INDIA IN QUEST OF STRATEGIC SPACE

INDIA IN QUEST OF STRATEGIC SPACE
(Dr. NK Kumar)
Introduction:
Is India at the crossroads today in the current strategic scenario? Is it crossing through a transitional phase in the prevailing security environment? Is its stand on security merely a myth/dilemma? Is it stuck on the dead-end? Many more such questions are haunting in the mind of intellectuals. Answers to these questions are far from being easy and simple one, but not difficult too if the ground reality is critically/objectively analyzed. The aim of this article is to analyze various strategic options for India and to focus on suitable answers to such questions in the given situation. It begins with conceptualizing security in the present strategic environment for India - a nation on the threshold of major power status. This provides a ground for interpreting the changing international and sub-continental strategic situation and to locate India’s appropriate place in it. This paper makes an attempt to focus India’s search for strategic space in the complex global and sub-continental strategic scenario. It reviews by outlining briefly what kind of broad policy choices are optional for India as an emerging power.
Ever since India’s birth as an independent nation state, it happened to be on the target of the most ‘powerful imperialist’ (USA) as well as the most ‘adventurous communist regime’ (China) and the ‘fanatical military regime’ (Pak). They kept on raising unrealistic/imaginary/hypothetical issues, one after another, despite India’s all possible good gestures to them. After the end of cold war the peace broke out worldwide. But the strategic situation around India in the sub-continent remained the same and the peace is still a dream. India’s quest for peaceful and secured space appears to be shattered under external threats. Moreover, domestic scenario, due to regionalism/religious fundamentalism/left extremism, is also no different. No stone is being left unturned by the anti-India forces from both outside and inside, to shake the dream of a nation, which sincerely struggles to survive with peaceful co-existence. In almost same situation, many newly born nation-states after the II world war, have either lost their independence or broken into pieces or politically surrendered under pressures.
In these circumstances, India does not find space for respite even for a moment since the time it snatched freedom from the clutches of the colonial monster. Does India need same method of snatching peace and security for her survival also? In other words, does India need the kind of means used by her for gaining independence for her survival as an independent nation also? If so, then India’s traditional defensive approach needs to be reviewed and the offensive/aggressive face is to be focused. If India intends to do so, first of all it needs to conceptualize her national security properly and carefully before any attempt is made to shift her decades old strategic stand.
In this regard, let us conceptualize national security in general term before touching upon the same in the Indian context.
Security has been defined and understood variously by various experts on various occasions. Security, in fact, is an abstract and also an elusive term; it means different things to different people, it also has different concepts in different situations. At Psychological level the term security presents images of peace and harmony, a feeling of being well guarded from several uncertainties. At another level it has an underpinning of vulnerability and fear from which we may guard ourselves but from that very action others may feel insecure. In this context, let us see traditional and transnational views.
For traditional view, according to Walter Lipmann “… a nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interest to avoid war and is able, if challenged to maintain them by war.”1 Henry Kissinger says, “ National security in its widest sense comprises every action by which a society seeks to assure its survival or to realize its aspirations internationally.”2 It means military or defence forces to insure territorial security of the nation against various threats. This is the responsibility of the state; the actor in the society of states, rather than individual, to protect national security.3
As regards transnational view, the two terms are associated together- One is the concept of comprehensive security and the other is human security. The first argues that security concerns have to look into the political, economic and socio-cultural dimensions of security of the people of any state and the other seeks direct linkage with human well being. While the concept of comprehensive security continues to accept the relevance of the nation state and places its discourse within the parameter of a nation state, the concept of human security takes a more global view. It would, therefore, be appropriate to locate the concept of human security within the transnational approaches that focus on the human dimension looking beyond the nation state barriers.4
Broadly speaking there are two dimensions of national security-external and internal. External security rests on the premise that there are perpetual clashes of interest among the nations and these are often irreconcilable, which may lead to war. On the other hand internal security rests on the assumption that every society is perpetually torn by intra-societal conflicts which often lead to political disorder, violence and social turmoil.
