Follow us on social

google cta
Modi’s surprise setback will mean little to India’s foreign policy

Modi’s surprise setback will mean little to India’s foreign policy

Ties with the US may however enter a period of some discord, especially if Biden is re-elected

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

India’s voters delivered a surprise setback to Prime Minister Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the national elections, but will it change India’s foreign policy and U.S.-India relations? Unlikely.

Results show that the BJP lost a net of 63 seats in the 543 seat Lok Sabha (People’s Assembly), the lower and more powerful house in the Indian parliament, reducing the party’s tally from the previous election from 303 to 240. This is 32 seats short of a majority in the house and forces the BJP to rely on its coalition partners to make up the numbers.

Modi won his two previous national elections with a clear majority in parliament and did not need his coalition partners to pass sweeping legislation for his goal of economic and ideological transformation of India toward a more conservative and business-oriented polity.

After this election, the BJP will be significantly constrained in passing more such legislation and will have to negotiate with its more moderate allies to get things done.

However, though Modi’s decade-long primacy in Indian politics was upended this week, the Prime Minister remains the most popular leader in India, and in pole position in domestic politics. The impact, however, on foreign policy, will be minimal. For one, the BJP’s key coalition partners are led by wheeling-dealing regional bosses with little interest in foreign policy. Modi, his charismatic foreign minister S. Jaishankar, and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval will continue to drive India’s foreign policy with no real constraints from domestic allies.

Second, India’s foreign policy is largely determined by its structural position in the region and the world, and the sense of deep suspicion toward China is shared across its domestic political spectrum. India would ideally like to see a diminished global role for China and increased influence for itself among the leaders of the Global South. Its successful hosting of the G20 summit in 2023 was an attempt to achieve both objectives.

As a major Global South middle power living in a tough neighborhood, India has managed to pursue its interests reasonably skillfully over the past couple of decades, coupling its steady economic rise with achieving increased strategic space for maneuverability.

A lot of this space has been gained through a major rapprochement with the United States, which began in the late Clinton years and was sealed after the landmark 2005 nuclear deal under George W. Bush. The dominant structural factor for this major shift was the common American and Indian interest in countering China. India’s nuclear arsenal was essentially legitimized and New Delhi was partially included in key global conversations in return for cooperation on countering China and deeper economic relations.

Since the nuclear deal, the bargain has essentially held, and U.S.-India ties have only deepened. Arms sales, military-to-military interoperability, joint exercises, and a broadly common approach to the Indo-Pacific has been their hallmark. Even major differences on ties with Russia have been managed adroitly at the highest levels.

And India’s economy, while not growing in anything like the spectacular fashion of its anomalous neighbor and rival China, nevertheless represents a considerable market and a major alternative as “de-risking” from China gets underway. Unlike the case of most Asian states, India’s biggest economic partner is the United States, not China. Finally, closer India-Israel ties achieved under Modi only help New Delhi in the U.S. Congress and White House.

Nevertheless, there may be signs that the bilateral relationship has peaked. For one, Washington has realized that the convergence with India on China has its limits. While cooperation in the maritime domain and the Indian Ocean continues to deepen, India is constrained on going much beyond its immediate backyard due to its domestic limitations and the major militarization of the Sino-Indian land border since Chinese intrusions in 2020.

Second, the rise of Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr.in the Philippines has furnished a more attractive partner for the United States in its China-countering strategy.

Third, the Quad has generally underperformed and is unlikely to be a linchpin of US strategy going forward. Fourth, the Russia factor, though managed well so far by both capitals, remains a sore spot for the Biden Administration. And fifth, the conservative, nationalist turn in Indian policies has sometimes run up against U.S. interests more directly.

The bonhomie between Washington and New Delhi is solidly bipartisan but tends to be a bit stronger with a Republican in the White House. All this implies that U.S.-India relations may enter a period of some discord, especially if Biden is re-elected as president.


Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India-April 6 2024: Prime Minister Narendra Modi greeted supporters from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) during a roadshow ahead of the Indian General Elections in Ghaziabad(Shutterstock/PradeepGaurs)

google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.