s rise will benefit them rather than reduce their autonomy.
India therefore needs a new diplomatic approach based on:
Leadership without domination.
Partnership without intimidation.
Security without unnecessary interference.
Development without dependence.
Respect for sovereignty along with strategic cooperation.
That is how a regional power becomes a trusted regional leader.
The China Factor Cannot Be Ignored
India’s neighbourhood challenge is also linked to China.
China has systematically expanded its economic, infrastructure and strategic presence across South Asia.
The competition is visible in ports, infrastructure, connectivity, investment and political influence.
India cannot simply expect neighbouring countries to reject Chinese economic engagement.
Nor can it rely on geography alone to maintain influence.
India must offer better partnerships.
Faster infrastructure.
Greater market access.
Reliable investment.
Respectful diplomacy.
And long-term political engagement.
A neighbour may accept Indian assistance.
But that does not automatically mean the neighbour will permanently remain within India’s political influence.
Trust must continuously be built.
Domestic Politics and Foreign Policy Are Increasingly Connected
This brings us back to the central argument.
India’s domestic political image and foreign policy can no longer be treated as completely separate.
Neighbouring countries observe India’s internal politics.
They observe religious tensions.
They watch political speeches.
They follow social-media campaigns.
They read international reports.
And in Muslim-majority societies, developments concerning Indian Muslims naturally become part of public discussion.
India’s political messaging can therefore have consequences beyond its borders.
A speech intended to mobilise voters domestically may produce diplomatic consequences internationally.
A local communal controversy may become a foreign-policy issue.
A domestic political campaign may influence public opinion in another country.
This is the reality of modern geopolitics.
Economic Growth Requires Social Stability
There is also an economic dimension.
Aggressive religious polarisation may provide short-term political benefits.
But long-term economic development requires stability.
Investors consider:
- political predictability;
- social peace;
- law and order;
- institutional strength;
- workforce participation;
- international reputation;
- and long-term stability.
India has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world.
Indian Muslims are not foreigners.
They are an integral part of India’s economy, culture, history and society.
They are entrepreneurs, soldiers, scientists, doctors, journalists, artists, workers and business leaders.
India cannot achieve its full economic potential if any large community feels disconnected from the national project.
A $10 trillion or $20 trillion economy cannot be built through the participation of only one identity.
India’s rise requires the participation of every Indian.
Nationalism Must Unite, Not Shrink the Nation
There is a fundamental difference between nationalism and majoritarianism.
Nationalism says:
“Every citizen belongs equally to the nation.”
Majoritarian politics can sometimes create a different perception:
“The majority owns the nation more than others.”
The first strengthens national unity.
The second can gradually create internal and international complications.
India does not need to prove its Hindu identity every day.
A civilisation as old and influential as India does not become stronger by making minorities feel politically inferior.
True civilisational confidence is demonstrated through strength, generosity and inclusion.
India can proudly celebrate:
- Ram;
- Krishna;
- Shiva;
- Buddha;
- Mahavir;
- Guru Nanak;
- and the extraordinary diversity of its spiritual traditions.
India’s civilisation is not weakened by diversity.
Its diversity is one of the reasons India is globally unique.
The Strategic Cost of a Narrowing Diplomatic Space
India is not diplomatically isolated.
That would be factually incorrect.
India remains one of the most important countries in the world.
It has powerful relationships with major nations across different regions.
But there is another form of strategic vulnerability.
A country may not be isolated.
Yet it may find fewer countries willing to publicly stand with it during a major geopolitical crisis.
This is why India must carefully protect its diplomatic flexibility.
India cannot afford to simultaneously face:
- strategic competition from China;
- hostility from Pakistan;
- uncertainty in Bangladesh;
- complex neighbourhood dynamics;
- criticism from international rights groups;
- and growing concerns in parts of the Muslim world about its domestic political direction.
No country should voluntarily increase the number of fronts on which it must defend itself.
The Way Forward: A Confidently Inclusive India
The answer is not to abandon Hindu identity.
The answer is to separate Hindu civilisation from anti-Muslim political messaging.
India can be proudly Hindu without being anti-Muslim.
India can celebrate its majority culture while guaranteeing equal dignity to minorities.
India can fight terrorism without treating an entire religious community with suspicion.
India can protect national security without allowing communal polarisation to define its global identity.
The stronger a nation becomes, the less it needs to constantly prove its majority.
India should present itself to the world with confidence:
We are proud of our civilisation. We are proud of our Hindu heritage. But our Republic belongs equally to every Indian.
That message would strengthen India:
In Washington.
In London.
In Riyadh.
In Abu Dhabi.
In Tehran.
In Jakarta.
In Dhaka.
And across Africa and the Global South.
It would reduce the effectiveness of hostile lobbying.
It would strengthen India’s diplomatic credibility.
It would improve its soft power.
And it would unite India internally.
Conclusion: India Must Not Sacrifice Long-Term National Interest for Short-Term Political Gains
India stands at a historic crossroads.
It has the potential to become one of the defining powers of the 21st century.
Its economy is expanding.
Its strategic importance is growing.
Its global influence is increasing.
But greatness requires more than power.
It requires maturity.
The danger of aggressive majoritarian politics is not merely that it can divide society internally.
Its long-term consequences may affect:
- India’s global reputation;
- diplomatic flexibility;
- relations with the Muslim world;
- neighbourhood policy;
- investor confidence;
- and India’s ability to build broad international coalitions.
The recent Mamdani-RSS controversy is only one example of how India’s internal ideological debates are becoming international political issues.
At the same time, the complications in India-Bangladesh relations and the wider instability across South Asia demonstrate that India’s immediate neighbourhood cannot be taken for granted.
India should therefore ask itself a fundamental question:
Can a nation become a global leader while its international image becomes increasingly polarised and its own neighbourhood remains strategically unsettled?
India must not allow short-term electoral politics to damage long-term national interests.
A rising India must be a strong India.
A strong India must be a diplomatically trusted India.
A diplomatically trusted India must be a united India.
And a united India must be a country where every citizen—regardless of religion—can confidently say:
“This country belongs to me.”
Adv Amol Patil
International Relations Expert