National security also has both military and non-military dimensions. Military dimension of security is also called as strategic or traditional or conventional dimension of security. And the non-military dimension in other words is known as non-strategic or non-traditional or non-conventional dimension of security. Armed force is involved to protect the nation and society in case of threats from inside or outside on national security under the concept of military dimension of security.5 As regard the concept of non-military dimension, the army is not normally involved unless and until the situation goes beyond the control of civil and police administrations. Non-military dimension of security also covers comprehensive/human interest at global level in terms of international concept of common security. For instance, the interest relating to environment etc. for which all the nations make efforts to tackle threats on environment so as to ensure common interest of the entire global community.
In this background, the national security of India conceptually moves, by and large, within the same parameters of traditional barriers of nation-state. Indian armed force, like those of others countries, protects national border and territory against external threats along with protecting national integrity/unity against internal threats posed by internal militant groups.
However, India’s strategic scenario is not always similar to many other nation- states. It is, therefore, apart from guarding border against hostile countries, its main thrust area, now a days, is the internal dimension of security to tackle cross border terrorism and insurgency, besides time to time supporting police in low intensive conflicts against naxalites etc. It is also supporting civil administration during natural calamities/disasters.6 Other nation-states may have different nature of strategic situation and hence their military’s thrust area may also differ from that of India. Unlike USA and a few members-states of NATO, the Indian army is not deployed abroad in a state’s politically deigned agenda. The involvement of Indian army in IPKF operation in Sri Lank in 1987-89 is an exception. It is, therefore, argued that the security in the Indian context cannot be conceptualized in general term due to its different nature of strategic situations.
As regards India’s non-military/non-traditional/internal dimensions of security is concerned, following are the main components:7

- Economic – Economic growth, Employment, poverty, Energy,
corruption, Money laundering, Redistribution of economic resources,
fake currency, Black money, Recession, Drug trafficking etc.
- Socio-cultural – Social-justice, Caste issue, Tribal issue, Religious minority, Linguistic minority, Child marriage, Dowry etc.
- Human – Human rights, Exploitation against women, children and labour, Health, Migration, illiteracy etc.
- Environmental – Land, Water, Natural resources, Pollution, Food, Forest, Climate.
- Political - Political stability, Center-state relation, Criminalisation of politics, Caste- politics, Vote-bank politics, Coalition-politics, Political unanimity on national issues.
Economic face of India shows that it’s GDP stands at the top and its other aspects of economy at the bottom in the world. About 33% people are under poverty line, gap between rich and poor is widening and unemployment as well as corruption, money laundering, scarcity of energy etc are increasing at alarming level. Thus, the imbalance economic development is the root-cause of many internal dimensions of Indian security.
Fragmented socio-cultural configuration continues to dominate over national security of India from the beginning of the origin of nation state. Socio-cultural diversities comprising various components together in homogeneous framework provides a basic pre-requisite of both the development as well security of the nation, which is missing in India. Fragmentation at any step for whatsoever reason in the internal framework of nation-state is a serious challenge to national security.
Human approach to national security based on humanism argues for strengthening the foundation of internal security of a nation-state. Human dimension of security is also significant for global framework of transnational security. India’s poor human right record is a serious challenge to the national security.
Environmental aspect of security is significant for both national and global framework of security. Although, there is no immediate threat of declining environmental balance on national security, but in the long term the environmental dimension is an area of concern for both national and international security.9 India is co-operating with the global community on environmental issues on her behalf and also on behalf of developing countries.
Soviet/Yugoslavian instance of political dimension of internal security, which led to disintegration of strong nation-states, is a cautionary signal to the world, though the nature of such threats varies from nation to nation. The political scenario of coalition politics, growing regional political parties and the vote-bank politics in India pose a significant threat on national security in the long term.10
Changing scenario and India’s stand
The global strategic scenario after the breaking up of the former USSR has undergone a major transformation. The end of cold war has brought about the loss of a quantified bipolarity and has ushered the polarization of intent, capability and power (military and non-military). The multipolar nodes of power is emerging with potential deploy and threaten the use of weapons of mass destruction even when the history of the post world war period till date has not precipitated and all nuclear war.11
However, the hostiled strategic scenario in the Indian sub-continent, more or less, remains the same. In the meanwhile India and Pakistan are in possession of nuclear weapon and China and India are emerging as economic global power. As regards internal dimension of Indian security, the economic globalization and the evolution of information technology along with liberalization of Indian economy have a positive impact on India in terms of increasing GDP, foreign currency, defence budget, employment inside/outside the country etc. As a result the domestic pressures (financial and human) on national security is decreasing.
