The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World

by S. Jaishankar

This book was developed in the course of the last two years through a series of events. Lectures given at think tanks, conferences or business forums form its core. They remain relevant in large measure but have been updated where required. ‘The Lessons of Awadh’ is a fusion of comments on various such occasions. ‘The Art of the Disruption’ draws on addresses to the Oslo Energy Forum, the Raisina Dialogue, the Sir Bani Yas Forum and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. ‘Krishna’s Choice’ was articulated in its essence at the Sai Foundation, New Delhi. ‘The Dogmas of Delhi’ is an expanded version of the Fourth Ramnath Goenka Memorial Lecture. ‘Of Mandarins and Masses’ is a hybrid of talks at St Stephen’s College, the Heritage Foundation, the University of Birmingham and the Atlantic Council. ‘The Nimzo Indian Defence’ is based on a lecture delivered in Singapore. ‘A Delayed Destiny’ combines discussions at the Delhi Policy Group, India Foundation and the India International Centre. ‘The Pacific Indian’ owes its articulation to three Indian Ocean Conferences organized by the India Foundation and one by the National Maritime Foundation. And ‘After the Virus’ builds on recent speeches starting with the Fifth Raisina Dialogue 2020, taking into account the impact of the pandemic.

A famous Satyajit Ray film some decades ago captured the Indian self-absorption that shapes its larger awareness of the world. It depicted two Indian nawabs engrossed in a chess game while the British East India Company steadily took over their wealthy kingdom of Awadh.

In contemporary times, Indian agnosticism about the outcome of the Second World War had major repercussions. In the next decade, India’s handling of the Cold War led Pakistan, a smaller neighbour, to close the power differential for decades. The consequences of its illegal occupation of part of Jammu and Kashmir was as underestimated as the strength of its revanchist sentiments after 1971. Understanding of China has been inadequate, whether it was the significance of the 1949 revolution, later the intensity of its Communist nationalism or, finally, the enormity of its post-1978 rise.

India’s foreign policy carries three major burdens from its past. One is the 1947 Partition, which reduced the nation both demographically and politically. An unintended consequence was to give China more strategic space in Asia. Another is the delayed economic reforms that were undertaken a decade and a half after those of China. And far more ambivalently. The fifteen-year gap in capabilities continues to put India at a great disadvantage. The third is the prolonged exercise of the nuclear option. As a result, India has had to struggle mightily to gain influence in a domain that could have come so much more easily earlier. It is, of course, better that these issues are being addressed late than never. But greater self-reflection on our mistakes since 1947 would certainly serve the nation well. We could also extend that to the roads not taken.

This is a time for us to engage America, manage China, cultivate Europe, reassure Russia, bring Japan into play, draw neighbours in, extend the neighbourhood and expand traditional constituencies of support.

Introducing our own diplomatic terms into the discourse is intrinsic to the process of international emergence. The Indo-Pacific, the Quad or the BRICS earlier are illustrative examples. Brand building that already plays on our IT and business strengths could be expanded further.

As an Indian diplomat, I have watched the world change beyond imagination in the course of a long career. My generation and those before carried into our profession the heavy baggage of difficult experiences with the US, China and Pakistan. By the 1970s, these three accounts had mutated into a joint threat to Indian interests. The first half of my diplomatic life was dominated by two geopolitical realities: the Cold War and the rise of political Islam. They combined to precipitate the break-up of the Soviet Union, an event of great consequence for India.

All of this is cumulatively reflected in an evolution from the centrality of the Soviet relationship to convergences with multiple powers. Economic reform, the nuclear tests, the 2005 nuclear deal and a tougher national security posture are among its diplomatic milestones. Together, they helped create a policy outlook that has not been easy to capture in terms of orthodox thinking. If India drove the revived Quad arrangement, it also took membership of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. A longstanding trilateral with Russia and China coexists now with one involving the US and Japan. These apparently contradictory developments only illustrate the world in which we now operate. Comprehending and messaging them is hard, especially to those not ready to come to terms with the intricacies of the new architecture. Positioning is of increasing value in a fluid world, explaining the importance of engaging competing powers like the US, China, the EU or Russia at the same time.

But when Indian actions are viewed from the perspective of its own self-interest, a clearer pattern starts to emerge. It is one of constant advancement of goals and interests, using all pathways that the world has to offer. And since that often means plunging into the unknown, it requires both judgement and courage. Our past will always be an influence, but no longer a determinant of our future. Forging ahead will mean taking risks and refraining from passing off timidity as strategy or indecision as wisdom.

