Introduction
India has spent the last two decades cultivating an image of unstoppable ascent: the “world’s largest democracy,” a booming economy on track to surpass China, a youthful demographic dividend, and a geostrategic fulcrum between East and West. Prime Ministers and foreign ministers consistently describe India as a “Vishwaguru” — a teacher and leader to the world — while global headlines regularly frame India as the next great power of the 21st century.
Yet beneath this carefully managed narrative lies a growing credibility crisis. Around the world, policymakers, investors, and analysts are beginning to ask: Can India really deliver on the promises it makes?
- Democratically, India’s institutions are showing stress cracks — raising doubts about its claim to be a liberal democratic counterweight to authoritarian China.
- Economically, while growth figures look impressive, unemployment, inequality, and weak industrial depth reveal structural vulnerabilities.
- Militarily, India boasts one of the largest armies in the world, but its dependence on imports and uneven readiness undermine its reliability as a security partner.
- Diplomatically, New Delhi tries to play multiple roles at once — a U.S. ally, a Russian oil buyer, a leader of the Global South, and China’s rival — but this multi-vector strategy often looks less like strength and more like contradiction.
The result is a widening trust deficit. Partners see India as too big to ignore, but not always dependable; too ambitious in rhetoric, but often under-delivering in practice. India is not losing power — but it is losing credibility, and in geopolitics, credibility is the currency that turns potential into real influence.
This article explores why India’s credibility is slipping on the world stage — and what that means for its future as a supposed global leader.
1. Democratic Backsliding: Image vs. Reality
For decades, India’s most valuable source of global influence was not its economy or military, but its democratic identity. As the “world’s largest democracy,” India projected a soft-power legitimacy that allowed it to sit comfortably alongside Western liberal states, while also appealing to the Global South as a post-colonial success story. This narrative gave New Delhi leverage well beyond its material capabilities.
That credibility, however, is eroding at an alarming pace.
- Institutional erosion: The independence of India’s judiciary, election commission, and civil services has come under increasing pressure. Critics argue that executive dominance has hollowed out the checks and balances that once defined India’s system.
- Media control and shrinking civic space: Major media outlets face political pressure, journalists encounter harassment, and civil society organizations are restricted by laws governing foreign funding. The marketplace of ideas that once showcased India’s vibrancy is increasingly constrained.
- Minority rights concerns: Rising reports of violence, discrimination, and exclusionary rhetoric targeting Muslims and Christians have drawn attention not just from NGOs but from foreign governments, including key partners in the West and the Middle East.
International watchdogs such as Freedom House and V-Dem no longer classify India as a “liberal democracy,” but rather as an “electoral autocracy” — a label that places it closer to illiberal regimes than to the democratic peers it aspires to join.
Behind closed doors, Western leaders quietly acknowledge a dilemma: can India still be promoted as part of the “democratic camp” in global politics, particularly against China and Russia, when its domestic trajectory undermines that very narrative?
This credibility erosion is not a mere image problem. India’s democratic story functioned as its moral shield in the global order — the justification for why the West should invest strategically in New Delhi and why smaller nations should look up to it as an alternative model. As that shield cracks, India risks losing not just prestige but also the very narrative that differentiated it from authoritarian rivals.
2. Economic Hype vs. Structural Weakness
India frequently presents itself as the “fastest growing major economy”, a narrative reinforced by impressive quarterly GDP figures and optimistic demographic projections. The story goes that with a young population, expanding middle class, and global investors flocking to diversify away from China, India is poised to be the engine of global growth.
Yet beneath the surface of these headline statistics lie structural vulnerabilities that cast doubt on the durability of India’s economic rise.
- Unemployment Crisis: Despite strong growth numbers, job creation remains sluggish. Millions of young Indians enter the labor force each year, but formal sector employment opportunities lag far behind. This creates a paradox of growth without jobs — a demographic dividend at risk of turning into a demographic liability.
- Weak Manufacturing Base: Unlike China, which built its rise on industrial capacity, India remains overly dependent on services and imports. Efforts like Make in India have been more slogan than substance, with the country still lacking the supply chain depth, infrastructure reliability, and scale of production to compete in global manufacturing.
- Regulatory Uncertainty and Policy Flip-Flops: Foreign investors often complain about abrupt changes in taxation, protectionist tendencies, and inconsistent rules across states. The promise of India as an investment destination is frequently undermined by bureaucratic hurdles and unpredictable policymaking.
