Multi-alignment is not a doctrine. It is a habit we must test. Evidently, Delhi loves a good phrase, “Strategic autonomy”, rolls it off the tongue like Darjeeling tea. It sounds wise, mature, non-aligned 2.0. But remember phrases do not protect borders. Prudent and pragmatic policy does. After watching the last few months of Indian diplomacy, I am forced to ask, is our strategic autonomy working, or have we drifted into diplomatic isolation?

Let us be blunt. Neutrality is not a viable strategy for a country with 1.4 billion people, 4 trillion USD economy and two hostile nuclear neighbours. No major country is neutral – US, China, Russia, Europe, Japan. Why is India bent on walking alone? You need friends, partners and not just photo-ops. To give one latest instance, during Operation Sindoor, Pakistan got open support from two countries and clandestine help from one. The irony is, Pakistan being a hub of terrorists, becomes a peace broker in Iran war.
Let us examine the myth of multi-alignment. Every foreign office in the world today, will tell you, they do multi-alignment. Vietnam talks to Washington and Beijing. Turkey hugs NATO and shakes hands with Putin. Even, tiny Qatar hosts the US base and funds Hamas. So everyone is multi-engaging. What is special about India? Actually, nothing new. And that is the problem. Everybody’s friend is nobody’s real friend. Strategic autonomy, as we practice it, means we go to the G7 in Biarritz one week, and hosts the BRICS Foreign Ministers the next. We sign a 100b USD EFTA trade deal with Norway, and buy S-400s from Russia. We call the US our “Comprehensive Global Strategic Partner” and then abstain on Ukraine at the UN. We think this is smart diplomacy. Often times, I worry it is just indecision dressed as doctrine.
Does New Delhi have a special skill in balancing the rival countries? Perhaps, we do. Indian diplomats are the best in the world. We talk to Iran and Israel on the same day. We airlift students from Ukraine while buying oil from Russia. We got a strategic oil deal in the UAE and a green partnership in Norway in the same tour. This is a diplomatic legacy from Nehru to Vajpayee to Modi. India has refused to choose camps. We invented Non-Alignment when the world was bipolar. We are now seeking all-alignment in a multi-polar world. But skills are not strategy. A juggler can keep 10 balls in the air. The question is: to what purpose? If the purpose is to avoid war, we have perhaps succeeded. If the purpose is to build peace, I am not sure.
Let us look at the Pakistan paradox. Is alignment working more than autonomy? Pakistan is bankrupt, politically unstable, harbouring terrorists. Yet, a terrorist hub became a mediator under the patronage of Trump in a complex war in Iran. It did so by picking a side, by being useful to one big power, completely. They got IMF bailouts, F-16 upgrades, and a seat at the table. No strategic autonomy but strategic transaction.
Compare that to India. We have ten US visits since 2013. We have six China visits. We are in the Quad and in BRICS and in SCO. We are everywhere. Yet, when Iran flares up, who does Washington call to mediate? Not Delhi. Why? Because big powers trust alignment more than they respect autonomy an ally can be counted on. An autonomous partner has to be persuaded each time. Pakistan, by surrendering part of its autonomy, bought geo-political heft. India, by guarding its autonomy, sometimes buys loneliness. This is the real cost of not making choice. So, are we over- stretching strategic autonomy?
There are three visible signs of over-stretch. Sign one: diminishing returns on visits. PM Modi’s five-nation tour in May was a success – Green Tech, IMEC, diaspora, strategic reserve oil. Modi is going in August to France, UAE and Bahrain. But, when every month is high-wire diplomacy month, the wire begins to sag. Second sign is sending confused signalling to neighbours. Myanmar’s President chose India first for his visit. That is a win. But, will we use it to push democracy or to secure the junta. We would like both. Whereas China wants just one thing: compliance.
So, clarity beats courtesy. The third sign, “we react more than we shape. G7 invites us. We host BRICS. But where is the Indian architecture? IMEC is promising, but it is still to take off. The Quad is American-led. BRICS is China-weighted. Our autonomy should produce Indian version of geopolitics. We must move from autonomy to agency. Let us explore the three M course-correction. That is mission, (wo)men, money. It is important to define what we want, not just who we need. Our focus is more on meeting. When I was doing my Ph.D on European Union and India in 1990s, an official in Brussels asked me, what does India want from EU? It was a question addressed to the Indian leadership not a researcher. I, disarmingly told him, “This is what I am here to find out, I am a researcher”. However, the mission is not multi-engagement. Mission should consist of securing the Indian Ocean, making Indian Rupee a trade currency, making Indian tech the default of the Global South. Once the mission is clear, partners pick themselves.
On men, we need capable men as negotiators who can say no to friends. Autonomy means the courage to disappoint Washington on Moscow and to disappoint Moscow on the Quad. If we say ‘yes’ to all, we are not autonomous. We are available. With regard to money, put capital behind commitment. A 100b USD EFTA deal is agency. A 2b USD loan to Myanmar for Kaladan is agency. A 500m USD fund for African digital public infra is agency. Without money, autonomy is just a speech.
Should India be a pole or a pendulum? I agree, the world is not bipolar anymore as it was during the Cold War. But it is also not multi-polar. It is actually multi-loyal. And in that world, India must decide, are we a pole, or are we a pendulum? A pole has gravitational pull. Others align around it. A pendulum just swings between bigger forces. Pakistan chose to be a satellite. It got light and heat from Sun, but it cannot leave orbit. On the other hand, India wants to be a Sun. But a Sun has rays that are powerful. Rays mean choices. A choice means telling the US, “We are with you on China, but not on trade”. It must tell Russia, “We will buy oil, but not your war”. It should tell Europe, “We will do green tech but not have your carbon lectures”. To me, this is real strategic autonomy; not absence of alignment but presence of will.

Email---------------------dr.dkgiri@gmail.com