Between Allies and Adversaries
As India attempts to play both sides of global power blocs, the nation's
strategic ambitions face increasing pressure from its geography, history, and
shifting global alliances.
Power, Geography, and Strategic Illusions
In international politics, power is the ultimate currency.
Nations that wield military or economic strength can often bend the foreign
policies of neighboring states to their will. If India truly possessed either,
it might have reshaped South Asia to its own advantage—particularly in
Bangladesh. But contrary to popular perception, India is neither a military
juggernaut nor an economic behemoth.
What complicates India's ambitions even further is the
strategic location of its arch-rival, Pakistan. Nestled at the crossroads of
Central and South Asia, Pakistan shares borders with China, Iran, Afghanistan,
and several Central Asian republics. This geographic position grants Islamabad
not just regional relevance, but global significance—especially as Balochistan
remains rich in rare earth minerals that the world desperately covets.
Operation Sindoor: A Turning Point
The fallout from Operation Sindoor was telling. Apart
from Israel, no major player stood by India during the operation. In contrast,
the U.S. began viewing Pakistan with renewed strategic interest. India had long
hoped to become Washington’s closest strategic ally, but that dream now appears
frayed at the edges.
Even within QUAD—the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue
comprising the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India—the momentum has waned,
especially since the latter half of the Trump administration. India finds
itself at a crossroads: wanting deeper ties with the West, yet unable to secure
the level of endorsement it desires.
BRICS vs QUAD: India’s Two-Faced Diplomacy
India’s foreign policy today resembles a high-wire act. On
one hand, it is a founding member of BRICS, an alliance often seen as
counter-Western and dominated by China. On the other, it is a key player in
QUAD, perceived as a counterweight to Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific.
This dual alignment is not without criticism. Former Vice
President of the BRICS New Development Bank, renowned Brazilian economist Prof.
Paulo Nogueira Batista, even called India a “Trojan Horse” within
BRICS—implying that New Delhi may be sabotaging the bloc’s anti-Western goals
from within.
India’s reluctance to support a new BRICS currency, aimed at
weakening the dollar, only adds to this suspicion. Former President Donald
Trump had already signaled that BRICS members would not be exempt from U.S.
tariffs, and he accused the alliance of attempting to undermine the dollar’s
global dominance.
Caught between two blocs with conflicting agendas, India’s
strategic balancing act grows more precarious by the day.
The Russian Shift and the China Factor
Historically, Russia was India’s most trusted partner during
the Cold War. But the Ukraine conflict has pushed Moscow deeper into Beijing’s
embrace. China is now acting as Russia’s diplomatic armor against the West,
eager to prevent Moscow from retreating or becoming a liability.
Under these circumstances, it seems improbable that Russia
would now prioritize India over China. That geopolitical window may have closed
permanently.
Meanwhile, China has been fostering closer ties with
Pakistan—and more recently, Bangladesh. This emerging triangle of cooperation
poses a direct threat to India’s northeastern corridor, particularly the Siliguri
Corridor—also ominously known as the “Chicken’s Neck.”
Just 22 kilometers wide, this narrow stretch connects
India’s northeast to the mainland. It also lies perilously close to the borders
of Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and China. Any instability here would effectively
sever India’s access to its own territory.
India: A Regional Power, “Not” a Superpower
Economically, India may rise to global prominence by the
middle of this century. But in military terms, it remains a conventional
regional power—not a superpower. Despite its military posturing, India lacks
decisive dominance over its primary rival: Pakistan.
In fact, in a border skirmish this May, Pakistan
successfully shot down an Indian fighter jet using Chinese defense technology—a
symbolic moment illustrating India’s vulnerability on both eastern and western
fronts.
Should a full-scale conflict erupt, Pakistan would have
China’s unwavering support. India, then, would find itself sandwiched between
two formidable adversaries.
The Reluctant Pivot to Beijing
Geopolitical pressure may eventually force India closer to
China—but not without discomfort. New Delhi is wary of appearing submissive to
Chinese demands. Yet the diplomatic chessboard suggests that India has limited
moves left.
From China’s perspective, Western powers may be grooming
India to curb Beijing’s expanding influence. While China remains open to
economic cooperation, it shows little interest in resolving territorial
disputes with India. Both countries understand that these conflicts are
unlikely to be resolved in the near future.
Rather than seek backing from global blocs, both nations
appear to favor a pragmatic détente—one rooted in mutual benefit, devoid of
ideological alignment. The relationship may never be warm, but both capitals
understand the value of avoiding open hostility.
A Game of Illusions and Realities
India’s foreign policy is increasingly defined by
contradictions. It desires Western validation without fully committing to
Western interests. It champions multipolarity while sitting on opposing blocs.
It speaks of regional leadership, yet remains constrained by geography and
military limitations.
In a world defined by rapid geopolitical shifts, India must
either recalibrate its alliances or continue juggling contradictions. The
illusion of great power status is seductive—but illusions, by their very
nature, are unsustainable.
Sources:
- The Diplomat – India’s BRICS
Dilemma
- Carnegie Endowment –
India and the QUAD
- Al Jazeera – Operation
Sindoor and Geopolitical Aftermath
- Brookings – China’s
Strategy Toward South Asia
- CNBC – BRICS Currency Debate
- BBC – Siliguri Corridor: India’s
Strategic Vulnerability
No comments:
Post a Comment