In the cacophony of modern geopolitics, where leaders often govern by tweet and diplomacy is frequently conducted through megaphone posturing, silence has become a rare commodity. It is often mistaken for weakness, indecision, or submission. However, a deeper analysis of the last decade of Indian governance under Prime Minister Narendra Modi suggests the emergence of a counter-intuitive doctrine: the weaponization of strategic silence and strategic tolerance.
The premise is provocative but compelling: had India adopted the aggressive, “Wolf Warrior” stance favoured by some of its neighbours, it might have found itself isolated, sanctioned, or embroiled in exhausting conflicts. Instead, by absorbing short-term criticism and tolerating the geopolitical eccentricities of allies and adversaries alike, India has not only survived but thrived. As the late Singaporean visionary Lee Kuan Yew famously remarked, statecraft often involves navigating not just the malice of enemies, but the “bloody stupidity of friends.”
This article argues that Modi’s calculated restraint, his refusal to engage in every fight invited upon him, has been the cornerstone of India’s rise, effectively putting the nation on the map in a way that aggression never could.
The Anatomy of Strategic Silence
To understand Modi’s silence, one must distinguish between passive silence (born of helplessness) and active silence (born of strategy). The former is the silence of a victim; the latter is the silence of a predator waiting for the dust to settle.
In the early years of his tenure, critics and opponents frequently baited the Prime Minister to respond to every domestic controversy, every scathing editorial in the Western press, and every provocation from across the border. The expectation was a gladiatorial combat of words. Modi’s refusal to engage in this “noise” was often misread as avoidance. In hindsight, it appears to be a disciplined preservation of political capital.
The Trump Trade War Case Study
A prime example of this occurred during the Donald Trump presidency. Trump, known for his transactional and often abrasive style, frequently publicly harangued India over tariffs, famously dubbing India the “tariff king” and threatening consequences. An aggressive leader might have clapped back, citing US protectionism or initiating a public trade spat.
Instead, New Delhi adopted a posture of strategic silence. There were no angry tweets from the PMO. The response was bureaucratic, dull, and quiet. Behind the scenes, India negotiated, bought American oil to balance the trade deficit, and waited. The result? The relationship survived the volatility of the Trump era intact, and when the administration changed, India was not left with the baggage of burnt bridges. As recent analysis suggests, this silence forced the other side to blink, realizing that India could not be goaded into a disadvantageous public negotiation.
Denying the Oxygen of Publicity
Strategic silence also functions as a denial of legitimacy. When international bodies or celebrity activists criticize India’s internal matters, be it the revocation of Article 370 or the CAA, the Indian state’s highest levels often refrain from direct engagement. By delegating the rebuttal to lower-level functionaries or simply ignoring the critique, the leadership denies the critics the “oxygen” of a Prime Ministerial response. This reduces a potential diplomatic crisis to a mere news cycle, which eventually fades.
Strategic Tolerance: The “Lee Kuan Yew” Protocol
Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), the founding father of modern Singapore, was a pragmatist who understood that a nation, especially a developing one, cannot afford the luxury of emotional foreign policy. His observation that “We have to remember all the time that we are not dealing with an enemy, but the bloody stupidity of a friend” is perhaps the most accurate summary of India’s current diplomatic challenges.
India is surrounded by friends and partners who often act against India’s interests, not out of malice, but out of short-sightedness or internal political compulsion (“stupidity”).
The Maldives and Bangladesh Paradox
Consider India’s neighbourhood. In recent years, regimes in the Maldives and Bangladesh have oscillated between “India First” policies and anti-India rhetoric. When the Maldives recently elected a leader who campaigned on an “India Out” platform, the clamour in Indian social media was for aggression – sanctions, tourism boycotts, or muscular intervention.
Modi’s government, however, chose strategic tolerance. It quietly withdrew military personnel as requested but kept the lines of development aid and trade open. It tolerated the “stupidity” of the anti-India rhetoric, betting that geography and economics would eventually force reality to dawn on Malé.
