This is my personal v, here, so please bear with me.
I don't think that negating your antagonist is a wise move for anyone. The great Persian empire the likes of which were never seen before in the world could never dream to be conquered by a young Macedonian king; yet, it was. Similarly, the credibility negation that the populations and popular media hawks of both nations engage in is, in my view, stupid.
Given that, if you recall the early 2000s and the late 90s there was an acronym BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India and China as the next probable superpowers. Brazil and Russia took a detour in getting there but Russia is still a domineering force in the world. However, India and China both agreed that being a belligerent power would be unwise, smartly they never projected the image of a hard power rather than a soft one. Their rise was focused on economics. It has worked, to an extent.
The bump that India is now facing is that it was through the embracing of globalism that it rose. Indeed, it was one of the most favourable nations in that regard but that can only happen if you're a liberal country. Liberalism means something very simple, politically, it is to live and let live. Nothing more, please, don't moralize the term, that we're wont to. The right wing reflux, if you will, that India is experiencing is the problem that it has faced. Some in the reins of power wish to become belligerent but the power houses that got India to that position are largely politically pragmatic and socially liberal because it was economically advantageous to be so. That power base is being perturbed due to the right wing rise (the version that India is experiencing right now) and because these two forces are diametrically opposite to each other, that disparity is coming up in their politics when it comes to dealing with the world.
Take for instance, Afg, as it has historically been at odds with Pakistan, then it makes sense for an Indian-Afghani co-op but here's the problem: Afg is a largely conservative and Muslim nation. It's not difficult for the local populace to be polarized by India's perceived (being neutral here) treatment of their minorities, namely, Muslims. Hence, India is naturally reluctant to place a heavy reliance on Afghanistani politics. The pragmatic class of Afghanistan also appreciates that, as a country, Afghanistan cannot afford to polarize Pakistan and Iran too much because it is a land locked state. I would disagree with the notion of 'Graveyard of the Empires' hypothesis, here. The Afghanistani population also desires peace; their role in the international geopolitical arena has been disadvantageous for their own people.
Here, had India maintained the image it was projecting before (to whatever degree of accuracy) of being a Hindu majority state with a Sikh PM and a Muslim President would have helped but the current image is building up a level of discomfort that cannot be easily negated - International and domestic images are hard to differentiate in the 21st century.
However, I would still not write them off. India has shown their ability to be pragmatic when the need arose and that can happen again. Hence, all analyses need to be done with that in mind.
I apologize for any offense I may have caused. Thank you.
.