- Agrarian Distress and Inequality: Nearly half of India’s population still depends on agriculture, yet farmers face mounting debt, poor infrastructure, and vulnerability to climate shocks. At the same time, income and wealth inequality are widening, fueling social tensions and weakening domestic consumption potential.
This growing gap between rhetoric and reality is beginning to undermine credibility abroad. Partners who once embraced India as the “next China” are becoming cautious, realizing that India lacks the same disciplined state capacity and industrial backbone that enabled Beijing’s rise.
The danger for New Delhi is that its narrative of inevitability — India as the destined next superpower — becomes a liability rather than an asset. If India consistently overpromises and underdelivers, global confidence may erode, making the credibility gap not just a perception issue but a structural constraint on its future rise.
3. Geopolitical Overreach Without Capacity
India aspires to be seen as more than a regional power. It wants to emerge as the voice of the Global South, a counterweight to China, a strategic partner to the United States, and at the same time a long-standing friend of Russia and Iran. In theory, this multipolar balancing act would give India extraordinary flexibility. In practice, it often exposes the gap between ambition and capacity.
- Russia–Ukraine War: A Balancing Tightrope
India has positioned itself as a neutral party, calling for peace while continuing to buy large volumes of discounted Russian oil. Economically, this has benefited India’s energy security. Diplomatically, however, it creates contradictions: New Delhi speaks the language of democracy and sovereignty in Western forums but funds Moscow’s war machine through oil purchases. To Washington and Brussels, this looks less like “strategic autonomy” and more like opportunism. - Neighborhood Diplomacy: The “Big Brother” Problem
For decades, India has treated South Asia as its sphere of influence. Yet its approach has often been perceived by neighbors as heavy-handed.- In Nepal, border disputes and political interference generate anti-India sentiment.
- In Sri Lanka, India’s efforts to counter Chinese influence are sometimes resented as transactional.
- In the Maldives, smaller states resist India’s military footprint, framing it as neo-imperial.
Instead of consolidating leadership, this posture often alienates the very countries India needs to anchor its credibility in the region.
- The China Dilemma: Aspiration vs. Capacity
India openly positions itself as the main Asian counterweight to China, especially in forums like the Quad (with the U.S., Japan, and Australia). But while the ambition is clear, the material imbalance is stark:- China’s economy is nearly five times larger.
- Beijing’s military-industrial base is self-sustaining, while India remains one of the world’s largest arms importers.
- Border clashes in Ladakh exposed India’s vulnerabilities and reinforced the perception that without U.S. backing, India cannot truly balance China on its own.
This triple bind — balancing Russia and the West, managing a difficult neighborhood, and countering China — reflects India’s geopolitical overreach. The danger is not in ambition itself but in the credibility gap: India seeks the status of a great power but lacks the consistent capacity to deliver on multiple fronts simultaneously.
As a result, partners increasingly hedge their bets: they court India for its market and symbolic weight, but they do not fully rely on it as a dependable security or economic anchor. In geopolitics, this gap between what a state wants to be and what others believe it can be is where credibility erodes most quickly.
4. Military Power Without Industrial Depth
India frequently points to its status as having the world’s third-largest military and one of the largest defense budgets. On paper, these numbers are impressive: a 1.4-million-strong standing army, nuclear capabilities, blue-water naval ambitions, and growing space and cyber programs. But behind this façade lies a structural weakness that undermines India’s military credibility: the lack of a deep, self-sustaining defense industrial base.
- Dependence on Imports
India remains the world’s largest arms importer. Roughly 60–70% of its critical platforms and systems — from fighter jets to submarines — come from abroad. This dependence creates strategic vulnerabilities:- With Russia as its primary supplier, India is exposed to Moscow’s weakening defense capacity post-Ukraine. Spare parts, upgrades, and supply chains are now less reliable.
- Efforts to diversify with U.S., French, and Israeli systems create interoperability challenges and logistical complexity.
- In wartime, reliance on external suppliers would slow mobilization and limit strategic autonomy.
- The ‘Make in India’ Paradox
Launched with much fanfare, the Make in India initiative promised to transform the country into a defense manufacturing hub. A decade later, progress remains modest:- Indigenous fighter jets like the Tejas are decades late and limited in capability.
