In the blood-soaked theatre of modern geopolitics, stretching from the frozen trenches of Ukraine to the volatile waters of the Strait of Hormuz, India is increasingly criticized for its refusal to pick a side.
Critics from abroad, and even those within India, label this “multi-alignment” as a policy of no consequence.
In a world of irreconcilable conflicts, India’s refusal to become a loyalist in any other nation’s interests is politically, ethically, and morally justified and is its greatest declaration of strength.
The treachery of historical alliances
General Shankar’s detailed presentation of Iran’s nuclear history reminds us that Tehran’s current predicament was born from 1957 US patronage that turned into decades of betrayal and subversion.
For India, the calculation is even colder.
Iran has never been a reliable friend; it has openly sided with Pakistan during every major India-Pak conflict, historically.
Conversely, the US record as a “trustworthy” partner is equally scarred by inconsistency and the nurturing of more than one “snake” in India’s backyard to counter India, esp when India has never crossed swords with the US.
To choose one side is to choose between two partners who never mind stabbing you in the back.
The blood-stained hands
The reality is that both the Western bloc and the Iranian regime have blood on their hands.
In the PGurus analysis, General Shukla notes that while the US possesses overwhelming kinetic power, its “civilizational erasure” rhetoric pushes the region toward an Afghan-style abyss.
Why should India sacrifice its growth to adjudicate a war where:
- The US seeks to maintain a unipolarity it hasn’t earned through fair play and consistency.
- Iran uses the global economy (via the Hormuz choke point) as a human shield for its nuclear ambitions, hurting India’s economic interests adversely.
- In Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Western “morality” conveniently ignores India’s regional security realities, when the West, including Ukraine, had never acted in India’s interests in times of India’s difficulties.
The high-wire act of national interest
India’s foreign policy is not a social club; it is a survival strategy, esp when none of the ‘powers that be’ has come to its help.
India’s interests in the Gulf are existential. With millions of Indian workers in the region and a desperate need for stable energy prices, India cannot afford the luxury of an enemy in the Gulf.
Simultaneously, the strategic necessity of Israel, a partner that provides critical defence technology without the lectures on “morality”, makes India’s multi-alignment an automatic necessity.
As General Shankar points out, India and Russia currently hold the refining capacity that the world needs to weather the energy storm.
Despite a few occasional acts that can’t be termed friendly, Russia has, by and large, helped India in times of need.
Iran has been useful as an energy supplier, also providing the Chabahar port (developed by India at its cost) to bypass Pakistan to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia.
To alienate Russia or Iran would be a self-inflicted wound to India’s 1.4 billion people.
If the present Indian government burns bridges with any of its current friends, however imperfect they may be, it would be creating permanent geopolitical hurdles that would narrow the political options or compromise the security of future Indian governments.
Why should India poke its nose into conflicts that are not its own and damage its long-term interests?
The power of being “inconsequential”
The most stinging criticism, that India has become “of no consequence“, is actually the ultimate goal of a realist power.
Amid irreconcilable conflicts, the only winning move is not to play. NOTA, if you may.
India ensures that it is not the “marriage hall” for others’ diplomacy, as General Shukla wittily remarked.
It ensures that when the smoke clears and the current combatants are exhausted, India will remain a stable, rising power rather than a hollowed-out proxy.
Conclusion: Realism over romanticism
India’s “inaction” is a calculated shield.
India will not be anybody’s sidekick, esp knowing them all for what they are.
If being a country of “no consequence” means protecting our GDP, securing our borders, and keeping the lights on for one-sixth of humanity while the rest of the world burns its bridges, then India should wear that label with pride.
Strategic autonomy is not a middle path; it is the India-first path.
In the current global chaos, silence isn’t just golden, it’s sovereign.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
Latest posts by Ganesan Subramanian (see all)
