Neutral No More? India’s Strategic Balancing Act
Since gaining independence in 1947, India has charted an independent path in international affairs, formulating a foreign policy rooted in its colonial past, development goals, and desire for global influence. One of the most defining principles of this policy has been the concept of non-alignment, initially introduced during the Cold War era by India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Non-alignment offered India the ability to avoid getting caught in the ideological and military rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, over the decades, and especially in recent years, India’s stance in global geopolitics has transformed. This raises a key question: Is India’s current neutral posture a modern iteration of Nehruvian non-alignment or a new, pragmatic strategy—often described as strategic nationalism—driven by economic and geopolitical interests?
The Origins and Ideals of Nehruvian Non-Alignment
Nehruvian non-alignment was born in response to the global polarization of the Cold War. The world was essentially split between two superpowers, and newly independent nations like India feared losing their sovereignty and development autonomy by aligning too closely with either bloc. In 1961, Nehru, along with leaders like Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, founded the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). This platform aimed to give a collective voice to the post-colonial world.
The foundation of this approach lay in the ideals of India’s anti-colonial struggle and Mahatma Gandhi’s principles of peace and non-violence. India’s policy was also guided by the Panchsheel principles—mutual respect, non-aggression, non-interference, equality, and peaceful coexistence. Rather than political isolation, non-alignment allowed India to form strategic ties with both sides as needed. For instance, while India sought American help during the 1962 Sino-Indian war, it also signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace in 1971 during the Bangladesh Liberation War. These moves demonstrated a certain flexibility within non-alignment, prioritizing security over ideology.
Nehru’s vision helped India become a moral leader of the developing world, giving voice to newly independent nations. However, the policy was not without criticism. Detractors labeled it idealistic, even hypocritical at times, and pointed out that it did little to check the rise of authoritarian powers like China.
The Post-Cold War Shift: From Non-Alignment to Strategic Engagement
The global order changed dramatically with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. India, which had until then shared a close but unofficial alignment with the USSR, was forced to reconsider its strategy. At the same time, India underwent major economic reforms under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, embracing liberalization and opening up to global markets.
These changes marked a transition from ideological neutrality to interest-based diplomacy. The landmark moment came in 1998, when Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee authorized nuclear tests, signaling India’s intent to remain strategically autonomous and self-reliant in defense.
A significant turning point was the 2008 India–U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement, which not only legitimized India’s nuclear status but also symbolized deepening Indo-U.S. ties. India began engaging more with multilateral forums like ASEAN, BRICS, and the Group of 15, adopting the idea of “strategic autonomy” in place of strict non-alignment. This allowed India to partner with diverse nations—including the U.S., Russia, Iran, and Israel—on different issues without binding commitments.
The Modi Era: A Doctrine of Multi-Alignment
With the advent of Narendra Modi’s leadership in 2014, Indian foreign policy embraced a more assertive and multifaceted approach. Often described as multi-alignment or strategic nationalism, this approach places India’s national interest at the center of diplomatic efforts. The focus has shifted from ideological purity to realpolitik.
Key features of Modi’s foreign policy include: Diversified Strategic Partnerships: India has built strong relations with both traditional allies and former adversaries. Defense cooperation with the U.S. has increased through platforms like the Quad and agreements such as LEMOA and COMCASA, while ties with Russia remain intact through defense deals like the S-400 missile system.
Principled Neutrality: India has abstained from condemning Russia in international forums during the Russia–Ukraine war, opting instead to promote peace and dialogue. This position protects India’s energy and defense interests without alienating Western allies.
Leadership of the Global South: India continues to champion the concerns of developing countries. This was evident in the 2023 G20 Summit under India’s presidency, where it successfully lobbied for the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent member.
Economic and Security Focus: The Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) initiative aims to reduce dependence on foreign defense imports, while strategic connectivity projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) are enhancing India’s influence in Central Asia.
Flexible, Issue-Based Alignment: India now engages with different powers depending on context. It cooperates with the U.S. on Indo-Pacific security, with Russia on energy, and with Gulf nations on labor and investment.
This “strategic nationalism” differs from Nehru’s idealism. While the tools may look similar—non-alignment, neutrality, multilateral engagement—the motivation has shifted from moral leadership to calculated advantage.
Comparing Two Doctrines: Non-Alignment vs Strategic Nationalism While both Nehruvian non-alignment and Modi’s multi-alignment share a common desire to avoid entanglement in global conflicts, their purpose and execution differ sharply.
Ideology vs Pragmatism: Nehru emphasized peace and anti-colonial solidarity. Modi’s policy, by contrast, is interest-driven and designed to enhance India’s global clout.
Neutrality as Morality vs Strategy: Nehru’s neutrality aimed at moral leadership. Today, neutrality is a tool to maintain flexibility in a volatile world.
Global Role: Nehru sought to unite the Global South. Modi wants India to be a global power, pushing for UN Security Council reforms and greater economic influence.
The Russia–Ukraine Conflict: A Case Study
India’s response to the Russia–Ukraine conflict illustrates this shift. Despite Western pressure, India has refused to condemn Russia outright, instead calling for peace. This decision stems not from ideology but from practical concerns:
Energy Security: Russia offers discounted crude oil, which is critical to managing inflation in India.
Defense Dependence: Russia remains a key supplier of arms and technology.
Geopolitical Strategy: Maintaining Russia as a friendly power helps counterbalance China in Asia.
India’s approach has drawn criticism from Western media, but its proactive diplomacy—such as evacuating Indian citizens and providing humanitarian aid—demonstrates that neutrality doesn’t mean passivity
Foreign policy analysts offer diverse perspectives on India’s new path. Harsh V. Pant describes it as strategic autonomy, while External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar calls it “all-alignment,” emphasizing issue-based engagement. Some, like Suhasini Haidar, worry that India’s balancing act could appear inconsistent. Others, like Martand Jha, see it as an evolved form of non-alignment suited to the modern multipolar world.
Challenges and Opportunities
India’s multi-alignment strategy is not without complications. Managing ties with rival blocs—like being part of both the Quad and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)—requires careful diplomacy. Additionally, China’s influence in South Asia and border tensions remain ongoing concerns
However, there are also significant opportunities:
Economic Gains: Partnerships with Japan, the U.S., and Gulf nations offer investments and technology.
Strategic Security: Stronger defense capabilities through multilateral forums and indigenous production.
Global Leadership: India’s growing influence in forums like the G20 signals its ambition to shape the world order.
Conclusion
India’s contemporary foreign policy marks a clear departure from Nehruvian non-alignment. While echoes of the past remain, especially in the desire to preserve autonomy and avoid entanglements, today’s approach is driven by strategic nationalism—a calculated, interest-based engagement with the world.
The case of the Russia–Ukraine war highlights this pragmatic shift. India continues to abstain from power blocs not out of ideological purity but to safeguard its energy, defense, and geopolitical interests. In an increasingly fragmented world, India’s multi-alignment strategy, though complex, positions it well to become a leading force in shaping a new multipolar global order—on its own terms.
Riya Goyal brings curiosity and conviction to her work at Cult Current.