Can India’s strategic autonomy be considered hedging?

India’s security strategy is influenced by a complex interplay of material and ideational factors which are a consequence of past events, rather than only the balance of power. The British colonization fostered a profound commitment to strategic autonomy, a defining characteristic of India’s foreign policy since its independence in 1947.

Since gaining independence, India has incorporated a powerful sense of exceptionalism into its national identity, which significantly influences its foreign policy decisions. India aspires to be seen as a distinct entity that is no longer willing to engage in a pattern of conformity to the interests of the most dominant actors. New Delhi’s desire is to be recognized and valued for its unique cultural attributes and to carve out its distinctive trajectory.

The leadership of the nation has shifted from a stance of non-alignment during the Cold War to adopting a multi-alignment strategy. The growing influence in Asia has positioned it as a significant player among various major powers, enabling a notable degree of flexibility in aligning with multiple nations, even in the face of conflicting interests.

In the realm of International Relations, a novel concept known as hedging has surfaced since the 1990s. This term has been ambiguous and associated with various interpretations while carrying a negative connotation.

There is more than one definition to it, but to conduct the analysis we are going to use these two definitions as a starting point.

Evelyn Goh has defined hedging as “a set of strategies aimed at avoiding (or planning for contingencies in) a situation in which states cannot decide upon more straightforward alternatives such as balancing, bandwagoning, or neutrality. Instead, they cultivate a middle position that avoids having to choose one side at the obvious expense of another.”

This paper will also follow Cheng-Chwee Kuik’s: “Hedging is a reaction in which either middle or small country seeks to offset risks arising from increased competition between the first and second great powers in the international system. The goal of hedging therefore is not to increase the desired interest, but to produce mutually counteracting effects under the uncertainties caused by great power competition.”

The clear manifestation of India’s non-alignment policy is evident in the development of its key alliances. Throughout the Cold War period, India-Soviet relations were characterized by a strong bond rooted in mutual respect and admiration for shared values, a connection that continues to endure. The defense collaboration was initially characterized by a buyer-seller relationship but evolved into a more cooperative model. However, when India began to establish connections with Western countries and in the years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these relations experienced some periods of upheaval.

In addition, India and the United States have a strong and unwavering alliance, representing a significant partnership within the Western world. This is evident through their collaboration in defense and India’s steadfast dedication to the QUAD and the Indo-Pacific strategy.

Despite appearing as a potential source of conflict, India benefits from participating in the QUAD. The grouping of Western countries known as the QUAD (US, India, Japan, and Australia) has the potential to incite conflict with neighboring nations due to its composition.

India can collaborate with similarly-minded nations, while simultaneously upholding its autonomy in decision-making and maintaining the liberty to engage with diverse international entities and stakeholders. New Delhi has the potential to solidify its influence in the Indo-Ocean region by engaging in a coalition focused on addressing non-conventional challenges. This exemplifies an awareness that addressing regional challenges independently is not a viable option for individual nations, thus collaboration enables the consolidation of resources. This strategic placement enables India to assert its dominance as a prominent influence in the region. It is of utmost importance for India to acknowledge the substantial leverage it possesses in its ability to exert pressure on China as necessary. Nevertheless, India must approach the situation with prudence in order to avoid any unwarranted increase in tensions.

Besides, India has increased its cooperation with the QUAD during the most recent summit, possibly in reaction to mounting tensions with China. At present, India is confronting the possibility of being surrounded within its territory as a result of a range of initiatives undertaken by the Chinese government. Some examples of Chinese economic and infrastructure initiatives in South Asia encompass the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Chinese financial involvement in Sri Lankan ports, development projects in Bangladesh, and the growing presence of China in Nepal.

Moreover, India has suggested hosting the QUAD Regional Ports and Transportation Conference in Mumbai, which is seen as a potential reaction to the increased presence of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, particularly in the Asian region. By joining the QUAD, New Delhi enables the United States to counter China’s influence, which serves to deter Beijing from further consolidating its hegemonic power.