- India’s domestic shipyards struggle with cost overruns and delays.
- Private-sector participation remains constrained by bureaucratic red tape and unclear procurement policies.
Instead of building depth, India often ends up assembling foreign platforms under license — a halfway solution that sustains dependency.
- Operational Readiness vs. Numbers
India has manpower, but its forces are stretched across multiple fronts:- China on the northern border.
- Pakistan on the western border.
- Internal counterinsurgency operations in Kashmir and the northeast.
This multi-front burden exposes equipment shortages, logistical challenges, and an overstretched budget. Border skirmishes with China in Ladakh revealed tactical gaps in surveillance, infrastructure, and winter warfare equipment — surprising for a state that claims regional great-power status.
- Nuclear Deterrence Without Integration
India’s nuclear arsenal gives it prestige as one of the few declared nuclear powers. Yet unlike the U.S., Russia, or even China, its nuclear doctrine and delivery systems remain siloed from conventional war planning. The lack of seamless integration reduces the credibility of its deterrence in scenarios where conventional and nuclear thresholds blur.
The Credibility Gap
India projects military strength rhetorically, but credibility in military power comes from sustainable self-reliance, technological innovation, and proven operational performance. Today, India’s defense posture rests heavily on imports, outdated infrastructure, and an overstretched force structure.
In short, India has the trappings of a great power military but not yet the foundations of one. Until it resolves this gap, partners will see India as a valuable security partner but not a dependable military pillar in Asia.
5. Soft Power Decline
For decades, India’s soft power was one of its greatest global assets. Bollywood films, yoga, literature, cuisine, and its vast, highly skilled diaspora made India an attractive and familiar cultural presence worldwide. Unlike China, which had to invest billions in state-led propaganda to craft influence, India’s soft power grew organically, carried by its democratic image and vibrant civil society.
But in recent years, that reservoir of goodwill has started to erode, raising questions about whether India’s soft power still works as effectively in the global arena.
- The Democracy + Diversity Brand Weakens
India’s strongest cultural narrative abroad was that it was a pluralistic democracy: diverse in faiths, languages, and traditions, yet unified under democratic institutions. This stood in sharp contrast to authoritarian China. Today, reports of rising religious intolerance, mob violence against minorities, and the dominance of majoritarian politics undermine that pluralist image. For Muslim-majority countries, India’s treatment of its 200 million Muslims is particularly troubling, complicating New Delhi’s ability to build credibility in the wider Islamic world. - Information Control vs. Tech Image
India has marketed itself as the world’s IT hub and a champion of digital innovation. Yet frequent internet shutdowns, media censorship, and growing control of online spaces by the state create a jarring contradiction. When the “IT democracy” of the world restricts its own digital freedoms, credibility in the tech sector takes a reputational hit. - The Diaspora Divide
India’s 30+ million-strong diaspora has historically been a powerful source of influence — lobbying in Washington, investing in the Gulf, and connecting India to global markets. But the diaspora is increasingly fractured:- Sections aligned with the ruling party lobby aggressively for India’s image, but this often polarizes rather than unifies.
- Others, particularly student and activist groups in the West, raise concerns about India’s democratic backsliding.
This polarization projects India’s domestic political divisions onto the global stage, reducing the coherence of its diaspora as a soft power asset.
- Bollywood & Cultural Exports Losing Edge
Bollywood once served as India’s cultural ambassador, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. But global streaming platforms, South Korean K-pop, and Turkish dramas have eaten into its influence. Combined with censorship pressures at home, Bollywood is struggling to maintain its old appeal.
The Credibility Gap
Soft power depends on authentic attraction, not just cultural exports. India’s earlier attraction came from the idea of a plural, democratic, confident society. As that image erodes, its cultural symbols — yoga, Bollywood, cuisine — risk becoming decoupled from credibility. Without the democratic and pluralist narrative to tie them together, these exports may remain popular but lose the power to translate into diplomatic capital.
India still has immense reservoirs of cultural influence, but its soft power is increasingly overshadowed by hard questions about its political trajectory. In the global marketplace of narratives, perception is power — and here, India’s credibility is slipping.
