The history Indian students are compelled to memorise is, in large measure, history written by others, first by imperial powers and later under colonial rule. Parallel to this imposed narrative runs a persistent and noisy tendency among religious sects and social communities to proclaim inherited bravery, civilisational pride, and martial valour. Yet an uncomfortable question is rarely confronted. If such valour truly coursed through our collective veins, why did almost every community, barring a few exceptions, repeatedly submit, first to the Mughals, then to the British, and later to external pressures in the modern geopolitical order?
India is a society marked by a strikingly short institutional memory. This amnesia is not accidental. It is cultivated. We are trained to forget rather than to question. This is evident in the absence of a credible and time bound declassification policy for state records. In contrast, countries such as the United States follow structured declassification regimes that allow societies to reassess past decisions, correct narratives, and avoid repeating mistakes. In India, even matters of relatively recent history, such as the death of Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri or the disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, remain shrouded in secrecy. What is more telling is not merely governmental reluctance, but the lack of sustained public pressure demanding transparency. Silence and to let it pass, has become a habit.
During 1980s, whenever tensions between India and Pakistan escalated, there was a familiar reassurance. While the United States supported Pakistan, India had the Soviet Union as a dependable ally. That belief offered psychological comfort. Yet after the disintegration of the USSR in 1991, India steadily distanced itself from Moscow and began courting Washington with notable enthusiasm. Strategic realism was offered as justification. But the manner of the shift revealed something deeper. When power equations change, we instinctively align with power rather than principle.
This is not merely foreign policy pragmatism. It is behavioural continuity. Historically, we adjusted to Rajas and Emperors, then to Sultans, then to colonial rulers. Today, we adjust to global power centres. The vocabulary has changed, but the posture remains familiar. Governments are not anomalies. They are mirrors. They reflect the society that elects them, tolerates them, and often rewards silence over scrutiny.
The imbalance in the India-United States relationship has become increasingly explicit in recent times. Following India’s escalation after the Pahalgam incident, United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly and unapologetically claimed that he stopped the war by threatening India with trade discontinuation and punitive tariffs. These assertions directly contradict India’s official position. That such claims are made with confidence is not accidental. Indians are widely perceived as soft, relatively mellow, non-confrontational, and accommodating, and this perception often reflects in India’s diplomatic posture, which rarely adopts a harsh or uncompromising tone.
The irony is difficult to ignore. Narendra Modi was denied a visa by the United States during his tenure as Chief Minister of Gujarat. Yet once he became Prime Minister, he was extended a warm welcome, without any formal apology or acknowledgement for the earlier denial, which was unquestionably warranted. The episode passed without protest, folded neatly into the culture of adjustment.
This pattern extends beyond symbolism. India has maintained a restrained public position on American actions in Venezuela, despite its long-standing commitment to the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Simultaneously, the United States has exerted sustained pressure on India to recalibrate its purchases of Russian crude oil, raising legitimate concerns regarding India’s energy security. Official statements continue to emphasise strategic autonomy, yet visible outcomes sometimes create the perception of accommodation under external pressure. Perception matters in diplomacy and can only be corrected through clarity and candour.
It is therefore imperative that India articulates, clearly and without ambiguity, that it will act solely in its national interest, in partnership with nations that respect its sovereignty. Strategic partnerships cannot be built on coercion, threats, or public claims of dominance. A nation cannot travel in two boats simultaneously. Attempting to appease competing power blocs ultimately erodes credibility and weakens negotiating leverage.
As a society, we have perfected the art of adjustment. Like water, we mould ourselves to the shape of the vessel we are poured into. Governments do not exist in isolation. They are reflections of this deeper social trait. Over time, this behavioural tendency crystallises into what can only be described as national character. Nowhere is this more visible than in India’s foreign policy conduct.
Strategic autonomy cannot remain a slogan. It must be demonstrated through consistent conduct and the willingness to withstand pressure. Until India chooses clarity over convenience and principle over opportunism, the question of national character will remain unresolved. There is no doubt that the present government possesses the institutional capacity and strategic competence to navigate complex global challenges. What is equally essential, however, is the willingness to take citizens into confidence, openly, transparently, and without ambiguity.
Clear communication leaves no room for speculation, misinterpretation, or disbelief. If leadership demonstrates the courage to stand firmly for national self-respect, citizens will not shy away from sharing the burden. Dignity, after all, has never come without cost.
