Is India Really the Voice of the Global South — or Just Playing the Part?
India Global South leadership is one of the most repeated claims in Indian foreign policy today. Prime Minister Modi used it at the G20. Jaishankar uses it at every multilateral forum. The BRICS 2026 chairship theme is built around it. And yet, in 2026, when the countries of the Global South most needed a powerful voice — when Iran was being bombed, when Gaza was in ruins, when Sudan was in famine — India was largely silent.
So is India’s Global South leadership real? Or is it a branding exercise dressed up as a foreign policy?
The honest answer requires looking at what India has actually done for the Global South, what it has failed to do, and what China is doing differently that makes the comparison uncomfortable. This article does all three.
What Is the Global South and Why Does India Want to Lead It
The Global South refers to developing and emerging economies across Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania. These countries share histories of colonial exploitation, underrepresentation in global institutions, and a frustration with a world order that was largely designed by and for the wealthy nations of the North.
India’s interest in leading this grouping goes back to the Bandung Conference of 1955, when Nehru helped found the spirit of third-world solidarity. The Non-Aligned Movement was India’s original vehicle for this ambition. After the Cold War ended, the language changed but the ambition did not.
Today, India’s case for Global South leadership rests on four pillars. It is the world’s most populous democracy. It is the fastest growing major economy. It has lived experience of colonialism and development. And it can act as a bridge between the wealthy North and the developing South in a way that China, which is perceived as an authoritarian state, cannot.
As Foreign Policy magazine put it in February 2026, India wants a greater voice for emerging economies but it also wants to ensure that this voice complements rather than compromises the rules-based international order and works with rather than against advanced industrialised economies. That is India’s distinctive pitch for Global South leadership.
Where India Has Genuinely Delivered
The case for India’s Global South leadership is not without substance. There are real achievements.
The G20 presidency in 2023 was a genuine diplomatic success. India secured the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent G20 member — a breakthrough that African nations had sought for years. It also prioritised debt restructuring under the G20 Common Framework and pushed the Global South’s concerns onto an agenda that Western nations would have preferred to dominate with the Ukraine war.
On vaccine diplomacy, India supplied vaccines to over 100 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic under the Vaccine Maitri initiative — often before completing its own domestic rollout. This was controversial domestically but it built real goodwill across South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.
On digital public infrastructure, India has shared its UPI payments system, Aadhaar digital ID model and DigiLocker document platform with developing nations through the Digital Public Infrastructure initiative. This is genuinely innovative. No other country has offered the Global South a working, scalable, free alternative to Western-controlled digital infrastructure.
On Chabahar, India built Afghanistan’s connectivity to the world without going through Pakistan — spending $370 million of its own money to give a landlocked country access to trade routes. That is what Global South solidarity looks like in practice.
CSIS noted in January 2026 that India’s claims of Global South leadership are consolidating its influence in Africa and Asia. That consolidation is real, even if incomplete.
Where India Has Failed the Test
The failures are equally real and they are becoming more visible.
On Iran, India’s silence during the US-Israel war has been the most damaging episode for its Global South credibility in years. Iran is a developing nation. It is a BRICS member that India chairs. It was bombed by the world’s most powerful military. And India co-sponsored a UN resolution condemning Iran’s retaliatory strikes without acknowledging the original attack. Countries across the Global South noticed.
On Gaza, India’s response was similarly muted. India provided limited aid and maintained a carefully ambiguous diplomatic position. The UNESCO Vice-Chair vote in 2023 was a direct consequence. African and Middle Eastern countries that expected India to speak up voted against it. India lost.
On UNSC reform, India has advocated loudly for a permanent seat and for greater Global South representation. But after decades of campaigning, nothing has changed. Words without results eventually stop being taken seriously.
PMF IAS captured the structural problem well: growing alignment with Western powers has weakened India’s image as an independent leader in the Global South. That is precisely what happened over the Iran war. India’s silence was not neutral. It was read as taking a side.