Conceptualizing security in general term is comprised of three aspects – abstraction, theorization and materialization. As the nation states despite being asymmetrical to each other on more than one count, will continue to remain a prime actors in the foreseeable future as a unit of analysis in international relation and global system, the role of the armed forces will continue to remain a significant factor, though in the Indian context, their thrust area of operation in the traditional sense may escalate and deescalate both. In the changing situation the Indian armed force have greater task inside the country to protect internal security rather than their deployment on border. Therefore, all the three aspects of security need to be touched upon with open mind.
Conceptualizing security and giving a sense of direction and implementation of security policies will require bridging the gap between the realm of idea and the domain of public policy making, the latter being an offshoot of the organizations at the government and non-government levels are empowered to examine holistically the totality of security considerations. As a market driven new world order is emerging because of globalization, the changing self-perceptions of nation state will impinge on the manner in which they articulate their security concerns and coping strategies. One has to therefore consider that both financial and technological aspects will operate and play a significant role based on resources and opportunities. 12
It is in this emerging scenario that the think tank of intellectuals has to pave the way to suggest options to the makers of security policy so as to ensure that the pre-planned action is kept in hand before any internal crisis emerges for internal security. India, a growing global power cannot afford any more dilemma and myth in the process of policy making. Ambiguity on the part of policy making and the dilemma at any level of implementation of the same takes the nation-state nowhere near the situation to tackle the challenges of internal dimension of national security.
However, the perception of changing situation is not so simple, as UP Thakur and C. Narasimha Rao argue, “ because the context has changed, the forces we have to fight we have changed, the tools and technique with which we can fight effectively are new, the players are new, the attitudes are new. And all these are in permanent changeable state and unpredictable. Things change in nanoseconds, not in days and months. The very scale of measure has changed. It is no longer Himalayan border we are fighting for, we are fighting forces external and within that are dynamic and unpredictable. If it is 21st century, we can not conceptualize war doctrine for the 20sh century.” 13
Now it is a different world and different time. We have to conceptualize security differently. It is more so for India – the India that does not change, the India that always think itself to be safe and secure enough. but always prove wrong, must see reason to change – to secure itself and its people in the new age of knowledge economy.
Conceptualization of security also involves question of what and whose interest we protect, how we protect, who all are involved in protecting. Is it only military that is supposed to protect while others keep watching? And also, the issue of where the protection begins – is it at border alone or in every home and field? The concept of protection must be replaced by the concept of growth and development; the concept of defence must yield to the concept of proactive force capability. We must shift security philosophy to a positive action agenda for the overall development and progress of the nation, where every citizen, every activity, every sector and every entity becomes the generator of strength and power, and contributes to the strength and might of the nation-state.14
In the changing scenario, therefore, India needs to conceptualize her security in certain perspectives to get her updated.
Perspectives:
We cannot predict future scenario of security threats but we can certainly base our projection on historical, socio-cultural, psychological, economic, political, and technological moorings/perspectives.
- Historical – Military history of India from the time of Mauryan empire till the Kargil conflict and also the military history of the world beginning from the time of Napoleon till the end of gulf war 1991, are full of lessons of war, security, strategy, tactics etc. Having analyzed history one can make a framework of conceptualizing security of both internal and external dimensions well in time before actual threats knock the door.
- Socio-cultural – Indian society and culture is a complex issue, not only because of diversities but also for its contradictory components and complicated configuration. In the existing scenario, to find a bridging device in the gap of socio-cultural gulf causing internal insecurity is not simple. It is, therefore, a long-term framework of socio-cultural reality at national level needs to be analyzed and to evolve a common space for peaceful co-existence all sub-cultures together so that the national unity amongst socio-cultural diversity can ensure internal security.
- Psychological – Intangible elements of national power like national morale, national character and national leadership are psychologically inter-connected in terms of internal and external dimensions of national security. Recently the national level of Indian military leadership like the navel chief and the air force chief have separately stated that the overall capability of Indian armed forces is not only much inferior to that of China but also it can not even tackle Pakistan. Besides, the vice-chief of air force staff has also openly criticized the culture of political leadership of both the ruling opposition party for delaying the procurement of arms. Besides, the Army Chief openly stated unprofessionally that India is getting prepared for war with two enemies-Pak and China. The psychological/adverse impacts of such pessimistic and provoking public statements on national morale and also on national image can be well imagined. They should understand that no nation-state could be physically secured if it is psychologically insecure. This is not only a gross misuse of democratic norms but also a broad violation of military ethics. India, therefore, needs to learn strategic culture and security norms in the perspective of psychological propensities.
