Beyond Loud Diplomacy
As armed conflicts rage on across the world - be it the Ukraine–Russia war, the Israel–Hamas conflict, Sudan, Myanmar, Syria, Lebanon or the Red Sea - ceasefires are collapsing within weeks of being announced. Mediation efforts are failing to gain trust, while international and multilateral institutions appear to remain paralysed by vetoes and opposing points of view. The result is a global peacebuilding system that is clearly on a ventilator. The number of active major armed conflicts worldwide, which is estimated to be over 50, is at its highest level since the Cold War.In this climate of instability and failure, India is often criticised for being too cautious, quiet or even irrelevant. But this criticism often misunderstands both the nature of today's conflict around the world and the kind of stance and practices that India uses for peacebuilding. New Delhi is effective in peacebuilding because it refuses to imitate a broken model that has failed on many occasions. In an increasingly fractured world, this approach is no longer enough.
 |
| Photo: US State Department/Freddie Everett. |
When Mediation Loses Legitimacy
In today’s world traditional peacebuilding has ceased to exist; principles like shared rules, trusted and neutral mediators, and distinct parties in a conflict which was the norm previously have been replaced by fragmented and multipolar actors involving proxies, militias and private military groups. Power- and interest-driven negotiations are often shaped by geopolitical rivalries rather than shared norms and peacebuilding principles. This shift is evident in recent conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, where ceasefire efforts were made by multiple mediator nations, which included Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Belarus, the US and Qatar, yet peace talks collapsed due to competing strategic interests and the absence of a neutral and trusted arbiter. As a result, Western-led mediation efforts and UN-centric peace talks and processes have repeatedly failed and increasingly suffer from a legitimacy deficit. Ceasefires had been negotiated in 60 to 70% of intrastate and interstate cases, yet only half lead to real progress.In such a fragmented world order, peacebuilding is no longer about producing grand settlements. It is about preventing further escalations, creating just conditions for sustained dialogue, and ensuring minimal stability and human aid support. This shift explains why highly visible and grand mediation efforts often collapse and why quieter and less celebrated approaches endure sometimes.
India’s Model: Effectiveness Without Dominance
New Delhi’s peacebuilding approach reflects this new reality. It avoids seeking mediation dominance, imposing solutions or resolutions or forcing timelines on the conflict-affected parties; rather, it prioritises autonomy, sovereignty, and consent through dialogue, as it recognises that externally driven peace processes and resolutions are short-lived and rarely survive once pressure fades.This approach is most evident in India’s long-standing role in UN peacekeeping. India is among the largest troop contributors globally, with over 2,90,000 peacekeepers serving in more than 50 peacekeeping missions worldwide since the 1950s. Indian peacekeepers have strictly focused on civilian protection, stabilisation and institution building, following the principles of the UN rather than political engineering of the conflict-affected regions and parties. This has given them a sense of credibility in environments where external intervention is often resented and not trusted. While the Western-led mediation efforts today face a legitimacy deficit, India doesn’t suffer from this, as the Global South views India as “one of its own” because of a shared history of colonial or non-aligned history.
India’s regional experience reinforces this model of “effectiveness without dominance”. During Nepal’s peace process after the Maoist insurgency and violence in 2006, India did not act as a public power broker or a loud mediator; rather, it quietly facilitated dialogue, helped broker peace and supported democratic transition while allowing local actors to retain ownership and control gradually. The result was not a flawless peace; while it was a durable and long-standing one, India’s role in Nepal’s “Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2006” is highly debated among scholars. Nonetheless, this signified that rather than hosting big peace summits and being a loud mediator or imposing settlements, real efforts on the ground and creating communication lines could bring real peace.
As External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has noted, India’s diplomacy is not about promising “grand peace plans or bargains” but about engaging with both sides and trying to do something helpful amid widespread global anxiety. This explains why India is among the few countries that could sustain dialogue across hardened fault lines, be it Russia-Ukraine or the complex divides of the Middle East.
This restraint is not accidental. It reflects India’s belief that “peace cannot be manufactured externally, but can only be supported.”
Autonomy in a Live Conflict
The ongoing West Asia escalation was triggered by direct confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US, involving strikes on key Iranian targets and the killing of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei along with many senior officials. This was then followed by retaliatory missile and drone attacks across the Gulf region. This conflict has tested India’s diplomatic model in real time. Yet, New Delhi’s response is a deliberate continuation of its doctrine of strategic autonomy and its model of “effectiveness without dominance”, prioritising its own national interest over bloc politics. Rather than choosing sides in the conflict, India adopted a calibrated approach; it condemned Iranian strikes impacting Gulf stability, particularly given the presence of over 8 - 9 million Indian nationals living and working in the Gulf states, while simultaneously engaging with Iran to ensure the safe passage of Indian vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a critical energy corridor. At the same time, India was able to establish and sustain strong strategic ties with Israel and managed to maintain functional ties with the United States, reinforcing a multi-vector strategy that secures its diaspora, energy flows and strategic partnerships, while also demonstrating that its neutrality is not passive but an active exercise in safeguarding tangible national interests under pressure.Restraint Has Limits and Costs
New Delhi has applied the same logic to recent major conflicts. In Ukraine or Gaza, it has resisted pressure from the West to take sides or choose a bloc or to offer itself as a formal mediator. Instead, New Delhi has emphasised maintaining dialogue or humanitarian access by creating communication channels. This approach has preserved diplomatic capital in conflicts where mediators are quickly delegitimised. Yet, an institutional capacity gap or no dedicated unit makes it difficult for India to translate its influence.Yet this restraint has limits; “strategic caution could easily slip into strategic silence”. In conflicts defined by humanitarian collapse, India’s silence has surrendered its leverage on the global stage. Restraint, when it produces no outcomes, ceases to be a strategy and becomes a surrender.
Beyond Quiet Diplomacy
India’s peacebuilding approach is neither passive nor transformational; it is pragmatic. In a world order where imposed solutions are subject to resistance, India offers an alternative route. This makes India effective but only with restraints. As India prepares to lead the Global South, those limits matter. For many developing countries which are disillusioned with great power competition, India’s way forward appears more trustworthy and suitable. Yet only trust and restraint alone do not translate into influence without the capacity to act when opportunity arises.Despite handling an expansive diplomatic portfolio and responsibilities, India’s Ministry of External Affairs lacks a dedicated institutional unit for conflict mediation and ceasefires. The development of a mediation doctrine or skilled negotiator teams would be crucial to building mediation institutional capabilities. In an era where conflict mediation itself is a strategic leverage, lacking a dedicated institution for mediation constrains New Delhi’s ability to convert conflict mediation into strategic leverage.
Overall, India’s model of quiet diplomacy has earned its trust while at the same time faced criticisms, but its future in mediation politics lies on whether it can translate its trust and credibility into lasting influence, which would hence determine if its model will shape the future or just merely adapt to it.
About the Author: Nuresh Yadav
Nuresh Yadav is an independent researcher focusing on international security, conflict dynamics, and India’s foreign policy. His work examines peacebuilding, mediation, and Global South diplomacy. He writes on security governance in a fragmented world order.
This essay is a part of the Spring'26 issue of The India Way—'Breaking Point: India and the Future of World Order'