Populism and the Politics of India’s Foreign Policy

Why It Matters

Populist leaders can swiftly alter diplomatic processes, making foreign‑policy outcomes less predictable and raising risks for international partners and investors.

Key Takeaways

• Populist impact on foreign policy hinges on personalization and mobilization.
• Modi’s “people vs elite” rhetoric exemplifies thin‑ideology populism.
• Leaders centralize decision‑making, marginalizing professional diplomatic corps worldwide.
• Foreign policy changes are procedural, not always substantive, under populists.
• Comparative study shows similar patterns in Bolivia, Philippines, Turkey, India.

Summary

The Carnegie‑Endowment interview spotlights the new volume *Populism and Foreign Policy*, which examines how populist regimes reshape diplomatic conduct, with a particular focus on India’s Modi government. The authors, Sandra Dradi and Johannes Blegeman, argue that populist influence is not automatic; it depends on two mechanisms – the personalization of foreign policy around a charismatic leader and the mobilization of popular sentiment to legitimize international choices.

Their analysis distinguishes a “thin” populist ideology – a simple people‑versus‑elite narrative – from the “thick” ideological bundles (left‑wing, right‑wing, Hindutva) that give it concrete content. In India, Modi’s self‑portrayal as the voice of two‑billion citizens and his anti‑elitist attacks on the Congress illustrate this thin core, while Hindu nationalism supplies the thick layer that defines who counts as “the people.” The book shows that such leaders centralize decision‑making, often sidelining career diplomats and reshaping ministries to reflect personal networks.

Key excerpts underscore the theory: “Populism is a thin ideology that nevertheless reshapes foreign‑policy procedures,” and “the leader becomes the embodiment of the popular will.” Dradi cites Modi’s Independence‑Day speech at the Red Fort, where he claimed to speak for the entire nation, as a vivid example of personalization in action. Comparative cases – Bolivia, the Philippines, Turkey – reveal the same pattern: personalized diplomacy, reduced bureaucratic input, and foreign policy framed as a domestic political tool.

For policymakers and businesses, the implication is clear: under populist rule, foreign‑policy signals may be volatile and driven by domestic rally‑round‑the‑flag dynamics rather than strategic continuity. Understanding the personalization‑mobilization nexus helps anticipate abrupt shifts, assess institutional resilience, and gauge the reliability of diplomatic engagements in an era where leaders claim to speak directly for the people.

Original Description

We tend to think of populist leaders around the world as disruptive—skeptical of international institutions, impatient for change, and prone to upending foreign policy norms.

But a new book by scholars Sandra Destradi and Johannes Plagemann argues that—while populists can have dramatic impacts on foreign policy—the extent of change depends on two key factors: the personalization of foreign policy and leaders’ ability to use foreign policy as a tool of domestic political mobilization.

The book is called Populism and Foreign Policy, and it looks at transitions from non-populist to populist governments in Bolivia, the Philippines, Turkey, and India.

To talk more about the book’s findings—especially as they relate to Indian foreign policy—Sandra Destradi joins Milan on the show this week. Sandra holds the Chair of International Relations at the University of Freiburg, Germany, and she is currently serving as a DAAD long- term Guest Professor at Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel. She is the author of several articles and books on India, including the 2012 book, Indian Foreign and Security Policy in South Asia: Regional Power Strategies.

Milan and Sandra discuss the definitional debates around populism, the conditional effects of populism on foreign policy, and the reasons for the Modi government’s differential approach to Pakistan and China. Plus, the two discuss why populists might express an enhanced willingness to contribute to global public goods, the limited opportunities for mobilization against multilateral institutions, and the differences between populists in the Global North versus the Global South.

Like and subscribe to our channel: https://bit.ly/38sljlH

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace generates strategic ideas and independent analysis, supports diplomacy, and trains the next generation of international scholar-practitioners to help countries and institutions take on the most difficult global problems and advance peace.

Visit our website: https://carnegieendowment.org/

Follow us on X: https://x.com/CarnegieEndow

Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/carnegieendow/