By Col Bhaskar Bharti (Retd)
The early decades of the 21st century are witnessing a troubling return of muscular power politics. Recent American posturing, from overt pressure on Venezuela through sanctions and regime isolation, renewed strategic interest in Greenland under the guise of Arctic security, aggressive tariff threats against the European Union, India and Canada, and persistent economic coercion, signals a revival of hegemonic reflexes rather than adaptive leadership. These moves are accompanied by deeper, more consequential interventions: prolonged US involvement in shaping the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, covert and overt influence in Iran’s internal unrest, and sustained entanglement in the volatile Middle East, where cycles of conflict continue to defy resolution. What was envisioned as an era of interconnected prosperity – a world where the devastations of two world wars were distant memory, and diplomacy, free trade, international law, and multilateral institutions promised a more peaceful global order, now appears dangerously unsettled.
These are not isolated crises. They are interconnected symptoms of deeper systemic shifts: the decline of unchallenged American hegemony, the rise of competing power centres, and the steady weakening of global institutions meant to manage conflict. What has emerged is a fractured world marked by overlapping spheres of influence, economic weaponisation, and institutional paralysis. Inevitably, the question arises: are we drifting toward another global conflagration? For India – a civilisational state, a rising power, and a voice of the Global South, this moment is not merely one of concern, but of responsibility.
The End of Unipolar Comfort
Since World War II, the United States has functioned as the principal architect and guarantor of the global order. Its dominance shaped institutions, trade regimes, and security alliances. That era, however, is decisively waning. American foreign policy today increasingly reflects anxiety over relative decline. Sanctions, tariffs, military posturing, and selective intervention have replaced consensus-building. From Venezuela to Iran, from trade disputes with long-standing allies to pressure across multiple theatres, Washington’s actions reveal an effort to preserve primacy rather than accommodate shared leadership. US involvement in the Ukraine conflict, while framed as defence of sovereignty, has also entrenched bloc politics, prolonged hostilities, and weakened diplomatic off-ramps. Similarly, repeated interventions in West Asia, often justified as stabilising measures, have instead produced cycles of violence and radicalisation.
For India, this trajectory matters deeply. A world where power is exercised without institutional legitimacy threatens the interests of all middle and emerging powers. Unilateralism – whether American, Chinese, or Russian – erodes the predictability that once allowed nations like India to rise peacefully through growth, trade, and diplomacy.
Great Power Rivalries and Global Flashpoints
The war in Ukraine has fundamentally altered Europe’s security architecture. It has revived Cold War-style alignments, militarised diplomacy, and weakened arms-control regimes. For India, the conflict presents a delicate balancing act, upholding principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity while maintaining long-standing strategic ties with Russia and expanding partnerships with the West. India’s calibrated stance underscores a larger truth: rigid alignment no longer serves national interest in a multipolar world.
In the Middle East, the unresolved Israel-Palestine conflict continues to poison regional stability. Recent escalations involving Hezbollah and Iran-linked actors have widened the arc of confrontation. External interventions, instead of de-escalation, have often amplified volatility. For India – with its energy dependence, large diaspora, and expanding strategic footprint, prolonged instability in the region is not a distant concern but a direct strategic risk.
Perhaps the most consequential rivalry lies in East Asia, where China’s assertiveness over Taiwan poses risks with global ramifications. Any conflict would disrupt supply chains, maritime trade routes, and technological ecosystems vital to India’s economic trajectory. New Delhi’s own experience with China – from border tensions to economic competition, reinforces the danger of unchecked assertiveness. Meanwhile, the Korean Peninsula remains a latent nuclear flashpoint, reminding the world that proliferation continues to test the limits of global security frameworks.
South Asia: Instability in India’s Immediate Neighbourhood
For India, global disorder is not an abstract phenomenon-— it is felt most acutely in its neighbourhood. Pakistan’s chronic political instability, economic distress, and dependence on external patrons, create persistent security challenges. Bangladesh faces internal political churn amid rising fundamentalism and economic pressures. Nepal and Sri Lanka grapple with debt, governance deficits, and social discontent. These vulnerabilities are increasingly exploited by external powers seeking strategic footholds in South Asia.
A destabilised neighbourhood constrains India’s growth, diverts strategic attention, and complicates regional integration. Stability in South Asia is not merely altruistic – it is foundational to India’s rise.
The Failure of Global and Regional Institutions
At the heart of today’s instability lies the erosion of multilateralism. The United Nations, conceived as humanity’s collective conscience, is paralysed by veto politics and outdated power structures. The Security Council reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, not those of the 21st century. From Ukraine to Gaza, the UN often watches helplessly as conflicts rage. For India – a long-standing advocate of Security Council reform, this paralysis only reinforces the urgency of institutional overhaul. The Non-Aligned Movement, once a moral and strategic platform, has faded into irrelevance. While its principles remain embedded in India’s foreign policy ethos, NAM failed to adapt to a multipolar, economically interdependent world. India has instead gravitated toward issue-based, flexible coalitions. The G-7 increasingly appears exclusionary, a rule-making club of advanced economies. The G-20, by contrast, holds greater promise, though it too suffers from geopolitical rivalries. India’s G-20 presidency demonstrated that inclusive agendas – debt relief, climate finance, and digital public infrastructure are achievable when leadership is imaginative and consensus-driven. Regionally, SAARC is virtually defunct. BIMSTEC, though strategically relevant, remains under-institutionalised. India’s emphasis on alternative regional frameworks reflects recognition that cooperation must be pragmatic, outcome-oriented, and insulated from political vetoes.
Is the World Heading toward World War III?
The simultaneity of crises understandably fuels anxiety. Yet history cautions against simplistic parallels. Today’s world is multipolar, economically interdependent, and constrained by nuclear deterrence. A deliberate global war remains unlikely. The greater danger lies in miscalculation of regional conflicts escalating due to diplomatic failure, institutional paralysis, or strategic hubris. World wars rarely begin by design. They emerge from accumulated failures.
India’s Strategic Compass: Autonomy, Balance, and Dialogue
In this turbulent landscape, India’s approach offers a credible template. India rejects binary choices. It engages the United States while preserving strategic ties with Russia, manages competition with China, deepens partnerships across Europe, West Asia, and Africa, and amplifies the voice of the Global South. This is not ambiguity – it is strategic autonomy rooted in national interest. India’s emphasis on dialogue, sovereignty, and development reflects its civilisational ethos: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – the world as one family. This is not idealism detached from realism, but realism tempered by restraint.
The Way Forward: Reforming the Global Order
If instability is structural, solutions must be systemic.
- Global institutions must be reformed, not bypassed, beginning with the UN Security Council.
- Economic cooperation must replace coercion; ensuring trade and technology remain bridges rather than weapons.
- Regional stability, particularly in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific, must be prioritised through confidence-building and connectivity.
- Middle powers, with India at the forefront, must assume greater responsibility in norm-setting and conflict mediation.
Conclusion: India and the Light Ahead
The world stands at a crossroads, not merely between war and peace, but between arrogance and humility, coercion and cooperation. The failures of global governance have made the international system fragile, but fragility need not mean inevitability. India’s rise coincides with a moment of global transition. This is not accidental. It reflects a deeper truth: the future belongs not to those who impose order through force, but to those who build balance through dialogue. The tunnel may be long and dim, but the light has not gone out. If the world chooses reform over rivalry and cooperation over coercion, this turbulent phase could yet give birth to a more equitable and humane global order – one in which India plays not merely a role, but a guiding one. India can propagate that leadership in the 21st century must be measured not by dominance, but by restraint.
(The author is an army veteran and a social commentator. He is an alumnus of National Defence Academy and Indian Military Academy. He is a Post Graduate in HRM and Journalism and Mass Communication. He is based in Dehradun.)
