For years, India has convinced Western capitals that visibility equals value. Summit photographs, choreographed state visits, ceremonial invitations, and carefully staged joint statements have become substitutes for policy substance. This performance-heavy diplomacy has allowed New Delhi to project the illusion of indispensability, even as its actual behavior increasingly undermines the stability the West claims to prioritize.
The problem is not that India engages the West. It is how it engages. Diplomacy, in India’s current playbook, is less about alignment and more about presentation. High-profile events like the EU-India Summit and Republic Day showcases are weaponized to signal validation, not to negotiate outcomes. The audience is not the negotiating table. It is the domestic gallery and the international press cycle.
This obsession with optics has consequences. When diplomacy becomes a visual exercise, accountability disappears. Commitments remain vague, timelines evaporate, and disagreements are buried beneath celebratory language. India has mastered this art. It collects symbolic endorsements while carefully avoiding constraints on its regional behavior. The result is a partnership that looks solid in photographs but performs poorly in crises.
Western policymakers are slowly waking up to this mismatch. Military engagement with India has often been interpreted in New Delhi as unconditional approval. Joint exercises and defense dialogues are framed as endorsements of India’s regional posture, regardless of escalation patterns or refusal to engage in sustained dialogue with neighbors. Optics are mistaken for immunity.
This misunderstanding is increasingly costly. Arms cooperation without behavioral expectations encourages risk-taking, not restraint. When escalation is followed by silence and silence is rewarded with another summit, the message is clear. Appearances matter more than conduct. This is not strategic partnership. It is diplomatic indulgence.
India’s foreign policy elite understands this dynamic well. Symbolic proximity to Western power centers is used as a shield against criticism, especially on regional flashpoints. The more visible the engagement, the harder it becomes for partners to demand accountability. Optics create noise. Noise crowds out scrutiny.
But global politics is moving away from spectacle. The West’s current security challenges do not reward theatrical diplomacy. They require predictability, crisis management, and partners willing to translate alignment into action. India’s preference for ceremony over substance is beginning to look less like confidence and more like avoidance.
The contrast with Pakistan’s recent engagement is instructive. Islamabad is not selling spectacle. It is offering functionality. Counterterrorism cooperation, crisis de-escalation, and risk reduction are not headline-friendly deliverables, but they are measurable. They require follow-through rather than framing. In an environment where outcomes matter more than optics, this difference is no longer cosmetic.
India’s discomfort with renewed US-Pakistan engagement stems from this shift. The anxiety is not about exclusion. It is about comparison. When partnerships are evaluated on performance rather than presentation, India’s advantage erodes. The spotlight moves from who is seen to who delivers.
Optics can elevate a country’s profile, but they cannot replace responsibility. A foreign policy built on visibility alone eventually collapses under its own weight. India’s challenge is not managing its image. It is accepting that images no longer suffice.
The era of ceremonial diplomacy is fading. The next phase of partnerships will be defined by accountability, not applause. India can either adapt to that reality or remain trapped in a performance that no longer convinces its audience.