The India vs China Scorecard
Any honest discussion of India’s Global South leadership must confront the China comparison. Beijing is India’s main competitor for this role and it is competing hard.
| Factor | India | China |
| Development model | Democracy, rule of law, open tech | State-led, surveillance, non-interference |
| Financial muscle | Limited, interest-free loans, small scale | Massive, BRI, $1 trillion+ invested globally |
| Africa presence | Growing, skills and tech focus | Dominant, infrastructure and debt |
| Credibility | High on values, low on delivery | High on delivery, low on values |
| Iran war stance | Silent, lost credibility with Global South | Supported Iran, gained credibility |
| BRICS role | Reform-oriented, anti-anti-West | Anti-Western, pro-alternative order |
The uncomfortable truth is that China is winning the delivery competition while India is winning the values competition. For many Global South countries facing immediate development needs, delivery matters more than values. China built roads, ports, railways and power plants across Africa and Asia with a speed and scale that India cannot match.
India’s counter-argument is that China’s model creates debt traps, undermines sovereignty, and exports authoritarianism. ISS Africa found that for African nations, India’s democratic credentials, development model and trust-based partnerships are appealing. But appealing is not the same as winning.
India’s Global South Leadership Report Card for 2026
| Test | India’s Action | Verdict |
| Iran war 2026 | Stayed silent. Co-sponsored anti-Iran UN resolution. | Failed Global South test |
| Gaza 2023-24 | Limited aid. Muted stance. Lost UNESCO Vice-Chair vote. | Failed Global South test |
| Ukraine war 2022 | Abstained at UNSC. Bought Russian oil. Called for dialogue. | Partial pass |
| G20 presidency 2023 | Got African Union included. Prioritised Global South agenda. | Strong pass |
| Vaccine diplomacy 2021 | Supplied vaccines to 100+ countries before domestic rollout. | Strong pass |
| Chabahar port | Built Afghanistan connectivity without Pakistan. $370M invested. | Strong pass |
| Digital public infra | Shared UPI, Aadhaar, DigiLocker model with developing nations. | Strong pass |
| UNSC reform | Advocates loudly for Global South representation. | Words without results |
The scorecard is mixed. India genuinely leads on some dimensions. It genuinely fails on others. The pattern suggests that India performs well on Global South leadership when it aligns with India’s own interests and performs poorly when it requires pushing back against powerful countries India wants to keep as partners.
The Structural Problem Nobody Talks About
India’s Global South leadership faces a structural contradiction that goes beyond individual policy choices.
To lead the Global South, India needs to speak uncomfortable truths to powerful nations. It needs to call out illegal wars, defend smaller countries against great power pressure, and vote against Western positions at the UN when those positions are wrong. That requires a level of economic and military independence that India does not yet fully have.
India’s financial exposure to the US is significant. The trade deal negotiations, the Chabahar sanctions, the tariff threats all show that Washington can impose real costs on India’s independent choices. India cannot fully play the role of Global South champion while simultaneously being vulnerable to US economic pressure.
China faces a version of this problem too. Its credibility as a developing country champion is undermined by the fact that it is the world’s second largest economy and an authoritarian state. But China has chosen to lean into the contradiction rather than apologise for it.
India has not yet made that choice. It wants to be seen as a Global South leader without paying the diplomatic costs that genuine leadership requires. As Foreign Policy’s analysis noted, India needs to develop a more proactive rather than passive approach. Staying quiet and abstaining from votes is not leadership. It is just a different kind of followership.
ThirdPol’s Take
India is the voice of the Global South on the days when speaking costs nothing.
On the days when speaking requires standing up to the United States, or condemning an Israeli military campaign, or defending Iran’s right not to be bombed, India goes quiet. And the Global South notices every single time.
This does not mean India’s Global South ambitions are fake. The G20 African Union achievement was real. The vaccine diplomacy was real. The digital infrastructure sharing is real. These matter.
But leadership is not a collection of good days. It is what you do on the hard days. And India’s record on the hard days in 2026 has been disappointing for the countries that were counting on it.
The path forward is not to abandon India’s Western partnerships or to become anti-American. Jaishankar is right that India is non-West but not anti-West. But non-West must mean something. It must mean that when a smaller country is being bombed, India does not help draft the resolution condemning it for fighting back.
India has the credibility, the history, the democratic credentials and the soft power to be a genuine Global South leader. What it needs is the willingness to pay the diplomatic costs that come with the title. Until it develops that willingness, the voice of the Global South will remain a powerful aspiration. Not yet a reality.
Amit Mangal writes on India’s foreign policy and geopolitics at ThirdPol. Follow ThirdPol on X and LinkedIn.