‘Sometimes by losing a battle, you find a new way to win a war.’ – DONALD TRUMP

Convergences even among competing powers is not unknown. The briefer examples include that of Germany and USSR after the First World War or the US and the USSR during the second one. In contrast, the trans-Atlantic bond between the UK and the US proved exceptionally durable. Somewhere in-between would be the UK-Japan partnership after the Meji Restoration that lasted half a century. China’s collaboration with the USSR/Russia in the 1950s and again today is also noteworthy.

Dissimilar powers such as the US, European ones or Japan have both made common cause and gone to war. Related ones within Europe too have done the same. Culture has a role, as do interests and circumstances. But in the final analysis, it is all about calculations and aspirations. Both are derivatives of leadership choices and societal sentiments; nothing is really inevitable. And because it boils down to human factors, values and beliefs do play their part in shaping world affairs.

The Sino-US competition in its new avatar will be a long and hard contest without clear outcomes. The likely scenario is of a twilight zone, where shifts in geopolitics are compounded by leaps of technology. The rise of a new global power was never going to be easy, and an order waiting to happen will look like chaos till it does.

We see forces at play that reflect the relative primacy of local equations when the global construct is less overbearing. The reality is that the US may have weakened, but China’s rise is still far from maturing. And together, the two processes have freed up room for others. Both have a use for third parties as they contest each other. In fact, their mutual dynamic may well drive multipolarity faster. The beneficiaries could well be middle powers. Those who already have prior advantages like Russia, France and UK will get a new lease of life. Some like India can aspire to an improved position. Others, like Germany, would increase their weight through collective endeavours. But this will also be a world of a Brazil and Japan, of Turkey and Iran, a Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or an Australia, with a greater say in their vicinity and even beyond.

A flatter world has been beneficial to India as its rise has been welcomed by many entrenched powers. The American interest in working with India has been evident for two decades and has now further accelerated. Russia remains a privileged partner with whom geopolitical convergence is a key consideration even in shifting circumstances. That has given the relationship a unique ballast. After Brexit, a more uncertain Europe has also developed a growing interest in India as a force of stability and growth in Asia. China, for its part, sees India as inherent to the rise of Asia and the larger rebalancing of the power distribution. The expansion of Japan’s concerns and interests has created the basis for a completely different quality of ties. Countries of Asia, especially in the ASEAN and the Indo-Pacific, visualize merits in India’s ability to shape a more multipolar Asia. The other extended neighbourhood in the Gulf has also welcomed the return of India to its region. While doing all this, India has retained its traditional constituencies of support in Africa and the rest of the political South. As the power differential vis-à-vis the world narrows, collaboration possibilities have expanded. If the world has developed stakes in India’s prominence, the latter, in turn, can utilize that sentiment to the fullest.

The post-colonial era that followed the Second World War saw India’s return to the international arena as a sovereign power. Gaining independence ahead of many other colonies, it enjoyed first-mover advantages in world affairs for a considerable period. The next shift came when India had to respond to the Sino-US rapprochement, one facilitated by Pakistan. It did so by aligning to a great degree with the USSR. While that too took it through the next few decades, economic compulsions and the onset of unipolarity compelled further adjustment. The Indo-US nuclear deal of 2005 was symbolic of this repositioning which helped accelerate India’s rise in the global order.

India’s current modernization is one of a series that goes back to the Meiji Restoration in Japan. Even then, Indian nationalists perceived it as the beginning of the revival of Asia, hailing Japan’s victory over Russia in 1905. But it was that country’s socio-economic transformation that was the really lasting story. The creation of the Soviet Union, emergence of the ‘tiger’ economies in East Asia and the ASEAN, and, finally, the rise of China – all saw the rest of Eurasia playing catch-up. Each one of these developments have had their influence on India, sometimes unconsciously so.

Often, India’s rise is an issue framed in terms of whether it would be an Eastern or a Western power. Underlying this is a Eurocentric assumption that pluralism is a purely Western attribute. India, with a longer history of diversity and coexistence, defies that preconception. A second debate revolves around the themes of nationalism and globalism. Here too, India occupies a singular position in reconciling what others see as antithetical concepts. A nationalistic India is willing to do more with the world, not less.

Most strategists fight the last war, not the next. In that context, Arjuna made a consequential choice some time before the battle began. Both he and his rival-cousin Duryodhana went to Krishna’s capital Dwarka to seek his support as an ally. Arjuna arrived later but was seen first by the awakening host as he sat at the foot of the bed. Asked to choose between Krishna’s army or his personal participation without weapons, Arjuna surprised Duryodhana by opting for the latter. His understanding of the game-changing potential of Sri Krishna was clearly the basis for his decision.

Japan sought to formally declare war just before attacking Pearl Harbour so that it was morally and technically in the right. Its failure to do so in time was enormously helpful to President Roosevelt in mobilizing political support.

