• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "C. Raja Mohan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie India"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Asia",
    "South Asia",
    "India"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie India

Between Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific: India’s New Geopolitics

As the weakest of the major powers, New Delhi should stay engaged with both continental as well as maritime powers in order to improve its own place in the world order.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Dec 21, 2017

Source: Valdai Club

India’s decision to join a renewed quadrilateral security dialogue with the United States, Japan and Australia on the margins of the East Asia Summit in November 2017 has raised many political eyebrows around the world. Is India abandoning its tradition of non-alignment and tilting towards the United States and the West? Is Delhi tempted by President Donald Trump’s new geopolitical construct, Indo-Pacific? 

These fears about India are entirely misplaced. Delhi has no intention of abandoning its independent foreign policy. But India, like any other state, does respond to structural changes in the distribution of power around it. Recall that Delhi signed a treaty of peace and friendship with Moscow in 1971 in the wake of Sino-US rapprochement.  

After the end of the Cold War, India sought to hedge against the unipolar moment. Washington’s threats to roll back India’s nuclear programme and the talk about intervening in Delhi’s dispute with Islamabad over Jammu and Kashmir meant Delhi had good reasons to join the Eurasian coalition led by Moscow and backed by Beijing.  

Much has happened since then for India to reconsider its approach to the regional balance of power. If the principal external challenge to India in the 1990s seemed to come from the United States, there is no avoiding the fact that it now comes from China.  

For nearly a decade, India’s relations with China have steadily deteriorated. Three factors are shaping this down-turn. One is Beijing’s assertive policy on the long and disputed border with Delhi, growing regional friction arising from the competition for influence in the shared neighbourhood of Asia Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and the palpable sense that China is blocking India’s rise on the global stage.  

In contrast with the decline in mutual trust between Delhi and Beijing, India’s relations with the United States have steadily improved over the last decade. The contrast between the approaches of Washington and Beijing towards what Delhi can no longer be hidden. 

On the international front, Washington supports India’s claim for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council and has backed India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group. China is opposed to both.  

On the regional front, China is unwilling to criticise let alone put pressure on Pakistan to stop supporting cross border terrorism in India. Washington, after decades of indulging Pakistan, has become a vocal partner for India in countering violent religious extremism in Pakistan. More broadly, Delhi sees Beijing’s power projection into South Asia and the Indian Ocean as undermining its regional interests. Washington, on the other hand, is ready to support India’s case for regional leadership.  

On the bilateral front, the border between India and China has become a tense one as the Peoples’ Liberation Army takes a more aggressive approach to border patrolling and makes frequent incursions into territory claimed by India. Delhi’s hopes for mitigating the tension on the border, find regional reconciliation and develop international cooperation have not really been met.  

Realists in Delhi recognise that China as the larger power may feel it is not obliged to make nice to India. After all China’s GDP today is five times larger than that of India. And its defence spending is four times bigger. The collapse of parity, which once existed between the two Asian giants, means Delhi must find external partners to bridge the widening strategic gap.  

With Russia drawing closer to China, Moscow no longer appears to be in a position to help Delhi balance Beijing. India therefore has had no option but to turn to the US and Japan to construct an Asian equilibrium. This does not mean, India will become a junior partner for the United States. Delhi is acutely conscious that Washington and Tokyo have their own compulsions to stay engaged with Beijing. India is also aware that both China and Russia are eager to carve out accommodation of their own with America.  

This dynamism among the great powers is very much part of life in our multipolar world. As the weakest of the major powers, Delhi would want to stay engaged with the continental as well as maritime powers with the sole objective of improving its own weight in the world order. There is no room for sentimentalism in Delhi as India becomes a part of the new geopolitical jousting in Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific amidst China’s rise and American retrenchment. 

This article was orginally published by the Valdai Club.

About the Author

C. Raja Mohan

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India

A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership

      C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +1

      Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
Foreign PolicyUnited StatesAsiaSouth AsiaIndia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Corrupted by Absolute Power

    In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?

    Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?

    A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran

    In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers. 

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.