6. The China Benchmark
For over two decades, India’s rise has been framed in direct comparison to China. Both are vast Asian giants with ancient civilizations, billion-plus populations, and global ambitions. In Western policy circles, “India vs. China” has become shorthand for the 21st century’s defining balance of power in Asia. But this comparison has increasingly exposed the gap between India’s aspirations and its actual performance.
- Economic Delivery vs. Economic Hype
China, despite being authoritarian, has delivered: world-class infrastructure, an industrial base that dominates global supply chains, and consistent poverty reduction on an unprecedented scale. India, by contrast, relies on high GDP growth headlines but struggles with persistent unemployment, weak infrastructure, and agrarian crises. To investors, China offers predictability and execution; India often offers potential wrapped in red tape. - Industrial Base and Military Power
China has built a self-sustaining defense-industrial complex, capable of producing everything from stealth fighters to aircraft carriers to hypersonic missiles. It exports advanced drones to the Middle East and Africa, competing with Western suppliers. India, meanwhile, remains heavily reliant on imports, unable to turn its “Make in India” slogan into tangible capacity. Militarily, Beijing has tested its strength in the South China Sea and along the Himalayas, while New Delhi’s credibility took a hit after the 2020 Ladakh clashes revealed weaknesses in logistics and preparedness. - Diplomatic Influence
China, through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has entrenched itself in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, building infrastructure and securing long-term political leverage. India talks of leading the Global South, but its limited financial tools and inconsistent regional diplomacy have left it far behind in global reach. While China courts partners with projects and loans, India often leans on rhetoric and historical ties — a mismatch in scale and effect. - Governance and Narrative Power
China makes no pretense of being a democracy. Its model is authoritarian but delivers material results. India brands itself as a democracy but is increasingly seen as drifting toward illiberalism. This creates a credibility paradox: the world is more forgiving of China’s authoritarianism because it does not contradict its narrative, while India faces sharper criticism because it is judged against the democratic ideals it claims to embody.
The Credibility Gap
India does not need to “become China” — but the constant benchmark against Beijing highlights the weaknesses in India’s trajectory. As one Western analyst put it, “China delivers but intimidates; India inspires but disappoints.” Inspiration without delivery undermines credibility, and in an era of multipolar competition, credibility is what transforms ambition into real influence.
Conclusion: The Trust Deficit
India is not a weak state. Its population scale, nuclear arsenal, space program, and role in global technology chains ensure that it will remain a major power. But power without credibility is limited. Credibility is the difference between being courted and being trusted, between being a partner of convenience and a partner of necessity. Today, India faces a widening trust deficit.
- To the West, India looks like an ambitious partner who wants investment, defense technology, and strategic recognition — but avoids alignment on values and delivers inconsistently on reforms.
- To the Muslim world, India appears increasingly exclusionary, limiting its ability to win goodwill in a region that remains critical for its energy and diaspora.
- To neighbors, India seems domineering, often undermining its own leadership aspirations in South Asia.
- To investors, India looks like a high-potential but high-risk bet, a place of constant promise but frequent policy reversals.
Future Scenarios by 2030
Best Case: A Credibility Rebuild
If India strengthens its democratic institutions, commits to inclusive growth, and reforms its defense-industrial base, it could turn its youth bulge into an economic engine, attract sustained foreign investment, and regain moral authority as a pluralistic democracy. This would restore its claim to leadership of the Global South and enhance its ability to balance China credibly.
Worst Case: A Rhetorical Power
If current trends deepen — democratic backsliding, economic underperformance, strategic overreach — India risks becoming a power of rhetoric but not delivery. It would still be courted for markets and symbolism but increasingly bypassed in serious strategic calculations. In such a scenario, India would not collapse, but its credibility deficit would make it a junior player in shaping the 21st-century order.
Most Likely Path: A Half-Credible Middle Power
The most realistic outcome is that India will remain a swing state — too large to ignore, but too inconsistent to lead. It will oscillate between courting the West, hedging with Russia, and competing with China, without fully consolidating any of these roles. Its credibility will remain situational: strong when convenient, weak when tested.
Strategic Outlook
India still holds the cards to become a credible global leader, but that requires narrowing the gap between ambition and delivery. Unless New Delhi confronts its internal weaknesses — democratic erosion, structural economic flaws, military dependence, and soft power decline — it risks being remembered not as the “next China,” but as a state that aspired to greatness but lost credibility in the very decades when it mattered most.
