Power, Faith, Cost of Compromise: India at a Strategic Crossroads

Poonam Sharma
When Symbolism Becomes Strategy

In global politics, symbolism is never neutral. When a Prime Minister visits a church or lights a candle, the act is projected far beyond its immediate intent. It is read, interpreted, amplified, and often weaponized—both domestically and internationally. In India’s deeply plural society, gestures meant to signal inclusivity sometimes produce the opposite effect: a perception that the state bends more easily in one direction than another.

This imbalance becomes sharper when legitimate anxieties of indigenous or majority communities are dismissed as mischief, extremism, or “miscreant behavior,” while organized ideological expansion elsewhere is shielded by moral vocabulary. Governance cannot survive on symbolism alone; it must rest on constitutional balance and civilizational confidence.

Compromise as Policy, Not Tactic

Compromise is an essential tool of diplomacy. But when compromise hardens into policy, it stops being pragmatic and begins to erode authority. The situation in Manipur illustrates this danger. The Meitei Hindu community—historically rooted, culturally indigenous—found itself pushed toward landlessness amid administrative paralysis and political caution. The resignation of a Hindu Chief Minister under such circumstances sent a troubling signal: identity-based pressures can override constitutional responsibility.

This is not merely a state-level issue. It raises a national question—how much accommodation can a constitutional democracy afford before it begins to hollow out its own social contract?

The North East: History Ignored at a Cost

The North East is often discussed emotionally but rarely examined historically. The region’s transformation into a predominantly Christian landscape did not occur in a vacuum. During colonial rule, missionary activity was embedded within administrative expansion. Over decades, social work evolved into ideological consolidation, reshaping languages, land ownership patterns, and cultural memory.

Figures like Rani Gaidinliu—who resisted religious and cultural erasure—are today marginalized in mainstream narratives. To recall her struggle is not anti-Christian; it is pro-history. Yet, even raising this context is frequently branded as intolerance, revealing a troubling intellectual closure in public discourse.

Selective Global Silence

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the cost of India’s restraint lies beyond its borders. The persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh has been documented repeatedly—through independent reports, eyewitness accounts, and demographic data. And yet, not a single major Christian or Western nation has mounted a sustained diplomatic condemnation.

This silence is not moral blindness. It is strategic calculation. International politics does not respond to sentiment; it responds to leverage. Nations intervene where costs are low and benefits are high. A civilization perceived as hesitant to assert its own red lines rarely attracts global advocacy.

Who Will Speak Tomorrow?

This leads to the most uncomfortable question: if large-scale violence against Hindus were to erupt within India tomorrow, who would speak? Which country would risk diplomatic capital? Silence, history shows, is rarely accidental. It is chosen.

The belief that moral restraint automatically earns global support has repeatedly proven false. Moral authority without power is ignored; power without moral clarity becomes dangerous. The balance lies in strength with restraint—not weakness disguised as virtue.

Strength Is Not Oppression

India’s strategic doctrine, articulated over years by its national security establishment, emphasizes proactive defense and internal clarity. Strength does not mean suppressing minorities. It means enforcing law uniformly, protecting indigenous communities, and refusing to outsource national narratives to external moral arbiters.

A civilization-state cannot afford performative neutrality. When India speaks with confidence, the world listens. When it hesitates, the world lectures.

The Hard Truth

Global respect is not granted for good intentions. It is earned through resolve. Nations that forget this truth do not become moral leaders—they become cautionary tales.