Had India aggressively punished the Maldives; it would have pushed them permanently into China’s embrace. By tolerating the insult, India remained the “first responder” and the inevitable partner when the political winds shifted.
The Russian Tightrope
The war in Ukraine presented the ultimate test of tolerance. India’s Western “friends”, the US and Europe, exerted immense pressure on New Delhi to condemn Russia. They failed to understand India’s defense dependence and historical ties. This was the “stupidity of friends” in action: demanding India sacrifice its national security for a European war.
An aggressive India might have publicly lashed out at Western hypocrisy (pointing to Iraq or Afghanistan). While External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar did deliver sharp reality checks, the Prime Minister maintained a stoic, leader-to-leader tolerance. He told President Putin, “This is not an era of war,” appeasing the West, yet refused to sanction Russia, protecting India’s interests. This tolerance of Western pressure, absorbing the lectures without snapping the alliance, allowed India to emerge as one of the few powers capable of talking to both Washington and Moscow.
Why Aggression Would Have Failed
Had Modi taken aggressive stand, India could have been in “great trouble.” Let us try to do a counterfactual analysis:
What if India had adopted the “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy of China?
Economic Isolation: Aggression scares capital. India’s primary goal is economic growth ($5 Trillion economy). Had India aggressively retaliated against every negative report from the US or UK, or militarily engaged in every border skirmish, the risk premium on investing in India would have skyrocketed. Strategic silence projects stability; aggression projects volatility.
The China Trap: China wants India to be aggressive. If India reacts impulsively to border provocations, it plays into a game where China has the military and economic upper hand. By refusing to escalate on the enemy’s timeline (e.g., the quiet but firm mirror-deployment in Ladakh without declaring all-out war), India denied China the casus belli it might have sought.
Loss of the “Vishwaguru” Moral High Ground: India aspires to be a Vishwaguru (Teacher to the World) and a voice for the Global South. Aggression is the language of imperialists; tolerance is the language of civilizational wisdom. By sending vaccines (Vaccine Maitri) even to nations that criticized it, India displayed a strategic tolerance that bought goodwill money cannot buy.
The Domestic Dimension: Silence as Governance
This doctrine applies internally as well. India is a noisy democracy. The “stupidity of friends” also applies to domestic allies and the electorate’s volatile nature.
Modi has often been criticized for not holding press conferences. However, in the age of gotcha-journalism, a press conference is rarely an exchange of information; it is a theatre of conflict. By bypassing this mechanism and communicating directly with the people (via Mann Ki Baat or social media), the leader avoids the trap of having his words twisted to fuel the 24-hour outrage cycle.
Furthermore, strategic silence has allowed the administration to push through contentious reforms. When reforms face backlash (like the Farm Laws), the government’s eventual withdrawal was not a sign of weakness, but a form of tolerance, acknowledging that the social fabric was being stretched too thin, and that preserving internal peace was more strategic than enforcing a specific policy at that moment.
The Power of Pause
Lee Kuan Yew built Singapore by swallowing his pride when necessary and striking only when the iron was hot. He understood that for a nation to rise, it must sometimes endure the indignity of being misunderstood.
Modi’s India seems to have internalized this. The silence is not empty; it is pregnant with intent. The tolerance is not submission; it is the patience of a civilization that thinks in centuries, not news cycles.
- Aggression makes headlines.
- Tolerance makes history.
- Silence makes space for results.
In a world full of noise, the man who speaks less but does more holds the cards. By tolerating the “stupidity of friends” and the “provocations of enemies,” India has avoided the traps that have ensnared other rising powers. It has placed itself on the map not as a disruptor, but as a stabilizer – a “safe harbour” in a geopolitical storm. And in the long game of nations, that is the only victory that counts.
Ganesh Kumar is a geo-political analyst.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
