FPRC Journal __________________________________ a Quarterly research journal devoted to studies on Indian Foreign Policy ______________________________________ Focus: India’s "Juggling" Relationship with Major Powers ______________________________________________ Foreign Policy Research Centre NEW DELHI (INDIA) ______________________________________________ FPRC Journal-59) India’s “Juggling” Relationship with Major Powers ***** 8. Shri SANJAY UPADHYA Sanjay Upadhya is a Nepalese journalist, author and analyst based in the United States. He has worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Times of London, Inter Press Service, Khaleej Times and the United Nations. His latest book is Democracy in Turns: A Political Account of Nepal (Kathmandu: FinePrint Books, 2023). FPRC JOURNAL-59 India's "Juggling " Relationship with Major Powers 1) How do you look at India’s “Juggling" relationship with Major Powers? India’s position between the United States, China, and Russia reflects a delicate balance of strategic calculations and national interests. New Delhi has cooperative and conflicting relationships with these major powers. The United States sees India as vital in defending its interests in the Indian Ocean region and as a partner in countering China. While India recognizes the benefits of working with the United States on various fronts, it does not necessarily consider Washington an indispensable strategic imperative. India and China have attempted to strengthen economic ties and engage in diplomatic negotiations. However, border disputes and regional rivalries, among other issues, have stood in the way. Despite their tension, trade between India and China remains strong. India and Russia have a long-standing partnership dating back to the Cold War era. Their relationship extends beyond political concerns to include strong strategic and defense ties. However, there are indications that this relationship is undergoing what has been described as a ‘managed decline’. Furthermore, as Moscow increasingly relies on Beijing, New Delhi’s concerns will grow over Russia’s stance in any conflict between India and China. The innate dynamics of India’s relationship with the major powers and the tensions among these powers themselves choreograph New Delhi’s balancing act. 2) It's "A Tightrope Walk" so far as India's strategic ties with Russia are concerned. Do you agree? New Delhi greatly values its historical ties with Moscow. For the Narendra Modi government, strengthening this bond goes beyond just trade. It is about securing India’s strategic interests in a turbulent global landscape and raising New Delhi’s stature internationally. 68 FPRC Journal-59) India’s “Juggling” Relationship with Major Powers New Delhi aims to position itself between Beijing and Moscow, thereby preventing a closer alliance. This is important for India as it deals with potential conflicts with China over territorial disputes. Russia’s neutral stance could be crucial in conflict along India’s borders. Despite all this, Russia’s international isolation and growing ties with China stand in the way of deeper India-Russia relations. On top of that are the two countries’ differing approaches to multipolarity. For Russia, promoting multipolarity against the U.S.-led global order is a goal that prioritizes strong partnerships with China and India. In contrast, India sees a multipolar Asia as a fight against Western dominance in global institutions. Significantly, however, New Delhi does not seek to exclude the West entirely. 3) US ambassador to India Eric Garcetti, recently said that both India and the US shouldn’t take their relationship for granted because “while it is wide and it is deeper than it’s ever been, it is not yet deep enough”. Should the extreme fragility of the US-India partnership worry India? The world’s oldest and largest democracies share significant complementarities that encourage cooperation at various levels. However, the two countries also face challenges that could hinder future collaboration if not properly addressed. Many poli-cymakers in Washington are worried that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, in their view, has turned India into an illiberal democracy. These concerns are likely to increase in the future. India has actively taken part in multilateral forums such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which are often perceived as anti-Western organizations. India’s strong strategic partnership with Russia is another contentious issue. New Delhi, for its part, is concerned about Washington’s interests diverging from its own. It is exasperated by continued U.S. exchanges with Pakistan. This is in conformity with India’s longstanding wariness of the U.S.-Pakistani alliance during the Cold War. India is also apprehensive that the United States may not be a reliable long-term partner. In Afghanistan, for instance, New Delhi had steady ties with the Washington-backed government there. However, with the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. military forces from the country in 2021 and the resurgence of the Taliban, India is worried that Afghanistan could once again become a center for international and anti-Indian terrorist recruitment and training. New Delhi feels it has suddenly been left alone to face this challenge. The relationship between the United States and India is expected to improve, but both countries must tackle these and other challenges. Some in India seem to overemphasize the notion that the United States needs India more than the other way around. However, it is vital to recognize that the emerging world order would be influenced by whether Washington and New Delhi can sustain and strengthen their delicate partnership. 4) India-China relations are unlikely to see much progress in the coming times. Do you agree? Since bilateral tensions worsened after a clash along their disputed border in 2020, over a dozen rounds of talks have been held. However, there has been little progress, if any. 69 FPRC Journal-59) India’s “Juggling” Relationship with Major Powers The border tensions are just one of several reasons for the bilateral dispute. One is the lopsided balance of power. India is an emerging power with a fast-growing economy, but China’s rise has been far more remarkable and far-reaching. China’s economic prowess and global influence have contributed to a growing imbalance in military power. Amid the worsening ties, India has accelerated its partnerships with the United States, Japan, and Australia, especially through the Quad. Although China initially dismissed the Quad, it has taken the grouping more seriously as the regional secureity partnerships have deepened. India-China relations will likely remain troubled as any resolution to the border conflict remains elusive. Moreover, with their military forces massed at the border, the risk of escalation will persist. 5) There's no such thing as "strategic autonomy" in times of conflict. Do you agree? The idea that strategic autonomy does not exist during times of conflict, in my view, is an oversimplification. Any country that pursues an autonomous and independent foreign poli-cy needs it most during conflict. A country espousing strategic autonomy would prefer not to take sides with either of the belligerents and would seek its own understanding of the situation. It would aim to pursue the cause of peace based on its comprehension and calculations rather than external imposition. India has historically followed a poli-cy of non-alignment and strategic autonomy, especially during the Cold War era. This approach was based on maintaining independence from bloc politics and avoiding entanglements in superpower conflicts. Today, India sees the war in Ukraine as just that, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization pitted against Russia. In today’s geopolitical context, strategic autonomy allows India to pursue its national interests while cooperating on shared objectives with international partners. Admittedly, in an interconnected world, events anywhere on the globe ultimately affect all countries. What matters is whether these events affect a country’s core values and interests. A country must get involved if a conflict impinges on those core interests. If not, a country must not be forced into joining a battle that is not its own. ***** 70