24 December 2024, NIICE Commentary 9810
Kashif Anwar
In global geopolitics, a nation’s role, position, and policy towards national interest and global events are often influenced by the country’s history, the nature of its relationships with major powers, and its geographical location. To comprehend this phenomenon more effectively, an examination of how countries have responded to both World Wars, the emergence of a bipolar world versus the non-aligned movement period, and the rise of China in the 21st century elucidates a nation’s stance and approach towards international politics. In this context, India’s position in changing geopolitics since its independence has been to balance its approach and bilateral relationships with major powers, whilst ensuring strategic and national interests remain a top priority.
Strategic autonomy is conceptualised as the pursuit of a foreign policy based on national interest, with decisions taken without external influence. Strategic autonomy in its absolute form can be practised by a superpower in a unipolar world where other countries have restricted diplomatic elbow and are unable to determine the cost of pursuing a particular policy or interest. Strategic autonomy is an aspiration for every nation; however, most fail to achieve it due to insufficient power capabilities or the absence of a favourable global environment to pursue their policies or interests.
In a bipolar or multipolar order, which affords nations diplomatic manoeuvrability to practise their strategic autonomy in conjunction with determining the cost of pursuing policies or interests driven by national interest, nations find a bipolar order a favourable environment to practise their foreign policy and interests. This raises the question: is the current world order unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar? In this regard, John Mearsheimer in 2019 argues that the world order is shifting from unipolar to multipolarity; conversely, William Wohlforth contends that the current international system cannot be characterised as either bipolar or multipolar.
Bipolar or multipolar orders provide nations with a degree of freedom to practise strategic autonomy. Presently, nations employ political acumen to pursue their interests whilst ensuring core national interests are secured, as exemplified by India. This is evident in India’s decision to remain non-aligned during the Cold War period, sign the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the former Soviet Union before the 1971 war with Pakistan, finalise the 2008 Nuclear deal with the US, or simultaneously participate in QUAD, BRICS, and SCO.
Such examples illustrate India’s strategic autonomy policy and demonstrate how India has pursued its national interests over the years to secure its economic, strategic, and defence needs on the frontlines and in the Indian Ocean region. India has largely been able to counter resistance and pressure or avoid being constrained in any manner by other countries, particularly concerning core national interests such as the status of Jammu & Kashmir and nuclear weapons.
India’s Strategic Autonomy
For India, altering or moderating national policies on non-core issues has consistently been a case-by-case calculated decision to determine which approach benefits India most at a given moment. This is evidenced in India’s bilateral trade with the US, China and Russia, which is increasing as India has been able to balance its approach, considering the growing US-China and US-Russia power competition in the Indo-Pacific region and Europe, respectively.
The question arises whether India should continue with such an approach, align with a particular side, or relinquish its strategic autonomy policy. In this regard, the statement given by India’s Foreign Minister Dr S. Jaishankar that, ‘We are India; we know how to handle the world’, during the 2023 G20 Summit, which was held in India, has addressed this question. Currently, as India has a time-tested ally in Russia and a strategic partner in the US, its non-aligned independent foreign policy has enabled India to maintain a balanced approach between the US and Russia.
All Indian governments since independence have adhered to strategic autonomy in various forms, such as non-alignment and multi-alignment. This policy has allowed India to secure and practise its multi-alignment strategy and gain global acceptance; concurrently, it has not prevented India from making assertive statements on major global events. Furthermore, India has refrained from forming an alliance with the US, as it would potentially alienate China and Russia, which India sought to avoid. Instead, India has pursued ways to strengthen ties with major powers while ensuring its national interests were not compromised.
As India’s strategic autonomy evolves and takes shape, its relations with major powers have demonstrated India’s ability to navigate the challenges of strategic autonomy by practising a multi-alignment strategy. India has been able to justify its approach and position on numerous geopolitical events, such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and India’s continued ties with Russia. As Jaishankar argues, India has never been a cause for anyone’s angst, as in the contemporary era, nations do not maintain exclusive relationships.
India has successfully managed its quest for autonomy and adeptly identified and exploited opportunities created by global contradictions by leveraging its geographical location in Asia to become a bridge between the East and West. This has facilitated India’s growth in defence, technological, and economic cooperation with the West, enabled collaboration with China under BRICS and SCO, and ensured its strategic relations with Russia remain secure and viable, all accomplished in a discreet manner. Consequently, despite reducing its defence imports from Russia to align its strategic interests with the West under QUAD to counter China, India has also ensured its interests are secured within BRICS.
India’s strategic autonomy policy, which eschews isolation and advocates for a positive-sum approach with increased engagement among power centres for mutual benefit, is evident in its stance on the Indo-Pacific region, where India promotes a free, open, and inclusive regional order. Concurrently, India has demonstrated strategic flexibility and a willingness to recalibrate its posture when necessary. The United States’ recognition of India as a strategic partner, asset, and stakeholder in the Global South underscores the acceptance of India’s strategic autonomy policy. Consequently, relinquishing this strategic autonomy would significantly impact India’s long-established multi-alignment foreign policy and diplomatic manoeuvrability, thereby affecting its decision-making capabilities on both core and non-core issues. Such a shift would result in India’s decisions being influenced by great power competition and the major power with which India aligns, a scenario that India seeks to avoid.
