• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
Democracy
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "C. Raja Mohan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie India"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "Southeast Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie India

A Moment for Asian Solidarity

A strong alignment between India and Indonesia holds the key to Delhi’s much-vaunted “strategic autonomy” and Jakarta’s quest for a “dynamic equilibrium” in Asia.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Oct 9, 2013
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

Source: Indian Express

As he heads to Brunei and Indonesia this week, Manmohan Singh has reasons to pat himself on the back for significantly advancing India's Look East policy through his near decade-long tenure as prime minister. When outlined by P.V. Narasimha Rao in the early 1990s, India's Look East policy was merely aspirational. Under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, it had become a comprehensive engagement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Thanks to this bipartisan effort by three different administrations in Delhi, the Look East policy has become one of India's most successful foreign policy initiatives ever.

Singh's contribution to the Look East policy has been three-fold. The first was to ensure India's economic integration with Asia. Despite doubts in the Congress party, expressed at the highest level, Singh finalised a free trade agreement with the ASEAN. He followed up with two comprehensive economic partnership agreements with Japan and South Korea. He has also committed India to negotiate a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with the ASEAN and its major partners. Thanks to these initiatives, India has become an integral part of Asia's economic future.

Second, on the political front, India is now part of all the ASEAN-led institutions that emerged during the last decade, including the East Asia Summit and the expanded consultations among the region's defence ministers. At the commemorative summit in Delhi last December to mark the 20th anniversary of India's engagement with the ASEAN, the two sides unveiled a comprehensive strategic partnership. The ASEAN now is seeking a more active Indian contribution to the security and stability of East Asia. Third, Singh has expanded the geographic scope of India's Look East policy to include Japan, South Korea and Australia. The growing engagement with these countries has added considerable depth to India's Asian outreach.

Singh's journey to the east includes a bilateral visit to Indonesia, the largest nation in the ASEAN and a rising power in its own right. If the East Asia Summit in Brunei is about India's new multilateral engagement with the region, the PM's visit to Indonesia highlights India's urgent bilateral imperative in East Asia. In the last two decades, Asian regionalism and multilateral institutions have taken strong roots. Yet, the rapid changes in Asia's strategic environment have compelled most Asian nations to strengthen bilateral ties, especially in the security domain.

The growing tensions between China and the United States, and the intensifying maritime territorial disputes between Beijing and its Asian neighbours, have brought forth great political uncertainties. While the Indian debate has focused on the implications of rapidly expanding Chinese military power and the US rebalance to Asia in response, it has not paid adequate attention to the urgency of strengthening bilateral strategic partnerships. If the unfolding Sino-American rivalry in Asia has generated new ideas on reinventing "non-alignment", the real option for Delhi lies in building a "solid alignment" with key regional powers like Indonesia.

After their independence nearly seven decades ago, Delhi and Jakarta together lent legitimacy to the concept of non-alignment as the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union enveloped Asia. Today, Asia is caught in the cleft stick of a dynamic relationship between Beijing and Washington. Many of Asia's leading nations, including India and Indonesia, are coming to terms with one important fact: that their room for manoeuvre will shrink whether the US and China confront each other, or collude to shape the Asian political order. One way to reduce Asian vulnerability to the uncertain dynamic in the US-China relationship is to develop stronger security partnerships between key regional powers. Delhi and Jakarta can now show the way forward much in the manner they did in the middle of the last century.

Contrary to current interpretations of non-alignment, which reduce it to a mantra without meaning, the originators of the idea saw it as an active attempt to shape their external environment. Criticising the Cold War was only one part of it. The other was strong bilateral security cooperation. Even as they campaigned for Asian solidarity, Nehru and Sukarno — the founding fathers of India and Indonesia — signed a friendship treaty in March 1951, which opened the door for active defence cooperation. This was followed by three agreements in the 1950s for intensive exchanges between their air forces, navies and armies. Nehru extended support to Indonesia's counter-insurgency campaign at home, and the two held their first joint naval exercise in 1960.

Delhi and Jakarta drifted apart from the mid-1960s on. But as India and Indonesia have drawn closer in the last decade, defence cooperation has once again come on top of the agenda. Still, the unfortunate reality is that despite the proclamation of a strategic partnership and the signing of an MoU on defence cooperation, progress has been rather limited. At the heart of the problem is India's ministry of defence, which has neither the strategic imagination nor the political commitment to build effective international cooperation. As a result, the MoD has long been the weak link in the Look East policy. Despite the growing demands in the region for greater military cooperation with India, the MoD has failed to respond effectively at either the bilateral or multilateral level.

Nehru and Sukarno had the vision to embark upon defence cooperation, but did not have all the means to advance it to the logical conclusion. Their successors today in Delhi and Jakarta have the financial resources — they are the ninth and 16th largest economies in the world. What Delhi and Jakarta now need is the political will.

Injecting some real content into the strategic partnership and finding a way to boost defence cooperation with Indonesia must be on top of Singh's agenda in Jakarta. A strong alignment between India and Indonesia holds the key to Delhi's much-vaunted "strategic autonomy" and Jakarta's quest for a "dynamic equilibrium" in Asia. It will also set the template for India's security cooperation with other regional powers in Asia.

This article was originally published in the Indian Express. 

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
Foreign PolicySouth AsiaIndiaSoutheast Asia

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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europolis, Where Europe Ends

    A prophetic Romanian novel about a town at the mouth of the Danube carries a warning: Europe decays when it stops looking outward. In a world of increasing insularity, the EU should heed its warning.

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Japan’s “Militarist Turn” and What It Means for Russia

    For a real example of political forces engaged in the militarization of society, the Russian leadership might consider looking closer to home.

      James D.J. Brown

  • Wide shot of Trump and Modi, with Trump pointing
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Trump-Modi Trade Deal Won’t Magically Restore U.S.-India Trust

    Washington and New Delhi should be proud of their putative deal. But international politics isn’t the domain of unicorns and leprechauns, and collateral damage can’t simply be wished away.

      Evan A. Feigenbaum

  • people sitting on a stage
    Commentary
    From Loss and Damage to Climate Mobility Action

    Senior climate, finance, and mobility experts discuss how the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage could unlock financing for climate mobility.

      • Alejandro Rodriguez

      Alejandro Martin Rodriguez

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Falls Behind in the South Caucasus Connectivity Race

    The EU lacks leadership and strategic planning in the South Caucasus, while the United States is leading the charge. To secure its geopolitical interests, Brussels must invest in new connectivity for the region.

      Zaur Shiriyev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.