In conclusion, we should engage with the world, but smartly. Instead, we have seen a closing of the Indian mind and a lack of engagement over the last decade: We have abstained or stayed mum on every important international issue recently (the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the slaughter in Gaza, the bombing of Iran, the raid on Venezuela, etc.); we walked away from regional integration in South Asia (SAARC) and Southeast Asia (RCEP);
This pattern extends across security, diplomacy, and energy policy. Gloger and Mascolo demonstrate how military cooperation formats and confidence-building measures with Russia persisted long after Moscow’s authoritarian consolidation and rearmament were evident. Even more consequential was Germany’s deepening energy dependency. The expansion of Nord Stream and the systematic dismissal of Eastern European concerns revealed a strategic culture that equated economic interdependence with political moderation.
He suggests that with the decline of the West, other non-Western nations will be more important in the future world order, and that it will be marked by cultural and political diversity. His preferred description of the coming world order is that it will be akin to a multiplex, with multiple shows on offer, giving the audience a choice of plots, actors, directors and so on.
India built Afghanistan’s Parliament building. The author recalls Hamid Karzai calling him to a meeting to his Presidential office and telling him that his Cabinet colleagues and he felt that it would be only appropriate for India, the world’s largest democracy, to build Afghanistan’s Parliament House. India built the Zaranj-Dilaram Highway and brought electricity from across the Hindu Kush mountains to Kabul through power transmission lines.
Nehru indeed played a dominant role in the formulation and articulation of foreign policy, although he disclaimed personal ownership of it. In his parliamentary speeches, he attributed the evolution of Indian foreign policy to a slow process preceding Independence. ‘It is a policy,’ he said, ‘inherent in the circumstances of India, inherent in the past thinking of India, inherent in the whole outlook of India, inherent in the conditioning of the Indian mind during our struggle for freedom, and inherent in the circumstances of the world today.’
(The Vedas echoing in his blood,/ the azan illuminating his forehead/ and the cross swaying upon his breast). This veneration for Nehru’s secularism seems ironic, considering the fact that scholars like Mushirul Hasan and Ayesha Jalal have argued that Nehru’s secularism prevented him from addressing the specific insecurities and marginalization of Muslims after Partition.