How India's Foreign Policy Is Paying the Price for Domestic Politics

How India’s Foreign Policy is Being Undermined by its Domestic Politics

Congress leader Shama Mahmood dropped a political bombshell this week. Taking to X, she alleged that Mumbai cricketer Sarfraz Khan was excluded from the Indian cricket team because of his name — implying that his faith, not his form, was the reason. Mahmood hinted that head coach Gautam Gambhir, known for his proximity to the ruling BJP, might have played a role. Her remark — that Sarfraz was left out because he is Muslim — triggered a storm on social media.

Amid this uproar, the cricket board made another inexplicable decision: to rename the Pataudi Trophy as the Tendulkar-Anderson Trophy. The move drew sharp criticism from Sharmila Tagore, widow of the legendary Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi, who asked, “Why was it done?” As expected, there were no answers.

Those who dismiss such developments as harmless or coincidental prefer to believe the system is free from religious bias — and that seeing it otherwise somehow harms “national interest.” This wilful innocence could be excusable if communal impulses among decision-makers weren’t being rewarded. But majoritarian politics has now seeped so deeply into public life that India’s secular foundations are visibly weakening. India’s past is being hijacked by its communal present — making its secular future uncertain.

The lack of objectivity is evident far beyond cricket. Appointments to key government posts increasingly reflect political or ideological loyalty rather than merit. Bureaucrats and officers who fail the ideological test are quietly sidelined to “loop line” postings until retirement. This quiet exclusion — akin to Sarfraz Khan being dropped from the playing eleven — is becoming systemic.

The privileged elite, meanwhile, look away. They rationalise these excesses by claiming “it happened in the past too,” offering only anecdotal or flimsy examples. Their silence is, in effect, acquiescence — and it emboldens those working to recast India’s secular republic into a religious state. Every democratic institution — from the media to the judiciary — is feeling the strain of this majoritarian push.

How India’s Foreign Policy Is Being Shaped by Domestic Politics

The judiciary, in particular, seems increasingly hesitant to uphold constitutional values. The continuing incarceration of Umar Khalid, now in jail for five years without trial under the draconian UAPA, is emblematic. Accused of conspiring in the 2020 Delhi riots, Khalid’s trial has yet to begin. Courts have merely passed his case between benches, with no judge showing the courage to demand accountability from the police or the Home Ministry. Civil society protests have failed to stir judicial conscience.

In Uttar Pradesh, state authorities continue to demolish homes of alleged protesters, despite the Supreme Court’s warning against “bulldozer justice.” Chief Justice Gavai’s assurance that the rule of law prevails sounds hollow when state governments openly flout judicial pronouncements.

The most damaging consequence of this ideological shift, however, is visible in India's foreign policy. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) marked a turning point. By offering citizenship to persecuted minorities from Muslim-majority neighbours — while excluding Muslims — the government validated Pakistan’s long-standing claim that “Partition is unfinished business.” This religious selectivity contradicted India’s secular ethos and alienated much of its neighbourhood.

Diplomats privately admit that the RSS’s ideological apparatus has increasingly sidelined the Foreign Office. The fallout was swift: protests erupted across South Asia, including in Bangladesh, Maldives, and even Afghanistan. Indian expatriates in Arab countries faced backlash for anti-Islamic remarks online, and some were deported.

Bangladesh’s internal politics dealt another blow. When Sheikh Hasina was ousted, interim leader and Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus criticised India’s “pro-Hindu policies” and accused New Delhi of sheltering Hasina. This soured bilateral ties, pushing Dhaka closer to Pakistan — a stunning reversal given their history.

Across the region, leaders voice unease over India’s departure from its pluralist, democratic image. A Maldivian politician once described India as “a constitution-based society where accountability tempers power.” That moral authority, he implied, once made India the subcontinent’s role model — an image now fading fast.

Even the once-vaunted principle of strategic autonomy — long seen as the cornerstone of India’s foreign policy and a rebranded version of non-alignment — now appears adrift. As global blocs harden, India finds itself without reliable allies. Within BRICS, it is viewed with suspicion; at the Rio de Janeiro summit, a former head of the New Development Bank called India the “Trojan Horse of the West” for opposing the bloc’s plan to de-dollarize trade. Ironically, as relations with the U.S. also strain, India risks standing isolated — neither fully aligned nor fully autonomous.

The tragedy is stark: a country that once championed secularism, democracy, and non-alignment is now struggling to defend all three. The system’s selective silences — over Sarfraz Khan, over Umar Khalid, over CAA — are not isolated episodes. They are connected symptoms of a deeper malaise.

India’s institutions are being tested not just for their independence, but for their soul.