India’s foreign policy confidence, seen in moves like the EU trade agreement, risks outpacing regulatory readiness, institutional capacity, and social consensus at home.
Disruptions in Parliament and weakened deliberation undermine accountability, public trust, and the sustainability of economic reforms.
In today’s world, institutional health, judicial independence, regulatory clarity, and democratic oversight, is as critical to national strength as markets or military might.
In global headlines, India seems to be entering a confident phase. Trade talks are coming to an end, strategic partnerships are growing stronger, and the country is increasingly seen as a stabilising influence in an uncertain world. From Washington to Brussels, New Delhi is no longer viewed as just a careful observer but as an important player. However, beneath this progress lies a more important question: can India’s political and institutional systems keep up with the speed of its rise?
Recent trends suggest that India’s next decade will be shaped more by domestic unity than by foreign policy ambition. India’s strategic position shifted significantly with the signing of a free trade agreement with the European Union. After years of talks, India has chosen to engage more deeply with a rules-based economic bloc, at a time when globalisation is under strain. This decision signals confidence: India is not only navigating uncertain geopolitics, but also presenting itself as a reliable economic partner amid rising protectionism and disrupted supply chains.
But just because you have a business deal doesn't mean you'll automatically be successful strategically. Their power depends on how well they do things at home. Regulatory alignment, labor rights, environmental compliance, and the ability of small and medium-sized businesses to compete will all play a role in whether the pact helps or hurts India's economy. If you align with others but aren't ready on the inside, your strategy success could turn into governance stress.
This pattern of strong projection abroad and unresolved tensions at home is becoming more visible in India’s domestic politics. The Budget Session of Parliament was once a forum for economic debate and compromise, but it has become increasingly disruptive and performative. This is not simply a matter of parliamentary decorum. When meaningful debate breaks down, the social foundation of economic policy weakens. Growth is no longer experienced collectively; it is reduced to a statistic.
India’s leaders often point to headline indicators such as GDP growth, infrastructure expansion and digital reach as evidence of progress. These measures matter, but public concerns remain over job quality, rural distress, environmental damage and unequal access to welfare. Without effective parliamentary oversight, these issues go largely unaddressed, widening the gap between policy intent and public trust. The contrast is striking. Abroad, India speaks in terms of strategic clarity and long-term planning. At home, institutions designed to check, question and refine power are under strain. The executive moves quickly, while legislative and deliberative processes fall behind. Democracies do not fail because leaders act decisively; they fail when decisiveness replaces accountability.
This contrast was reflected in the imagery of Republic Day. The focus on domestic defence capability, technological progress and cultural diversity projected confidence and national pride. However, symbolism cannot replace institutional performance. Defence modernisation without sustained fiscal discipline, or cultural representation without meaningful political participation, weakens credibility over time. National strength that is not backed by trusted institutions is fragile.
The gap is startling.
When you put all of these things together, they point to a more serious structural problem: asymmetry. India's foreign power is growing faster than its ability to strengthen democracy at home. This is a failure of sequencing, not of ambition. It is harder to keep power over time when it is gained without institutional depth. Politically unstable growth happens when it happens without thinking about it.
The problem is not overreach, but imbalance. When a country’s global standing improves while its domestic systems weaken, governments begin to rely more on performance than on public consent. This may deliver results in the short term, but it risks undermining stability over time. India’s long-term development will depend less on its diplomatic visibility and more on whether Parliament, regulatory bodies and the courts continue to act as effective intermediaries between the state and its citizens.
This challenge is not unique to India. Democracies across the world are grappling with executive centralisation, reduced debate and growing intolerance of dissent. However, India’s scale makes both its successes and failures more visible. Institutional shortcuts taken today shape political behaviour tomorrow, and procedural weaknesses are often harder to repair than economic ones over time.
Because of this, the health of Parliament is just as important as any economic deal or strategic alliance. Governance is not hindered by scrutiny; rather, it is the source of governance's legitimacy. Budget debates, committee reviews, and negotiations in the legislature are not wasteful; they are what keep things stable. Economic reform that doesn't follow democratic processes may work, but they don't last long.
The same argument is increasingly applicable to foreign affairs. Trade partners and strategic allies are now assessing governance quality alongside market size and military might. Regulatory uniformity, judicial independence, and institutional transparency are no longer just domestic priorities; they are strategic advantages. Democratic resilience has become an element of national strength.
India is at a familiar but critical moment, caught between acceleration and consolidation. The choice is not between strength and democracy, but between short-term momentum and long-term legitimacy. If the next decade is to be remembered as a period of national maturity rather than reckless assertion, internal cohesion must match external ambition.
India has confidence, capability and opportunity. What remains uncertain is whether its institutions will be given the time and space they need to carry out their essential, if unglamorous, work. In the end, the sustainability of India’s rise will depend more on consistency than on speed.
Anusreeta Dutta is a columnist and climate researcher with experience in political analysis, ESG research, and energy policy.
