OPINION | US decline is overstated; India’s chance to influence affairs is underestimated

America’s power is based on factors that may not be very obvious but are very important nevertheless.

Recent events in Venezuela show a situation that would have seemed unlikely 10 years ago. The US, often seen as the defender of international law and democracy, is now involved in detaining another country's leader. Along with sudden changes in tariffs, dropping security promises, and rewriting strategies without consulting allies, this looks like a classic case of a superpower in decline.

Many believe that such actions drain legitimacy and that losing legitimacy leads to losing authority. However, this view overlooks something important about how power really works in the world.

Power-Legitimacy-Authority 

Traditionally, it’s believed that power coupled with legitimacy creates authority, which is the ability to get others to follow willingly, not just through force. If this is true, then America’s unpredictable and rule-breaking actions should be causing countries to look for new leaders. But there are two important factors to consider: legitimacy only really fades when there is another power that can both replace the current leader and either supports the same values more convincingly or offers a truly attractive new vision. Both of these must be true, not just one.

Where China falls short

Take China as an example, since it is the main challenger to American leadership. China meets the first requirement well. Its economy is large enough, its military is modernising quickly, and its Belt and Road Initiative reaches many countries. But China falls short on the second point.

Its efforts to offer a new vision - like the Global Development Initiative and others - feel vague and unconvincing. More importantly, these ideas are based on principles that many liberal democracies are not eager to accept: putting state control above human rights, rejecting liberal democracy as a universal template, and promoting what China calls "whole-process people's democracy", which seems a lot like one-party rule with a new label.

Resilient international systems are about more than economics

Some countries may accept China’s authoritarian system or work with it for economic reasons, but true loyalty needs more than that. Would any democracy choose to join a China-led security group like NATO? Would any country want to copy China’s way of governing, not just accept it out of necessity? The answer shows there is a big difference between going along with China and truly supporting it.

As John Ikenberry points out, liberal international systems last because their institutions and values still attract support, even when the leading country falls short.

The US often breaks its own rules, but it still claims to support the liberal international order, democracy, and human rights. This public commitment is more important than it seems. It allows others to criticise the US and hold it to its own standards, and it keeps the door open for change.

For example, people can use America’s own values to criticise its actions in Venezuela. In contrast, trying to challenge China’s policies in Xinjiang using China’s own principles is much more difficult.

American decline is not imminent

America’s power is based on factors that may not be very obvious but are very important nevertheless. It does about a quarter of the world’s research and development spending, its universities are amongst the best in the world, the dollar is key to the global financial system, and it leads in most critical technologies. American tech companies also shape how people across the world communicate and access information. These strengths took a long time to build and won’t disappear quickly. Just as Britain’s decline took decades and two world wars, any real drop in American power will also take a long time.

Power is not a necessary condition 

Recognising these facts should not make India give up or act without principles. This is where India’s role becomes important, and where it should stop being too cautious. India is big enough to have some influence on the world stage, democratic enough to have moral authority, and has a history of non-alignment that lets it speak independently. At the same time, it is not so powerful that it scares other countries. These qualities make India well-placed to become a "principle entrepreneur" - a country that shapes global rules through steady advocacy and moral leadership, not just by using force.

The earlier discussion shows that legitimacy comes from either greater power or stronger principles. India cannot match America or China in power, but it can compete - and maybe succeed - by standing for clear principles. This does not mean giving moral lectures. India should, instead, pursue a foreign policy that consistently upholds core principles such as sovereignty, non-interference, democracy, and adherence to international law, without appearing to lack conviction.

Don’t underestimate principle-based leadership

When Russia attacks Ukraine, America kidnaps foreign leaders, or China threatens Taiwan, India’s response should be clear and based on principles, not just short-term interests. While power can shape the world order, it is not the only way, it is not a necessary condition. Consistent, principle-based leadership can also set norms and build alliances.

This strategy helps India’s national interests in practical ways, not just in theory. India has a strong and assertive neighbour in China. If the world only respects power and ignores rules, India is at greater risk. But if the world values norms, uses international groups to limit single countries’ actions, and lets smaller countries work together around shared principles, then India’s influence, though limited, can be used most effectively.

But such a stance carries real costs that India must navigate carefully. Speaking out against American overreach risks access to critical defence technology, intelligence sharing, and Quad cooperation. Criticising Chinese aggression invites economic retaliation against a country that is India's largest trading partner. Condemning Russian actions jeopardises defence supplies, and energy imports that India secured at discounted rates during global turmoil.

This path is not easy. India will have to give up the comfort of being vague and the safety of avoiding strong positions. Sometimes, it will upset powerful partners and pay a price for sticking to its principles. The best approach is what can be called "principled pragmatism" - stating clear principles without showing off, building alliances without causing fights, and choosing the right moments to act for the most impact at the lowest cost. On less important issues, staying quiet is still fine.

India can also use groups like the G20, which it recently led, to share the burden. Working with middle powers - such as Japan, Australia, South Korea, ASEAN countries, and European nations who are uneasy with both American and Chinese actions - can help build strength through partnerships.

The economic side of this plan needs careful handling. India should speed up efforts to become more self-reliant by diversifying and growing its own industries. These steps are not just about the economy - they also give India more freedom in its foreign policy.

As America’s inconsistencies become more obvious, more countries want real, principle-based leadership. They do not want to accept China’s authoritarian model, but they are also looking for something better than unpredictable American leadership. India should aim to fill this gap.

(Views are personal, and do not represent the stance of this publication.)