- Economic - Economic problem is a core issue, which causes plights in all aspects of security, whether to prepare in external or internal dimensions, to meet military or non-military threats or to take initiative in setting basic infrastructures of socio-cultural and human security. Economic support cannot be substituted. However, the country like India cannot be expected to create and mobilize sufficient economic resources for security preparations over night, though Indian economy now is growing fast and also allocating finance to defence budget manifold in comparison with past 10-15 years. But is it sufficient to tackle Pak-China together on external front and the vast area on internal front from economic development of Kashmir, north-east region, Naxalites affected belt, besides many more commitments and urgent financial requirements to ensure the preparation of national security on long term basis? Certainly not. But what is the way out? All these shot comings and impediments are to be kept in mind while security planning and policy is viewed in the initial stages, as the economic perspective of security cannot be ignored.
- Political – India being the largest democratic political system in the world has certain plus and minus in terms of security. A number of serious internal security issues like Mozo problem, Punjab problem, Assam problem, anti-Hindi problem in Tamilnadu etc. have been solved through dialogue, and many more are in the process of heading towards democratic solution. However, the democratic norms demand transparency in policy, planning and strategy concerning security, which may be misused by anti-national elements as happened during 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai where the militants came to know about police action through the Indian TV news channels. The political reality and its commitments are important in relation to national security. In this background, therefore, political perspective is significant in the security context.
- Technological – Modern technology is significant in all walk of life including modern warfare. We have seen the role of air power technology during the Gulf War in 1991 where ten lakhs well trained professional army of Iraq was forced to surrender. Is India prepared for such warfare against well-equipped hostile power with modern arms? What is the present status of military technology in India? Is the indigenous source of military technology sufficient or do we depend upon imports from other countries? When we talk about technology we mean modern indigenous military software and hardware in terms of quality of weapons, communication/information system, intelligence, training etc. In the given situation, can we fight a war in 21st century with the guns of 19th century? Military history shows that the modern weapons, latest technology, proper training and morale of the man can make miracle in warfare. In this perspective India needs to maintain the level of military preparedness of modern quality.
However, mere perspectives of security are not enough for proper formation and conceptualization of security policy for India in the present international and regional strategic scenario. We, therefore, need to follow certain tenants in this regard, such as:
Tenants
- Military power and diplomacy
- Defence and development
- Technology and knowledge-based security personnel
- Federal pluralism and unanimity on national issues
Broadly speaking, both, the military power and diplomacy are the means to protect / promote national interest. Whereas the former possess physical strength to guard national territory against threats from inside and outside and the later is a skill to manage international relations in the interest of the nation. And hence, the goal of both of them is the same – the protection of national interest. Besides, both of them are also complementary to each other. Alone either of them cannot provide sufficient security to the nation. India, therefore, must insure that the military muscle and the diplomacy should go together. India herself has demonstrated the same during Bangladesh liberation. World takes lesson from India as how to protect national interest by balancing army and the foreign relations together. Indira’s diplomacy with USSR and Manek shaw’s military strategy make a wonderful combination to ensure an unprecedented victory. Security – policy makers in India need to maintain the same in future too. Is India attempting to repeat her own history by making strategic relation with USA? Whether USA deserves to be as trusted as used to be USSR or not, it is altogether a different issue in view of the Indo – USA relations during the cold – war era. Whatever may be, in the present unipolar scenario India does not have any other option.
