An Unthinking Think-Tanker And His Misguided Critique Of India

Sam Bidwell's (Director of Research and Education at the Adam Smith Institute) history of anti-India stances is well-documented, including in his previous criticism of Hindus For Democracy.

His recent article, The Indian Delusion, is yet another example of a British think-tanker pontificating from an outdated imperial perch, attempting to reduce India’s global rise to a mere mirage.

His argument—laced with condescension, historical amnesia, and selective outrage—rests on a flimsy foundation of misplaced analogies and alarmist rhetoric.

Increasingly, a large number of young think tankers from Oxbridge humanities backgrounds, exhibit dismissive and colonial attitudes towards India. These individuals often display cognitive dissonance over India’s growing economic, technological, and geopolitical significance, instead relying on outdated narratives shaped by a British imperial worldview.

India is Not China—A Lazy and False Equivalence

Bidwell’s central premise is a facile comparison between India and China, implying that just as the British miscalculated China’s trajectory, it is now indulging in similar delusions about India. This argument is intellectually lazy and fundamentally flawed.

India is a functioning democracy, with regular, contested elections, a vocal opposition, and an independent judiciary. Lumping them together ignores the fundamental difference between a one-party rule and a multiparty democracy.

India's Foreign Policy: Sovereignty, Not Subservience

Bidwell laments that India does not automatically align with Britain’s or the West’s geopolitical positions, branding India as “mercurial” and “hostile.”

This critique reeks of colonial entitlement—the expectation that India should serve as an uncritical extension of British foreign policy rather than an independent power.

India’s strategic choices—whether engaging with Russia, balancing China, or asserting its position in the Indo-Pacific—are dictated by its national interest, much like Britain’s own policy decisions. To label India’s foreign policy as untrustworthy simply because it does not align neatly with British preferences is both naive and hypocritical.

The United States, recognizing India’s growing strategic importance, has actively fostered deeper ties with New Delhi across administrations. From George W. Bush's landmark civilian nuclear deal to Barack Obama's designating India as a "major defense partner," the trajectory of Indo-U.S. relations has been overwhelmingly positive.

Donald Trump, in particular, strengthened this relationship, expanding defense cooperation and trade ties while hosting massive public events like "Howdy Modi" in Houston and "Namaste Trump" in India. His administration's prioritization of India as a counterweight to China underscored the bipartisan consensus in Washington that sees India as a crucial ally.

Anti-Colonial Sentiment is Not “Hostility”—It’s History

Bidwell’s indignation over Indian criticism of the British Empire exposes a deeper discomfort: the refusal to confront Britain’s colonial legacy.

The outrage over Subhas Chandra Bose’s legacy or discussions of Britain’s economic extraction from India (a well-documented historical fact) reflects an unwillingness to engage with history on honest terms.

The British Empire was not a benign force in India—it extracted wealth, orchestrated economic famines, and suppressed Indian self-rule for nearly two centuries. That India remembers this past is not “hostility”—it is historical reckoning. Britain must come to terms with the fact that India does not owe it deference, much less loyalty.

Perhaps the most inflammatory aspect of Bidwell’s argument is his attempt to stoke fear about the Indian diaspora’s growing influence in British politics.

His portrayal of Indian migrants as a political Trojan horse, infiltrating the UK with latent “anti-British sentiment,” is not just misleading—it veers dangerously close to xenophobic paranoia.

Indian-origin Britons are among the most successful and integrated communities in the UK, contributing significantly to business, medicine, technology, and politics. Reports from the UK Parliament’s Commons Library further highlight India as one of the fastest-growing sources of foreign investment in Britain, underscoring the deep economic ties between the two nations.

Indians in the UK excel academically, consistently outperforming other ethnic groups in GCSE results and higher education attainment. According to official UK government data, Indian students achieve among the highest scores in key academic benchmarks, reflecting their strong emphasis on education and professional success. 

Additionally, statistics from the UK Prison Population Report for 2024 reveal that Hindus are nearly absent from the prison population, making them the most law-abiding demographic among all ethnic and religious groups. This data underscores the community’s strong adherence to legal and civic norms, further challenging the fear-mongering narrative regarding Indian migration.

Political engagement by any community should be welcomed, not treated with suspicion. His suggestion that Indian voters do not sufficiently reward Conservative politicians is irrelevant—voters, regardless of ethnicity, make their choices based on policy, not blind allegiance.

UK-India Partnership: A Strategic Necessity, Not Delusion

Bidwell’s disdain for Conservative efforts to strengthen ties with India is rooted in an outdated worldview where Britain still dictates terms to its former colonies. But in a post-Brexit world, engagement with India is not a favor—it is a necessity.

Furthermore, Britain urgently needs Indian expertise to compete in critical sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and space technology—fields that are woefully underfunded in the UK and lack sufficient indigenous talent.

India, with its booming tech ecosystem, has become a global leader in these industries, producing world-class engineers, researchers, and entrepreneurs. The United States and Germany have long recognized this, actively attracting top Indian talent, many of whom have founded or led some of the biggest technology firms.

Elon Musk has openly acknowledged this, stating, "USA benefits greatly from Indian talent!" Likewise, Jordan Peterson and Pierre Poilievre have highlighted the role of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) as one of the most significant institutions in fueling the success of Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, Germany has made concerted efforts to attract Indian professionals, recognizing their potential to enhance its technological and engineering sectors.

Sam’s response aligns with those in the US, who reacted with xenophobic outrage when Sriram Krishnan was named as an AI advisor by Donald Trump. Their resistance to Indian excellence in critical industries mirrors the same colonial biases that seek to undermine UK-India Partnership.

The Real Delusion is Colonial Nostalgia

Bidwell warns against the so-called “delusion” of British engagement with India. But the real delusion here is the belief that Britain can afford to ignore or antagonize India in a rapidly shifting global order.

His argument is not one of realism but of misplaced entitlement—an outdated notion that India should behave as a grateful protégé rather than a sovereign global power.

Instead of pontificating from an imperial hangover, British policymakers should embrace pragmatism over nostalgia. The UK-India relationship must be built on mutual respect, shared economic interests, and strategic alignment where possible—not outdated colonial grievances or misplaced fears of an engaged diaspora.

To Bidwell and others clinging to an obsolete worldview: India is not a vassal state. The sooner you accept that, the better.