It is noteworthy to observe that despite the confrontation in the Galwan Valley, there has been an increase in trade between India and the People’s Republic of China. Additionally, India has chosen not to participate in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which is a regional trade agreement spearheaded by China. How can India strengthen its relationship with the US, while also avoiding involvement in Chinese initiatives, and simultaneously boosting trade without creating additional strain on its relations with Beijing? As a result of its widely acknowledged multi-alignment policy, a stance embraced by numerous ASEAN member states.

Nonetheless, India continues to maintain diplomatic ties with nations that have expressed their disapproval of the QUAD alliance and its constituent countries. India demonstrated its diplomatic autonomy when, despite the pressures from other QUAD members, it refused to condemn Russia’s attack on Ukraine and chose to remain neutral on the issue.

However, in an effort to align its approach more closely with that of the United States, Prime Minister Modi visited Poland and Ukraine to convey a message of peace and ongoing humanitarian aid for Ukraine. During the visit, he emphasized the importance of international law, including the UN Charter, thus partially deviating from India's traditional ally, Russia.

In the past two decades, the US has emerged as a major supplier of defense equipment to India, established itself as India’s primary military exercise partner, enhanced collaboration and coordination, and executed technical compromises to broaden India’s access to advanced US defense technology. This collaboration fits into Kuik’s concept of hedging. India tries to minimize its security risks while counterbalancing a great power, China.

While preserving its autonomy, India has strengthened its alignment with Western countries, particularly the US, during the past five years to counterbalance China. However, this inclination can ultimately jeopardize its strategic autonomy.

Yet India’s active participation in BRICS serves as a clear indication of its friendly relations with other states. Even though it is improbable that BRICS+ will institutionalize, despite an imminent gathering. The near future for BRICS seems to involve a focus on economic collaboration without taking sides politically. Notwithstanding the ongoing debates regarding the constraints of BRICS, the group has successfully established the New Development Bank as its financial institution.

Also, the prospect of economic collaboration within the group is noteworthy, as it brings together countries with abundant capital resources available for financing, such as China and the UAE, with emerging nations in need of funding for their development projects.

Whereas New Delhi seems hesitant to borrow directly from Beijing, but obtaining funds from a multilateral financial institution, where China is just one of many influential players, appears to be a more reliable alternative. India’s participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is likely supported by this argument.

In the context of New Delhi, the BRICS group offers valuable opportunities to advance India’s ambitions for global leadership and to emphasize its strategic independence and commitment to a multipolar world order, both in the Western world and in the Global South. India’s perceived role as a connector between Western organizations such as the Quad and non-Western forums, or its ability to engage in both, contributes positively to its negotiating power. Additionally, there are abundant opportunities for the country to navigate various states in pursuit of its foreign policy objectives, given its multi-aligned approach, particularly as its economic power seems to be trending upward. The provision of access also enables the potential for enhanced coordination in areas such as Central Asia or West Asia, where China’s influence is currently at its peak.

For instance, New Delhi anticipates that the enlargement of BRICS will enhance India’s strategic standing globally, with particular benefit in the Middle East region. Many perceive BRICS as a multilateral Eurasian initiative led by China, but for India, it holds significant importance within its foreign policy framework. In a different sense, India views the BRICS platform and its expansion as a means to enhance its economic reach in the Middle East and other regions, within a multipolar framework. India engages in international cooperation only when it aligns with its national interests. Being a member of BRICS in this instance mean both economic and diplomatic benefits.

India's relations with the People’s Republic of China are strained due to diverse factors such as an unresolved border dispute, an imbalanced commercial relationship, China's strategic alliance with Pakistan, and an expanding political-strategic discord about each nation's perceived proper position in Asia and beyond.

The year 2020 marked a significant turning point in India-China relations due to the violent confrontation in the Galwan Valley, leading to a substantial shift in their relationship. The increasing use of coercive tactics by China in the border areas since 2008-2009 has once again brought the issue of border disputes to the forefront of diplomatic relations. India has chosen to counterbalance China through military posture and strategic alignments.

The conflict in Ukraine has strengthened the relationship between China and Russia, India’s traditional military ally. This has inevitably further polarized the situation in the Asian region. Seemingly fostering a closer relationship between India and the West, while simultaneously bringing Russia and China into closer alignment.