Defence and development is another important tenant of conceptualizing security for India in principle. The concept of long tern security refers to balancing expenses on defence and development. It is true that no expense is too much when it comes to the nation’s security. But what about economic development? The fact remains that the economic growth is the foundation of national security. It is, therefore, both are equally significant. “ The entire process of defence budget allocation in an independent India was inherited from British with no conceptual or procedural changes.”15 Budgeting has always been conceived as a process for systematically relating expenditure of funds to accomplishment of planned objectives. Thus its main principal emphasis is on planning and relating it to resources required and finances needed to accomplish the objectives. However, in practice this dimension is rarely reflected explicitly in the government budgets.16
India is one of the four oldest civilizations of the world. It is comprised of 31 regions, 1618 languages, 6400 castes, 6 religions, 6 ethnic groups, 29 major festivals 150 languages, 544 dialects and 1 country. In such a huge diversity if there is a slight imbalance in maintaining socio-cultural equilibrium it leads to a serious internal security crisis like the demolition of Babri Mashjid and Mandal Commission.
Defence expenditure also depends upon threat perception. The land frontier extends to about 15200 km with China, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Pakistan. India’s coastline extends over 7500 km and the island territories in the Bay of Bengal are more than 1100 km from the Indian mainland. The Indian landmass has an area of about 3.2 million sq.km and the EEZ has an area of about 2 million sq. km. It is a tough task of the Indian defence to take care. Hence budget needs to be in accordance with threat perceptions.
As regards development, it is not merely an economic phenomenon; it also perceived as multidimensional process involving the reorganization and re-orientation of entire economic and social system. GDP/GNP does not always indicate the ground reality, nor it shows the socio-economic equality in the real sense of the term. India’s GDP is good enough, yet about 35% Indians are under below poverty line. Many Indians are scholars at global level; still about 30% people are illiterates. In this situation, if an undeveloped India is economically insecure, can a strong defence, if it is, alone provide adequate national security in both internal and external dimensions? It is, therefore, India needs overall development in both the areas of defence and development. How it could be achieved, it all depends upon the planners and strategy makers for a long-term security.
Technology and knowledge-based security personnel are the needs of the modern security environment. Technology, in general, refers to the latest scientific know-how and the modern apparatus/tools/instruments for mechanizing the system. In security term, the technology refers to the modernization of military weapons and other hardware. Moreover, imparting proper training to the staff is also equally important so as to handle the modern arms efficiently. Besides, “the international divide today is not just about political misalignments or economic disparities but also about security related policies of denial of duel-use technologies, imbalances in arms export policies in trade practices and fierce industrial competition. Concerns of trans-national tensions on issues such as WMD proliferation, militarisation of outer space, global warming, competition to energy resources and adverse impact of advances in Bio and Nano technologies also influences security perceptions. Motivational cross-connections and technical inter-linkages of this 21st century scenario can present serious impediments to national security. As we move forward to a more knowledge-based society, information security and cyber security issues are posing new challenges to the management of security, thereby increasing vulnerabilities with no clear answers yet.”17 All these challenges of acquiring/developing modern arms, imparting modern training to the staff and the management of security are to be kept in mind while military preparedness is assured.
Federal pluralism and unanimity on national issues is a principle, which argues for maintaining national unity in diversity of interest. Federalism refers to autonomy of state under a federal/central govt. so as to maintain unity at center over diversity at state level. Its relevance is widely indorsed at the broad level of global democratic commitments in general and in the Indian perspective in particular. However, in India the commitments for constitutional provision of federal structure come in the way of tackle terrorist acts and other internal security related problems, as some scholars like Ashutosh Varshney argue.18 He has pointed out three laws and practices in support of his view:
a. As per Indian constitution, internal law and order is on the state-list, not a subject of central or concurrent list. Unlike US concept of ‘federal crime,’ under federal law, India does not have this type of system under central govt. to tackle terrorist act directly as this is state’s responsibility.
b. National security guard (commandos) under central govt. does not function properly due to non-cooperation of states.
c. In contrast to the FBI in USA, which combines intelligence and investigation functions, the CBI in India has to depend upon IB for intelligence information. Newly created National Investigation Agency by an act of Indian Parliament cannot be expected to act like FBI because it is not the result of amendment of the constitution, which requires approval of 2/3 of parliament and half the state’s assemblies. Hence, it is not binding for the state to follow. Moreover, the NIA also does not have its own organizational structures to function independently.
