The Intellectual Masochist's Guide to Indian Foreign Policy

You know what's beautiful about Indian "liberalism"? The sheer consistency of its inconsistency. This species— the Enlightened Indian "Liberal"—has mastered the art of geopolitical contortionism. They twist themselves into pretzels as they navigate foreign policy. They're experts at assuming "principled positions" that somehow always, always end up undermining Indian interests.

The Pakistan Paradox: Peace at Any Price

Here's how their script goes with Pakistan. Every terrorist attack, every infiltration, every proxy war—it's all context, you see. Historical grievances. Partition trauma. The military-industrial complex on both sides manufacturing conflict. The politicians on both sides blamed for all the discord.

The "liberal" sits there, fingers steepled, and tells you: "But have you considered dialogue?"

I used to buy this narrative. Sat through dinner parties where someone would inevitably say, "We need track-two diplomacy" right after news of another Uri or Pulwama. The implication was clear: if you felt anger, if you wanted accountability, if you suggested that maybe—just maybe—a country that exports terrorism should face consequences, well, you were the problem. You were the warmonger. You were playing into the hands of "right-wing nationalists."

The peacenik stance on Pakistan isn't about peace at all. It's about performance. It's the geopolitical equivalent of that friend who forgives their abusive ex because "hurt people hurt people." Except the ex keeps breaking into your house, and your friend keeps lecturing you about anger management.

But worst of all, this isn't naive idealism. These are smart people. They know what Pakistan's deep state does. They know about the terror factories, the jihadi infrastructure, the institutional commitment to bleeding India through a thousand cuts. They know. And yet they choose—consciously—to advocate for restraint and dialogue. Because in their moral universe, being nationalist-adjacent is worse than being dead.

The China Conundrum: Suddenly, Nationalists

Now watch the same "liberal" transform when the subject shifts to China.
Suddenly, the peacenik discovers his spine. Suddenly, territorial integrity isn't a "fascist obsession." Suddenly, we need to "stand firm" and "not yield an inch." The Galwan clash? Outrage. Doklam? Righteous indignation. Chinese encroachment? Unacceptable.

And you're sitting there thinking: wait, weren't you the person who told me nationalism is a mental disease just last week?

The cognitive dissonance is impressive. With Pakistan, it's all nuance and complexity and historical context. With China, it's black and white. With Pakistan, Indian casualties are tragic but we mustn't "escalate." With China, any perceived weakness is betrayal.

It's almost like the American foreign policy playbook, internalized so completely that they mistake it for independent thought. The American establishment needs India as a counterweight to China. It doesn't care about jihadist terrorism unless it threatens American interests directly. So our "liberals"—who've spent their formative years consuming Western media and viewing the world through a Western lens—adopt this framework wholesale.

China is the "real threat." Pakistan is a "manageable problem." What they call analysis is nothing but ventriloquism.

Afghanistan: The Moral Police Beat

Then we get to Afghanistan, where the "liberal" discovers his inner missionary.
Taliban takeover? Humanitarian crisis! Women's rights! Girls' education! We must do something! India must take a stand! Never mind that we have no strategic leverage there, never mind that every intervention has failed spectacularly and that moral grandstanding costs real money and real lives—we must perform our values.

The Afghanistan discourse is where "liberal" foreign policy reveals its true nature. Because for them it's not about India. It's about how India appears to a particular audience—Western human rights organizations, progressive international media, the global "liberal" order. It's theatre. India as the moral actor on the world stage, earning head-pats from the gora sahibs.

But ask them what concrete Indian interests are served by this moral posturing, and watch the hand-waving begin. "Soft power." "Values-based diplomacy." "Regional stability."

Translation: feels over reals.

Israel: The Final Frontier of Hypocrisy

And then there's Israel. The same "liberal" who demands "restraint" with Pakistan, who wants "dialogue" with a country that runs terror camps, becomes a fire-breathing moralist when it comes to Israel. Suddenly, military action is "disproportionate." Suddenly, self-defense is "aggression." All complexity disappears and it becomes all about the oppressor-oppressed binaries.

They ignore that Israel faces a threat, the terrorism, the rockets, the explicit calls for its destruction. Not to mention that both India and Israel face similar challenges—both democracies dealing with religiously-motivated terrorism, both constantly told to show "restraint" while their citizens die.

Besides this belligerence toward Israel isn't about Palestinians at all. It's about signaling. It's about maintaining membership in the global progressive club, where hating Israel is the entry fee. It's about being on the "right side of history" as determined by Western academic institutions and media outlets.

Ideology as Self-Harm

The Indian liberal's foreign policy isn't inconsistent at all. The through-line is crystal clear: whatever position makes India weaker, whatever stance reduces Indian agency, whatever framework imports Western priorities over Indian interests—that's the position they'll take.

Peacenik on Pakistan? That ensures we never develop a coherent deterrence strategy. Hawkish on China? That locks us into an American-led containment framework where we're the junior partner. Moral police on Afghanistan? That drains resources and attention from actual strategic priorities. Belligerent on Israel? That alienates a crucial strategic partner and technology provider.
Every. Single. Position. Weakens India.

And when you point this out, they'll call you a nationalist. A jingoist. A fascist. Because the ultimate trick of the liberal foreign policy framework is to define patriotism as pathology where caring about Indian interests has been rebranded as dangerous nationalism.

I used to think they were mistaken. That they meant well but got the analysis wrong. I don't think that anymore. I know now that this is a choice. A choice to value international approval over national interest. A choice to perform ideology rather than protect citizens. To appear "sophisticated".

They'll read this and think I've become exactly what they warned against. They won't engage with the substance. They'll diagnose it as "right-wing" radicalization, as if caring about Pakistan-sponsored terrorism or Chinese territorial aggression requires ideological contamination. When wanting your government to prioritize your security over international optics becomes evidence of extremism—the ideology isn't serving the nation. The nation is serving the ideology.

The "liberal foreign policy" consensus is just an elaborate intellectual structure designed to make sure India remains perpetually reactive, apologetic and deferential to frameworks created by others. It's colonialism internalized so completely that it masquerades as intellectual enlightenment.

They've convinced themselves they're the sophisticated ones. The adults in the room. The voices of reason. While Indian soldiers die at the border, while terrorism bleeds our cities and while strategic opportunities slip away, they sit in air-conditioned rooms and lecture everyone else about their moral failures.

Next time you hear the foreign policy wisdom of an Indian "liberal", listen for the pattern. Pakistan: peace. China: confrontation. Afghanistan: moralizing. Israel: condemnation. And ask yourself: whose interests does this serve? Because I guarantee you—it isn't ours.