India is also growing in assertiveness in the region, trying to avoid being viewed as a static actor. New Delhi has adopted a more forceful stance in the South China Sea. Although India officially maintains a neutral stance on sovereignty claims in the South China Sea, New Delhi's references to the ‘West Philippine Sea’ suggest an implied acknowledgment of the Philippines’ position over the dispute. India has expressed support for Manila’s 2013 decision to submit its dispute with China to the arbitration tribunal of the UNCLOS and has recognized the tribunal's subsequent 2016 finding in favor of the Philippines. New Delhi has compared China’s conduct with its own choice to agreeing to a finding favoring Bangladesh on a maritime border dispute in the Bay of Bengal.

In recent times, India’s interactions with China have grown more forceful, leading to obstacles in their collaborative efforts and prompting India to establish alliances with other international stakeholders. This does not suggest that all decisions made by New Delhi are solely influenced by either China or the Western front. India is of great significance in the South Asian region because of its extensive historical heritage and is securing worldwide acknowledgment. The country takes great pride in its distinctive culture and aims to be recognized and respected for its own merit, rather than being manipulated in the geopolitical agendas of other nations. India, despite its history of colonization, seeks to establish its independence and sovereignty in the realm of international affairs.

Nevertheless, the US does not fully respect this autonomy. During a conference in New Delhi, Ambassador Eric Garcetti stated that while he acknowledges India’s desire for strategic autonomy, such autonomy may not be feasible in times of conflict. He emphasized the importance of India and the United States working together in such situations. Is strategic autonomy a privilege that smaller, post-colonial countries may not have the right to claim in the eyes of the superpowers?

India’s foreign policy is not only determined by the existing balance of power, rather, it represents a deliberate and enduring stance chosen by the nation. Numerous other nations encountering similar circumstances are also choosing to adopt this stance. A major obstacle that these nations frequently face is the demand to fully align with dominant countries and their agendas.

Also, some countries pursue a similar policy. Nigeria, as the most populous and economically significant country in Africa, has consistently maintained a policy of non-alignment, establishing relations with major powers while avoiding overdependence on any single nation, with a focus on maximizing economic advantages.

Both countries share the perspective of attaining regional leadership as the preeminent nation in their respective neighboring countries and striving for regional integration. However, they have different perspectives with regard to security and issues related to terrorism.

It is also relevant that Nigeria and India try to position themselves as culturally distinct, through the Nollywood and Bollywood industry and their music industries amongst other techniques these nations try to create an image of cultural distinctiveness.

Furthermore, Latin American countries are also adopting a similar approach, with several South American nations diverging from their traditional alliance with the United States in favor of strengthening their relationship with China. This behavior is undertaken with the goal of achieving sovereignty in their diplomatic interactions, taking advantage of China's investment with no strings attached, and jointly offsetting each other's influence.

Many ASEAN countries also follow a non-aligned model. With Southeast Asia being the focal point of the rivalry between China and the United States, the majority of states in the region have chosen to adopt a balanced stance rather than fully banwagoning entirely with either of the two major powers.

Nevertheless, India possesses a greater degree of autonomy in comparison to its neighboring ASEAN states. The status of India as a nuclear power provides the country with increased autonomy and significantly reduces the likelihood of armed conflict with China.

We have observed behavior that is inconsistent, not entirely in line with alliances, and involving cooperation with oppositional powers, yet still achieving success.

Upon evaluating its behavior, India does indeed implement hedging policies as a means of risk minimization. The practice of hedging is concealed within the concept of strategic autonomy. The primary rationale for India’s hedging strategy stems from the crucial roles that China and the United States play in bringing forward both its national security and economic development. This is because it is deemed impractical and ineffective to bandwagon with either powers because it would result in India’s loss of autonomy. New Delhi resorts to hedging in order to navigate and balance its relationships with them. These policies enable the nation to adapt and retain its diplomatic independence, which are vital aspects of its strategic autonomy. India has national interest at its forefront, and in this highly uncertain scene of increasing competition amongst great powers, India’s best option is to swing in order to preserve its prized strategic autonomy.

Achieving and maintaining strategic autonomy requires hedging strategies, which are vital to their sustainability. Complete separation is untenable.