India has, in contrast, struggled even with gaps between declared policy and actual objectives. Thus, in the 1950s, it was difficult to sustain the messaging of Asian brotherhood with China while preparing an effective border defence. With Pakistan, the nostalgia of a partitioned people has continuously competed with the reality of an obsessive adversary. Even in Sri Lanka, the mandate of peacekeeping was difficult to reconcile with the eventual application of force.

Among the critical players in the epic conflict who normally do not get adequate credit for their role are the Trigarta warriors led by Susarma, who hail from the Punjab of today. Traditional allies of the Kurus, they conceived a special enmity towards Arjuna, who defeated them while preparing the ground for Yudhishtira’s coronation ceremony. Their single-minded hostility proved very dear to the Pandavas. Constantly pouring oil into the Kaurava fire, they collaborated in the effort to smoke the Pandavas out from the Virata kingdom during their period of exile. But most damagingly, it was their challenge to Arjuna of a fight to the death which diverted him away from the main battlefield to facilitate a Kaurava attempt at capturing his brother Yudhishtira alive. Arjuna does triumph, but this diversion leads to the death of Abhimanyu, his son, who alone could resist that Kaurava effort. The moral here is of the danger of smaller adversaries whose single-mindedness goes to the extent of destroying themselves to inflict damage.

The Kauravas, most notably, push competition to its extreme limits, creating a backlash that even justifies the emulation of their abominable tactics. The Pandavas, in contrast, build brand and display strategic patience. As a result, they are able to defeat a superior adversary, in part by the use of asymmetric tactics.

American nationalism, the rise of China, the saga of Brexit and the rebalancing of the global economy are often cited as the more dramatic examples of change. In fact, the phenomenon is far more pervasive than just these illustrations. We have seen a return of old empires like Russia, Iran or Turkey through greater energy and influence in proximate regions. West Asia is in ferment, even by its exceptionally volatile standards. The centrality of ASEAN to Asia is not what it is used to be. Demographic and economic trends in Africa are giving that continent a greater salience. South America is once again a battleground for ideas.

So, the first caution is to avoid obsessing about consistency, because it makes little sense in such changing circumstances. There is certainly a place for constants, but not to the extent of elevating them to immutable concepts. On the contrary, it is only by recognizing change that we are in a position to exploit opportunities. The purposeful pursuit of national interest in shifting global dynamics may not be easy; but it must be done. Prejudices and preconceptions cannot be allowed to stand in the way. And the real obstacle to the rise of India is not any more the barriers of the world, but the dogmas of Delhi.

The first phase, from 1946 to 1962, could be characterized as an era of optimistic non-alignment. Its setting was very much of a bipolar world, with camps led by the US and the USSR. India’s objectives were to resist the constraining of choices and dilution of its sovereignty as it rebuilt its economy and consolidated its integrity. Its parallel goal, as the first of the decolonized nations, was to lead Asia and Africa in a quest for a more equitable world order. This was the heyday of Bandung and Belgrade, the peak of Third World solidarity. It also saw energetic Indian diplomacy from Korea and Vietnam to Suez and Hungary. For a few years, our position on the world stage seemed assured. The 1962 conflict with China not only brought this period to an end, but in a manner that significantly damaged India’s standing.

The third phase, from 1971 to 1991, was one of greater Indian regional assertion. It started with the decisive dismantlement of an India-Pakistan equivalence through the creation of Bangladesh, but ended with the IPKF misadventure in Sri Lanka. The larger environment by now was dramatically different, with the Sino-US rapprochement of 1971 upending the strategic landscape. The Indo-Soviet Treaty and the adoption of more pro-Soviet positions on international issues were India’s response to this challenge. It was a particularly complex phase as the US-China-Pakistan axis which came into being at this time seriously threatened India’s prospects. While there were many long-term consequences from it, the shift in India’s posture arose more from other factors. The collapse of the USSR, its close ally, and the not-unconnected economic crisis in 1991 compelled us to look again at the basics of both domestic and foreign policy.

A dispassionate assessment of our performance would note that while some competitors have done better, we have ourselves done not too badly. Overcoming many challenges, India consolidated its national unity and integrity. That was not a given, noting that some other diverse societies like USSR and Yugoslavia did not make it.

India’s engagement with the West was heavily Eurocentric and did not cater adequately for the new American primacy. This contrasted with the determined cultivation of the new superpower by the Pakistani elite. Differences with the US in the larger global arena also helped solidify American support for Pakistan, to a point where that country eventually reached a tactically superior position in 1965. At the other end, the political opening with the USSR provided early harvest, including support in the UN on Jammu and Kashmir. Its defence dimensions took more time to unfold. But the USSR’s ideological linkages with China continued even when under strain, thereby limiting its role in the 1962 events.

