C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah
{
"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",
"North America",
"East Asia",
"China"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Security"
]
}Source: Getty
PM Modi’s Military Diplomacy: Beyond Non-Alignment
India’s security ties with Washington and Beijing vary significantly in scope and intensity.
Source: Indian Express
India’s simultaneous military exercises this week with the United States and Japan on the one hand and China on the other have drawn some attention. Some analysts view them as India’s delicate military balancing act between Asia’s competing great powers. Others see it as the contemporary expression of India’s enduring tradition of non-alignment.
Neither interpretation sounds right. It is probably a mere coincidence that the naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal between India, Japan and the United States and the counter terrorism exercises in the Yunnan province between the Indian and Chinese armies are taking place at the same time.
A lot of factors go into scheduling these kinds of exercises. The Ministry of Defence in Delhi does not have the time, inclination or the capacity to time them for some presumed political effect. In contrast, the argument that the simultaneous exercises are an expression of non-alignment seems a lot more credible. Yet, it is difficult to visualize India’s engagement with the U.S. and China in terms of non-alignment.During the Cold War, India’s non-alignment dealt with two rival great powers —U.S. and Soviet Russia — that did not share any frontiers with India. China, in contrast, has a long and disputed border with India. Besides the challenge on the border, Delhi feels threatened by Beijing’s ties with Pakistan and other South Asian neighbours of India.
That Beijing and Washington affect India’s security calculus differently is borne out by one simple fact. China sits on territory claimed by India; America does not. To be sure, India continues to be concerned about U.S. ties with Pakistan; but over the last decade Delhi has seen the evolution of a more balanced U.S. approach to India and Pakistan. China, however, remains reluctant to take into account India’s concerns about Pakistan.
Some in Delhi see that partnership with America is critical in balancing China’s rapidly rising military power. Beijing’s challenge to U.S. primacy in Asia has complemented this view and formed the basis for a complex dynamic between Delhi, Beijing and Washington.
The UPA government was afraid that drawing too close to the U.S. and Japan might provoke China. Because of the problems on the boundary, the UPA government was also reluctant to widen the engagement with Beijing. Modi, in contrast, is not defensive at all.
The PM seems to believe that a stronger security partnership with America will enhance India’s national power expand its room for geopolitical manoeuvre with China. At the same time, Modi is also eager to broaden economic ties with Beijing and better manage the conflict on the border.
The political conditions shaping India’s relations with the U.S. and China are fundamentally different. It is no surprise then India’s security ties with Washington and Beijing vary in scope and intensity.
India’s naval exercises with the U.S. and Japan are about consolidating Delhi’s natural advantages in the maritime domain. The army exercises with China are about confidence building. For the foreseeable future, there is no prospect that India’s military ties with the U.S. and China will be similar let alone symmetric.
About the Author
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.
- Deepening the India-France Maritime PartnershipArticle
- Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New DelhiCommentary
- +1
Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …
Recent Work
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer MarketCommentary
The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- Why Has Kazakhstan Started Deporting Political Activists?Commentary
The current U.S. indifference to human rights means Astana no longer has any incentive to refuse extradition requests from its authoritarian neighbors—including Russia.
Temur Umarov
- Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?Commentary
Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.
Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov