Dr Jagannath Panda, in his latest article—‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ to ‘Vishwa Guru’: India’s shrewd management of (In)security in Indo-Pacific (published in the Journal: International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2026), argues that India’s contemporary foreign policy is better explained through ontological insecurity than through conventional material security. Seen through this lens, its diplomatic narratives and policy routines function to repair disruptions to its self-identity caused primarily by China’s rise and assertive behaviour in the Indo-Pacific.
The article draws a sharp distinction between physical insecurity and ontological insecurity. Border crises, military pressure along the Line of Actual Control, and economic dependence on China constitute traditional security threats. By contrast, episodes such as Doklam and the Galwan Valley clash generated a deeper rupture by undermining India’s self-image as a credible regional leader. Galwan is treated as ontologically destabilising because it exposed “the fragility of India’s claim to regional stewardship,” forcing a reassessment of India’s narrative of deterrence and restraint.
The analysis then examines two interlinked civilisational narratives. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam which functions as an identity anchor that frames India as a unifier and moral actor, particularly in the Global South. Vishwa Guru articulates an aspiration to global moral and normative leadership. These are presented not as ornamental slogans but as strategic tools deployed to restore narrative continuity and counter China’s competing visions such as “Asia for Asians.” The narratives are described as “performative in nature,” aimed at repairing “the narrative breach inflicted by Chinese transgressions”.
The article develops this argument through an analysis of policy practice. Vaccine diplomacy, the G20 presidency, yoga diplomacy, and the emphasis on millets and heritage symbolism are analysed as routines intended to reaffirm India’s civilisational continuity and benevolent leadership. Likewise, selective multilateralism through the Quad, BRICS, and the SCO is interpreted as a means of managing competition while sustaining an image of strategic autonomy. Even India’s “studied neutrality” on the Russia–Ukraine war is framed as an effort to preserve identity coherence rather than a simple balancing manoeuvre.
At the regional level, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is treated as an ontological challenge that displaces India’s long-standing self-conception as South Asia’s natural integrator. India’s recalibrated neighbourhood policies, Global South outreach, and emphasis on moral leadership are read as attempts to stabilise an eroding regional identity. At the same time, the analysis highlights clear limits, pointing to the tension between India’s inclusive external rhetoric and its domestic democratic backsliding, which risks hollowing out the credibility of its moral claims.
The article concludes that India’s foreign policy operates as a continuous process of identity management under conditions of power transition. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam and Vishwa Guru function as mechanisms to mitigate ontological anxiety, project stability, and contest China’s symbolic and material influence, even as contradictions between rhetoric and reality remain unresolved.