Within a short space, there was an attempt to improve ties with the US, leading to a visit by Henry Kissinger in 1973. Kissinger himself was more than aware that this was an attempt to restore the balance after the events of 1971. The American response to India’s 1974 nuclear test was, therefore, surprisingly sober. More difficult for India was the decision in 1976 to normalize ties with China and send back an Ambassador after a gap of fifteen years. Both could be seen as expanding its options. The broadening of its vision was also visible in the effort to create a third option in Europe. The acquisition of Jaguars, Mirages and HDW submarine were evidence of this hedging. Prime ministerial visits to the US in 1982 and 1985 as well as the tentative resumption of defence cooperation – involving the Light Combat Aircraft – were further indications. With China, boundary talks resumed in 1981 and reached a point of leadership-level discussions in 1988.

The assassination of Sheikh Mujib in Dhaka in August 1975 significantly neutralized the gains of 1971. The politics of the Cold War also combined with Pakistan’s mobilization of the Islamic world to block India at the Security Council elections of 1975. The Chinese attack on Vietnam in 1979 temporarily halted the correction in India’s policy and perhaps undermined a serious overture in the making. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was even more complicating because it unleashed a new round of American military support for Pakistan. Indeed, this round was particularly devastating because it tapped into a larger Islamic fundamentalist resurgence. Sino-Pakistani collaboration that had receded when China was preoccupied with the Cultural Revolution also came back into play. Its three key elements were the physical link-up between the two countries through the Karakoram Highway in 1979, the intense nuclear and missile collaboration, and the coordination in respect to operations in Afghanistan. All of them have consequences to the present day for India.

The renewed enmity of Pakistan combined with the hostility of the West on the Afghan issue also provided fertile ground for the external growth of the Khalistan movement. In terms of its sources of support, India was stuck with the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, which was a no-win situation in all circumstances. As the USSR came under pressure at the same time as India, the two countries became bound to each other even closer. For India, what started as an effective exploitation of a global contradiction ended as an impasse of some consequence.

The most consequential, without doubt, was the Afghan jihad. Looking back, it appears that India misjudged the extent to which Western countries would utilize it to damage the USSR. More relevant, the intensity of their support created the window for Pakistan to go through with its nuclear programme. It could be argued that India had little choice in the matter even if it had read the situation better. But it did take a full generation to put behind us the consequences of these events. Today, some vicarious satisfaction can be derived from the fact that the first jihad has come back to haunt Western countries. But the strategic damage of this period is difficult to overstate. As for its catastrophic impact on the USSR, this was truly a black swan, one not foreseen even by the most experienced analysts of that era.

What changed during this period was a determination to break up the cooperative strand in the ties between the US and USSR that was constricting China’s strategic space. So it utilized both the Vietnam and Afghanistan conflicts to that end. And thus created a favourable political climate for the flow of Western investments. So much so, that even when the Tiananmen incident happened, there were enough advocates abroad to mitigate the damage. Having more than achieved its strategic objectives when the USSR broke up, China altered course and made up with a Russia coming under pressure. For an Indian assessing this period, it is telling that a competitor willing to take greater risks and pursue strategic clarity not only got a decade’s head start in economic growth but also a more favourable geopolitical balance. So much again for consistency.

This is interesting. By invading Vietnam in 1979 and aiding Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan War, China indeed hastened the death of the USSR at great benefit to itself. Was this for the best? Perhaps. If your goal is to supplant America and gut it economically, you might need America's help. America's focus on short-term thinking (4-year election cycles with high polarization, capitalist need for profit next quarter) is also a vulnerability to exploit. From a long game POV, this worked out great for China (and possibly the world), but in the thirty years from 1990-2020, billions of people died or lived their lives in humiliation thanks to the Soviet Union collapsing. As a non-white American, I myself didn't achieve my full potential until 2021 at age 25 when I realized China was actually challenging America. But my poor parents spent their prime years (age 20-50) in a U.S. dominated, unipolar world.

The 1991 balance of payments crisis only brought to head what was an accumulation of policy outcomes of the previous generation. A quarter century later, the literature on the happenings largely focus on the domestic challenges. The foreign policy situation, however, was no less traumatic, and it took considerable ingenuity and courage to chart a path of recovery. The dissolution of the USSR had undercut a fundamental premise on which Indian foreign policy operated since 1971, perhaps even since 1955. Even worse, the Russia that followed immediately was focused almost exclusively on the West and briefly downgraded its ties with India. In such a situation, the Indian response was very mature. Maintaining the importance of Russia, it engaged the US much more intensively while also reaching out to China.