top of page

By:

Anil D. Salve

21 March 2026 at 2:41:09 pm

From 'Vishwaguru' to Middle Power

The ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran are more than a routine geopolitical crisis; they offer a clear view of how power operates in the international system. For India, this moment provides a sobering perspective. While the country increasingly speaks of its role as a “Vishwaguru” (global guide), the reality is more measured-India continues to function as a middle power, adapting to global shifts rather than directing them. A key reason lies in India’s deep...

From 'Vishwaguru' to Middle Power

The ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran are more than a routine geopolitical crisis; they offer a clear view of how power operates in the international system. For India, this moment provides a sobering perspective. While the country increasingly speaks of its role as a “Vishwaguru” (global guide), the reality is more measured-India continues to function as a middle power, adapting to global shifts rather than directing them. A key reason lies in India’s deep dependence on West Asia. A significant share of its energy imports originates from this region, much of it passing through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. Any instability there quickly translates into higher fuel costs, supply uncertainties and broader economic pressures at home. In such situations, India does not influence the course of events; instead, it responds to their consequences. This imbalance-being affected without being able to shape outcomes-is a defining characteristic of a middle power. India’s diplomatic response to the crisis reflects this reality. Rather than taking a firm position, it has maintained a careful balance, mindful of its relationships with multiple stakeholders. Its strategic partnership with the United States, defence cooperation with Israel, and longstanding energy and connectivity interests with Iran make outright alignment difficult. Often described as “strategic autonomy,” this approach provides flexibility, but it also highlights a limitation: India must prioritise caution because it lacks the leverage to determine how events unfold. In effect, it manages risks more than it defines directions. The economic dimension further reinforces this position. Conflicts of this nature tend to disrupt oil markets, unsettle trade routes and trigger volatility in financial systems-all of which directly impact India. Despite being one of the world’s largest economies, it does not yet possess the capacity to fully shield itself from such external shocks or to independently secure its interests during crises. Unlike major powers, it cannot decisively influence the trajectory of conflicts or stabilise regions critical to its national interests. Moral Leadership At the same time, India has sought to project moral leadership on the global stage, emphasising dialogue, peace and cooperation. While this enhances its international image, moments of conflict test not only principles but also the ability to act decisively. In the present situation, the principal actors are shaping events according to their strategic priorities, while India’s role remains largely supportive-focused on safeguarding its citizens and limiting economic fallout. Even in a region where it has deep historical and economic ties, its influence remains constrained. Recognising India as a middle power should not be viewed negatively. Such nations often play constructive roles by maintaining balance, engaging with diverse partners and avoiding overreach. India’s approach fits this pattern, enabling it to navigate a complex global environment with a degree of flexibility. However, there remains a clear distinction between aspiration and capability. The idea of being a “Vishwaguru” implies not only moral authority but also the material strength and strategic reach to shape global developments-an area where India is still evolving. Moving beyond this stage will require sustained effort. Reducing dependence on external energy sources, strengthening economic resilience, expanding defence and strategic capabilities, and taking greater initiative in regional affairs are essential steps. Progress in these areas would gradually enhance India’s ability to influence outcomes rather than merely adapt to them. For now, the ongoing crisis serves as a reminder that global stature is built as much on tangible capacity as on vision. India’s trajectory is undoubtedly forward-moving, but it remains a work in progress. In a rapidly changing world, the country stands as a pragmatic middle power-ambitious in outlook, yet grounded in the realities it must navigate. (The writer is the Principal of Podar International School, Ausa, Latur. Views personal.)

Clever seat selection helped BJP to secure historic win

The party won 65 seats against Congress, 37 against NCP (SP) and 29 against Shiv Sena (UBT)

Clever seat selection

Mumbai: The BJP’s strategic seat sharing with the allies has proved beneficial for the party. An analysis of the Assembly election results show that the BJP has scored over its main rival, the Congress, in a big way because of the direct fights.


The analysis shows that BJP defeated all three constituents of the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) – Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT) and NCP (SP) – in the direct fights. This is attributed as one of the reasons for the BJP’s historic poll success.


The BJP contested 147 out of 288 seats. In 76 constituencies, it faced Congress. BJP secured victory in 65 seats and lost only 11 seats, making it a whopping 86 per cent of the total direct fights. This was followed by an even stronger performance against NCP (SP). Of the total 39 fights with Sharad Pawar’s party, BJP captured 37 seats making it 95 per cent of the total fights with NCP (SP). BJP and Shiv Sena (UBT) were head-to-head in 32 constituencies, of which BJP emerged victorious in 29 seats, making this 91 per cent of the total direct contests.


According to a BJP strategist the party had bargained hard with its allies, Shiv Sena and NCP to get the desired constituencies in the seat sharing formula. “We had studied to potential candidates of the MVA. That helped us in choosing the seats where we can register comfortable victories,” the strategist said.


BJP spokesperson Niranjan Shetty attributed the success to all the party workers who worked hard to boost development, infrastructure in the state. He gave credit to Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for his contribution to the party’s success.


Shetty pointed out that in 2019, Uddhav Thackeray had stalled all the “novel” and “legendary” projects that Fadnavis had started when he had taken over as CM, making it very easy for the people of Maharashtra to strike a comparison between both the leaders and the potential they had for serving the people. “Devendra Fadnavis gave up his post very easily for the larger good. There are many such examples like Venkaiah Naidu who was BJP National President and later worked as the Vice President of India because that was the need of the hour. We seldom care about our posts,” Shetty told The Perfect Voice.


Congress spokesperson Atul Londhe refused to call the election results as the people’s mandate. “This is not at all a Janata mandate. Despite Maharashtra struggling with so many basic social issues, how can BJP acquire such a huge mandate is the question. If a student copies and fails with just passing marks, it can go unnoticed, but if a student copies and bags the number one position, something is fishy. Why is the BJP scared of ballot papers?” he said.

Comments

bottom of page