In the frost-bitten landscape of Davos this week, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a speech that was less diplomatic routine and more clarion call. In essence, he outlined a manual for survival that resonated around the world.
Addressing the World Economic Forum, Carney - a man who transitioned from the central banking boardrooms of London and Ottawa to the helm of a G7 nation - spoke of a rupture in the global system rather than a mere transition. He announced the death of the rules-based international order, warning that the grim reality where, in Thucydides' classic formulation, "the strong do what they can while the weak suffer what they must", is no longer a historical footnote, but our current lived experience. He was greeted with a standing ovation. Many leaders wished they had had the courage, or the nerve, to deliver a version of the same speech themselves.
For an Indian audience, Carney's analysis should ring with a familiar, if unsettling, clarity. As we navigate 2026, the global architecture we once relied upon for trade and security, and served to define our place in the world, is being systematically dismantled by President Trump's great-power transactionalism. We need to be as honest with ourselves about the situation as Carney was in his speech.
A Prescription For India, Too
Carney's prescription for Canada - building strength at home, diversifying abroad, and forming issue-by-issue coalitions - offers a compelling mirror for India's own journey. Indeed, these are the very elements I have been stressing in my columns and speeches over the past year. However, for a subcontinental giant like India, the path forward requires a delicate balance between Carney's approach and our own aspirations: endorsing the middle-power solidarity Carney suggests while carving out a unique trajectory rooted in our own strategic autonomy. Carney's most potent observation was that nostalgia is not a strategy, urging nations to stop waiting for a return to the 1990s and to accept that economic integration is now being misused as a weapon. Whether through aggressive tariffs or the weaponisation of financial chokepoints, the era of trade as mutual benefit is being replaced by an ethos of coercion.
India has long sensed this shift. From our refusal to join the RCEP to our Atmanirbhar Bharat mission, New Delhi has proactively moved toward "de-risking" long before the term became a Brussels buzzword. We must endorse the Canadian call for clarity; we cannot live within the lie that global institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the UN Security Council will protect our interests in their current paralysed states. Resilience today is not about isolation, but about a sovereignty anchored in the ability to withstand external pressure.
The Great 'Middle'
This leads directly to the power of the "middle". One of the most actionable parts of the Carney Doctrine is the call for middle powers to band together, arguing that while hegemons can go it alone, everyone else is on the menu if they aren't at the table (a phrase I have used myself for two decades, but which has never seemed as apposite as now).
India finds itself in a unique position here. While we often view ourselves as a leading power rather than a middle power, the tactical benefits of Carney's approach are immense. There is a natural common cause to be made with nations like Canada, the UK, Japan, ASEAN and the EU (and maybe even Russia). For instance, Canada's massive investment in minerals and energy is a direct opportunity for India's electric vehicle and green-tech ambitions. By joining "buyers' clubs" with the G7 and Canada, India can secure supply chains that are currently choked by a single-source monopoly. Similarly, in the realms of AI and quantum computing, India and Japan can lead the way in creating open-source democratic standards, instead of being trapped under a digital iron curtain that seems to be falling between the US and China. Much like Canada's decision to join European defence procurement initiatives, India can deepen its Indo-European security ties with Germany and France, without giving up its first-mover advantage with Russia, to hedge against a potentially inward-looking United States. By collaborating with these powers, India avoids the vassalage of the re-emerging bipolar world. As a "multi-aligned" power, we aren't choosing a side, we are building a network.
A Table Of Our Own
However, where Carney speaks for a nation of 40 million, New Delhi stands up for 1.4 billion. Our scale dictates that we cannot simply be a member of a middle-power bloc; we must be an anchor. There are significant areas where India must deviate from the Carney blueprint and follow its own path of strategic autonomy, most notably regarding our leadership of the Global South - who represent the Silenced Majority of the human race. While Carney focuses on values-based trade with the West, India's destiny is inextricably linked to the Global South. Our influence in Africa and Southeast Asia is not just about trade; it is about providing an alternative model of development that is neither Western-prescriptive nor Chinese-coercive. India must remain the bridge between the Davos elite and the developing world.
Furthermore, we must navigate the Russia-China paradox with a level of pragmatism that middle powers in the West do not require. For Canada, Russia is a clear-cut adversary. For India, the relationship is nuanced by decades of defence history, diplomatic support and a pragmatic need for energy security. Our multi-alignment strategy - in this case, engaging with the Quad while maintaining our involvement with BRICS - is a necessity. And unlike Canada, which just signed a major agreement with China in Beijing, we have a long-disputed frontier with China, which Beijing periodically probes. Canada does not have Chinese troops nibbling away at its territory.
Nonetheless, we must continue to resist the pressure to pick a side in conflicts that do not serve our immediate national interest. This external autonomy must be backed by domestic fortresses. Carney spoke of building strength at home through tax reform and inter-provincial trade, but India's task is more Herculean. Our fortress must be built on the rapid formalisation of our economy, the massive skilling of our youth, and the creation of a technological infrastructure and a manufacturing base that can serve as a global alternative to China. Our strategic autonomy is only as strong as our GDP growth.
What 'Power' Now Means
The world Carney describes is one of variable geometry - a messy, fragmented, but highly active international system. We are moving toward a multinodal world where influence is acquired less by achieving a seat at the UN Security Council (whose relevance is increasingly questioned), and more by the leverage that comes from the relevance of one's domestic market and the attractiveness and reliability of one's exports. To cope, India must be both principled and pragmatic. Multi-alignment and strategic autonomy are not just slogans: they must be instruments of obtaining and deploying the leverage we are still developing and have not yet fully acquired.
India should applaud Carney for calling out the hypocrisy of the old order and join him in building new, resilient trade corridors. But we must also remember that in the "world of fortresses" that the Canadian decried, India is a continent-sized entity. Our best defence is not just a seat at the table, but the realisation that we can construct our own table at which others will wish to be served.
Carney said he wanted to move from reliance on "the strength of our values" to "the value of our strength". In that area, India has so much more strength to invest in, from its imminent ascent to being the world's third-largest economy, to its increasingly-acknowledged status as a first-tier AI power, to the value of its pluralism and diversity and the allure of its soft power. From the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean, it is our job to ensure that while the old rules may be fading, the new ones will not be written without us.
(Shashi Tharoor has been a Member of Parliament from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, since 2009. He is a published author and a former diplomat)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
