In the face of Chinese aggression, New Delhi must align with Washington.

Submission Statement India’s love-hate relationship with the “First World” can be traced all the way back to its founding. Many of the country’s revolutionary leaders were open to or outright supporters of socialism. As a nation, India itself attempted to chart a path separate from either of the Cold War powers and their spheres of influence. The same skepticism of Western motives and attitudes which drove that neutrality remains a powerful force within India. The situation now is less amenable to such neutrality, however. China’s revanchist ambitions are growing increasingly overt and violent as the nation displays both the will and the ability to seize Indian territory by force. Russia is inarguably declining on the world stage, leaving only the West as a credible security partner. That leaves India in a bit of a pickle, being forced to pick between its historical Western skepticism and a global environment that is making the West an extremely attractive security partner.

Okay, with all that context out of the way, this article is an excellent summary of India’s increasing strategic alignment with the West. The situation is not as cut and dry as the article claims it to be, however. Western nations’ attitudes toward freedom of expression and democratic values are likely to remain a stumbling block for India, where the dominant political party, BJP, has increasingly been stoking the flames of Hindu nationalism and undermining its democratic norms and institutions. To be sure, such concerns haven’t prevented Western alliances in the past or present(see: Turkey). But Western pressure over India’s authoritarian streaks is likely to continue inducing friction over the long term. The tension between domestic and international priorities is fascinating and a space to watch.

SUMIT GANGULY is Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations at Indiana University Bloomington and a Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is currently a Visiting Professor in the Institute of Politics at the University of Heidelberg.

DINSHA MISTREE is a Research Fellow in the Program on Strengthening U.S.-India Relations at the Hoover Institution.

Article text in the comments.

  • qwamqwamqwamOPMEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN If India cannot rely on Russia to serve as a counterweight to China, might it be able to turn to other emerging and middle powers? India has strong relationships with several countries in Europe, but these countries don’t have the diplomatic, economic, or military clout to guarantee India’s security interests. India cannot count on European countries or the European Union writ large to assist it in containing China. And its ties with other Asian powers, including Iran and Japan, are of limited or no use in the context of its competition with China. Likewise, other emerging powers, such as Argentina and Brazil, are unlikely to choose India over China in the coming years. Bluntly stated, India’s external balancing options—beyond support from the United States—are quite limited.

    India’s much-vaunted commitment to maintaining its neutrality is no longer a viable option. This approach poorly serves India’s interests in fending off the political and economic advance of China in South Asia and the broader region. Without a reliable external partner that can help India by sharing intelligence, shoring up its grossly inadequate defense capabilities, and cooperating with it in other security areas, New Delhi will remain woefully exposed to Beijing’s machinations.

    Playing to all sides will not guarantee India’s strategic autonomy. The United States is and will remain the only global power capable of playing this role. It has a compelling interest in keeping China, its principal challenger and rival, at bay. To that end, its interests clearly dovetail with those of India. Across recent administrations, Washington has made repeated efforts to persuade India that these overlapping interests make it an almost ideal security partner in Asia. In 2016, the Obama administration declared India to be a “major defense partner,” thereby better enabling defense sales. During Donald Trump’s presidency, New Delhi and Washington signed the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement, further strengthening bilateral military cooperation. And under President Joe Biden, the two parties have agreed on the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology, which will promote cooperation in high-technology areas. But what New Delhi urgently needs to realize is that there is a narrow window to secure American support. As the political scientist Ashley Tellis makes clear in his recent essay in Foreign Affairs, the United States cannot possibly afford to expend both domestic capital and critical diplomatic resources to continue to meet India’s needs without some form of tangible reciprocity from New Delhi. By limiting its engagement with the United States—while also pursuing deals with U.S. adversaries such as Russia—India is fundamentally compromising its long-term strategic autonomy rather than guaranteeing it.

    Equivocal Indian responses to the United States will, almost invariably, lead Washington to simply bolster security ties with other partners and allies, such as Australia and Japan. India, although strategically significant, cannot continue to sit on the fence; to ensure peace and stability in Asia, it has to throw in its lot with the United States. Indian vacillation will convince U.S. officials that despite their best efforts, New Delhi is either incapable of mustering the requisite political will to build a long-term security partnership with Washington or reluctant to do so.

    PROPITIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES There is no doubt that both sides have in the past missed vital opportunities to transform the relationship. The exigencies of domestic politics, the imperatives of the Cold War, and fundamentally different policy orientations in both capitals prevented them from forging a strong, enduring partnership. Despite these errors, current circumstances are perhaps the most propitious for the future of the bilateral relationship. New Delhi, now more than ever, needs to shed its hesitation about adopting a pragmatic and forward-looking approach in its dealings with the United States.

    The benefits that could accrue to both sides from a strong partnership are considerable. India could build up its domestic defense industrial base, access the most sophisticated defense technologies, and gradually reduce its dependence on Russia, an increasingly unreliable defense supplier. Most important, closer defense and security ties with the United States would enable it to ward off the inexorable threat from China.

    A closer security partnership could also have significant spillover effects in other arenas. A secure, stable, and confident India would become a more attractive destination for American investment. At a time when the United States is increasingly concerned about the viability of important supply chains, India could become an important manufacturing hub for a variety of components in various industrial products. The United States, in turn, would be able to count on India as a bulwark against China’s growing assertiveness across Asia. Furthermore, Washington could be in a better position to eventually elicit and count on Indian diplomatic support on fraught issues such as the future of Taiwan.

    Over the last few decades, several U.S. administrations have prioritized the relationship with India despite considerable diffidence on the part of New Delhi. Instead of remaining content with incremental and fitful improvements in the bilateral relationship, New Delhi must trust Washington and move forward in constructing a multifaceted partnership that fosters peace and stability in Asia.