OPINION

From ‘Hug Diplomacy’ to ‘Hug Politics’: Why India’s Foreign Policy Needs More Than Photographs

India’s diplomatic choreography – hugs, roadshows and selfie‑ready moments – has become a political brand, but critics from Manmohan Singh to Rahul Gandhi argue that visual spectacle masks a deeper question: what tangible outcomes does the policy deliver? This piece unpacks the debate, weighs symbolism against substance, and outlines a scorecard for measuring real diplomatic success.

By Hameedullah Shaik · 2026-08-14

What happened

TL;DR

India’s image‑rich diplomacy must be judged by concrete outcomes, not just photographs of hugs and handshakes.

Key points

Manmohan Singh warned that foreign policy cannot be reduced to hugs, swings or biryani, a critique echoed by Rahul Gandhi today
Modi’s visual diplomacy has boosted India’s global profile but offers no direct evidence of trade, security or energy gains
The article calls for a detailed foreign‑policy scorecard covering trade, investment, defence, energy and strategic influence to assess real outcomes

The corridors of New Delhi’s power have long been lit by the flash of cameras. In recent years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has turned diplomatic outreach into a visual performance: embraces with world leaders, casual swings on foreign‑leader playgrounds, and uninvited biryani lunches that dominate headlines. The imagery projects confidence, suggesting that India has moved from the periphery to the centre of global politics.Manmohan Singh, India’s former prime minister, warned against this approach long before the current debate resurfaced. He criticised Modi’s style as “forcibly hugging leaders, playing on swings or going for biryani uninvited,” arguing that foreign policy cannot be reduced to theatrical gestures. Rahul Gandhi, the opposition leader, has revived the same line of attack, insisting that the emphasis on photographs distracts from substantive results.Both critics agree on a core premise: diplomacy must produce concrete outcomes. Symbolic acts—handshakes, hugs, friendly selfies—can build personal rapport and signal strategic intent, but they cannot, on their own, negotiate trade deals, deter adversaries, secure energy supplies, or reshape regional security dynamics. As the article notes, “A photograph cannot negotiate a trade agreement. A handshake cannot deter a military adversary. A hug cannot secure India’s energy interests.”The debate raises a series of policy‑oriented questions that go beyond optics:<ul><li>Did India secure better trade access or diversify its import basket?</li><li>Did strategic positioning vis‑à‑vis China improve?</li><li>Have neighbourhood relations become more stable?</li><li>Have Indian businesses benefited from new agreements?</li><li>Has India’s diplomatic influence translated into measurable agreements?</li></ul>Answering these questions requires a “foreign‑policy scorecard” that compares India’s position in 2014—the year Modi first took office—with today’s reality. Metrics would include trade volumes, foreign direct investment, defence procurement, border security arrangements, energy security, technology partnerships, and the quality of relations with key partners such as the United States, Russia, the Gulf states, and China.The article cautions that the opposition could fall into the same trap if it merely mirrors the ruling party’s focus on imagery. A critique that reduces diplomacy to “Modi hugging world leaders” still debates the photograph rather than the policy. A robust analysis would instead track the tangible shifts in India’s economic and strategic landscape over the past decade.International relations remain fundamentally transactional. Leaders may smile, embrace, or call each other friends, but when negotiations begin, national interests dominate. The piece draws parallels with other leaders—Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping—who, despite personal rapport, pursue divergent national agendas. Friendship can open doors, but power and concrete bargaining determine outcomes.A further lesson is the danger of personality‑driven diplomacy. India’s 1.4 billion‑person polity is supported by a permanent bureaucracy, a professional diplomatic corps, a robust military, intelligence agencies, and economic institutions. Sustainable foreign policy should rest on institutional continuity, not on the charisma of a single prime minister. If a foreign government’s policy shifts after an election, India’s strategic interests must remain resilient.Singh’s warning about “substance versus spectacle” remains relevant regardless of which party holds power. The article urges citizens and policymakers to ask: “What did India negotiate? What did India secure? What did India concede? What did ordinary Indians gain?”To move the conversation forward, the piece proposes a new diplomatic scoreboard:<ul><li>Replace “How many world leaders did the Prime Minister meet?” with “How much did exports grow?”</li><li>Replace “How many countries welcomed Modi?” with “How much strategic leverage did India gain?”</li><li>Replace “How close is Modi to Trump, Putin or other leaders?” with “What happens when their interests conflict with India’s?”</li></ul>The final irony is that the same critique—foreign policy cannot be conducted through hugs, swings and biryani—has resurfaced across political divides, underscoring a deeper cultural fascination with personality branding in Indian politics. The ultimate test, the article concludes, is not the warmth of a handshake but the weight of the agreements that follow when the cameras are turned off.In sum, while Modi’s warmth toward foreign leaders makes for compelling photographs, the true measure of India’s diplomatic success lies in negotiations that advance national interests and deliver tangible benefits to its citizens.