Half a century after the US declared independence from Britain in 1776, its fifth president—James Monroe—articulated what became the young republic’s first clear geopolitical stand. The eponymous Monroe Doctrine reflected America’s growing prosperity, confidence and awakening interest in global affairs. It committed the US to opposing any further European colonial expansion in its own sphere of influence, the western hemisphere, particularly Latin America.
This marked a profound shift. The US was founded by European immigrants who, content with building a new and prosperous society, wished to remain largely detached from the rivalries of the Old World. Many historians view that noble-sounding shift as the first crack in the door that eventually led to the modern era’s version of imperialism.
By the early 20th century, the US had overtaken Britain economically and militarily, along with developing appetite for global influence. After World War II, American geopolitical footprint became visible across the globe. Even during the Cold War’s balancing act with the Soviet Union, the US intervened far beyond the western hemisphere. From overt wars in Indochina aimed at containing communism, to covert operations across Southeast Asia and the Middle East, Washington pursued its national interests with unmistakable muscle.
This, of course, is how great powers have always behaved. Ancient Greece, Rome, imperial China, Britain—history is replete with examples of dominant states shaping their environment to suit their interests. What made the American era distinctive was that it coincided with the widest spread of democracy the world has ever seen. As a result, interventions by the US were often couched in the language of democratic transitions, people’s movements and popular uprisings.
Regime-change operations are hardly new, and have frequently been preceded by mass street protests—from Iran in the 1950s, to Ukraine in 2005, to the Arab Spring of 2011. What is striking today is the return to blunt unilateralism of such actions. Targeted regime-change operations by the US that stop short of full-scale war have rarely been as overt as the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in January, echoing—to the exact date—the removal of Panama’s Manuel Noriega 36 years ago. The message is unmistakable: restraint is no longer a defining feature.
None of this is uniquely American. Whether China or Russia, or regional powers like Israel and Iran, similar strategies are commonplace. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world experienced a phase of unipolar American dominance, followed by a more complex multipolar order marked by Russia’s persistence and China’s rapid ascent in world affairs.
Now, in President Donald Trump’s second term, dramatic policy shifts, under his so called “Donroe Doctrine”, are dismantling several long-standing tenets of US foreign policy. Solid alliances are being undermined, norms rewritten, and power exercised more transactionally.
Against this backdrop, whispers about “deep state” involvement in political upheavals across South Asia—in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal—have grown louder. More troublingly, some activists have begun openly romanticising similar outcomes for India. A few opposition political leaders have even encouraged such dangerous musings, either through careless rhetoric or calculated ambiguity.
The current geopolitical churn—marked by assertive American actions, Chinese strategic expansion and Russian determination—poses challenges for every nation. India has so far navigated these cross-currents better than others. It has maintained economic robustness, balanced relationships and preserved strategic autonomy.
But this equilibrium cannot be taken for granted. It will require sustained alertness, political will and clarity in our national discourse to ensure that India remains resilient. In an era when the gloves are unmistakably off, complacency is a luxury no nation can afford.
Baijayant ‘Jay’ Panda is National Vice President of the BJP and is an MP in the Lok Sabha.