Strategic autonomy is the phrase used with respect to India’s abstention at the United Nations, its increasing defence cooperation with the US, continuing military cooperation with Russia and not-joining of formal alliances.
It is often poorly understood.
Some believe that it is about being prudent. Many critics call India a fence-sitter. Others confused it with neutrality (or Cold War-era non-alignment).
In fact, strategic autonomy is neither indecisive nor ideological. Strategic autonomy is India’s method for managing worldwide power dynamics, pressure and the unpredictability of an evolving global order.
Why does India consistently invoke strategic autonomy?
Essentially, the term strategic autonomy denotes a state of being that enables independent national decisions to be made while building relationships with multiple global powers concurrently.
Why does India consistently invoke strategic autonomy? Indian decision-makers have a fundamental premise that alliances change, interests diverge and global norms do not have universal application. Also, strategic autonomy speaks to the belief that long-term security can only be achieved through agility and not establishing a continually fixed position.
This is why this term comes up so often—it reflects India’s priority on choice as opposed to obligation, and independence as opposed to reliance.
Is strategic independence synonymous with neutrality?
No. There is a relation, but they are not the same.
Neutrality was coined during the Cold War era where India refrained from becoming enveloped with one of either the US or Soviet bloc’s military alliances. Neutrality was a choice not to engage in formal relationships with block powers during a bi-polar world.
In contrast, India wanted strategic autonomy to be more broad and more current.
The concept of strategic autonomy is not limited to only military alliances; it also extends to:
- Procurement of defence goods
- Reliance on foreign economies
- Reliance on foreign technology
- Foreign policy making
India is much more quickly moving toward stronger engagement with major world powers than they were when pursuing neutrality. The difference in relationship between India and major world powers is their willingness to engage with foreign powers; the similarity of their ongoing relationships is that each nation retains control over what decisions are being made with respect to their own defence strategies.
How does strategic autonomy show itself?
One way to look at strategic autonomy is through actions and not words.
India continues to work closely with the United States on defence cooperation, maritime security and technology, but continues to rely heavily on Russia for military equipment and to maintain relationships with countries who have been sanctioned from the West.
India is an active member of forums such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) but has thus far declined to turn these groups into formal military alliances; at the same time, it is strengthening ties with western economies while positioning itself to be the voice of the Global South.
These actions are often described as contradictory; however, this is simply not true.
India is engaging in purposeful actions to:
- Cooperate with partners where interests converge
- Resist outside influence when interests diverge
- Maintain options for future engagement by avoiding formal commitments
Strategic autonomy gives India the ability to collaborate on a broad basis and not become constrained by an unwarranted commitment.
Why does India continue to reject formal alliances?
Formal alliances afford states with certainty as well as guarantees of mutual assistance; however, anybody who has entered into an alliance at one time or another has also had to face obligations.
For India, the trade-off with alliance politics is that the state has less flexibility to react to crises where there is misalignment between its own priorities and those of its partners. India is using a strategy of strategic autonomy to mitigate this exposure.
India’s political leaders have a higher regard for uncertainty than they have for commitments, believing that uncertainty is a manageable risks vs. commitments.
What will be the costs to India of strategic autonomy?
Strategic autonomy is not without consequence.
India can frustrate its partners, create doubt amongst its partners, and receive criticism from many sides because the state does not appear to be reliability. At times, India feels multiple sources of influence at once.
However, India’s leadership believes the cost of these strategies are a lower risk compared to that associated with being dependent on partners.
Strategic autonomy is primarily about managing risk.
FOR MORE: CIVICLENS.IN
About the Author