However, Varshney’s argument does not cover the whole truth, as the Indian constitutional framework is totally different from than that of the USA and hence it cannot be compared in this context. The main point is missed out in his argument that USA, being a presidential/federal system unlike India’s parliamentary/quasi-federal system, maintains separate constitutions for both - center and state besides separate judiciary and citizenship. Hence, it is not convincing to conclude abruptly that federalism weakens India’s response to terrorism, although the constitutional provisions relating to center-state relation in India need to be clarified in term of internal dimensions of security either by amendments to the constitution or opinion of the supreme court. Whatever may be, there must be unanimous view amongst all political parties including center and the state governments on national issues affecting national security.
Conclusion:
Is strategic policy based on strategic culture missing in India? It is debatable proposition. Scholars like George Tanham believe that there is no strategic culture in India.19 The opposite view argues that there has been a constant strategic thinking in India right from ancient history, though the pattern/nature of Indianised form of strategic culture differs from that of the western one. However, the fact remains that the level of such culture in the civil society of India is not at the democratic standard. An organized think-tank is also lacking. Independent/impartial/professional views are hardly taken into account while national policy on security is processed. Moreover, democracy is taken as an excuse by the political leadership for lagging behind Chinese level of military preparedness/economic growth, which may satisfy vote-bank but does not ensure national security.
However, strategic thinkers like Kautilya and Gandhi will not make security policy of the nation today, nor the policy-making responsibility can be entirely rested with government. People including the intellectuals, opposition parties, media, authors, scholars, etc., have to come forward instead of mere making irrelevant comments with fault finding negative tendency. Strategic culture has to grow and policy formation also has to be thinking-based on long-term basis. There is no short-cut remedy if India has the vision to grow as an effective international actor. India has to create space by her own in a tough global race for herself. No one else will do it for India. Instead of blaming neighbouring countries and imperialist for various problems, it needs to develop her own strength at global standard and that would be the best answer to the cross-border terrorism and frequent incursions on LAC.
Frankly speaking, the plain truth is that India now is on the verge of being a world power in the growing multi-polar world strategic scenario. India is not enjoying this status on the mercy of others but by virtue of her own economic growth, military strength, democratic system and national integrity and unity. Indian scholars who examine Indian security from western view need to review their thought-process. India, indeed, occupies a strong and enough strategic space to maintain her national security. Pakistani/Chinese designed anti-India strategy can never destabilized India. This is not an emotional myth, but the hard reality.
Where does India stand in the global system today? Widely acknowledged as an emerging power, it has an expanding role in regional and global politics. Its claims to such a role rest on its size, the rapid growth of its economy, its military capacity, its position as a large democratic state and its history of leadership in the developing world. An enhanced role is also in tune with its expanding interests. Many of these interests are linked to those of the major powers. In the economic sphere, India has joined WTO and the other multilateral regimes. In the military-political arena, it is committed to multilateralism with respect to the agenda of the major powers, especially on WMD, terrorism and the stabilisation of weak states. As its longstanding outsider status vis-à-vis the non-proliferation regime dissolves, it has a stronger stake and potentially a greater role in the same regime, this time as an insider. Given that global cooperation is essential to systemic stability, India will have to consider how and to what extent it can become a major stakeholder in the non-proliferation regime. Choices on membership of its non-universal components, such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Proliferation Security Initiative, will be critical, if not always easy to make.20
As an emerging power, India is also seeking an entente with the US, which goes well beyond the India-US nuclear cooperation agreement. From a policy that in the heyday of non-alignment and autarky placed much emphasis on keeping its distance, India has shifted to close economic and military relations with the ‘hegemonic power’ in a classic exercise of bandwagoning. At the same time, reflecting its understanding of the changing world described earlier, it has spread its bets and engaged fruitfully with other major powers. Despite Indian reservations about China’s intentions, the India-China relationship has shifted from zero-sum game to a mixed –motive game in which the two manoeuvre and play strategic balancing games against each other, but simultaneously cooperate in trade for mutual benefit. This reflects a major strength of Indian foreign policy; it recognizes the high potential cost of an antagonistic relationship with China.21
A school of thought frequently makes criticism that India is becoming or has already become a subordinate ally of the US after Indo-US Nuclear Deal, it is overlooking some facts. First, even if the non-alignment is dead, its legacy is still relevant. India is still in a position to maintain her decision-making autonomy. Second, India having historical/civilizational richness, national pride and aspiration for growing world power, it cannot be a subordinate of any other power including USA. Third, the existing US allies like France and Germany co-operate with USA on many global issues but they are less cordial on many more issues including the invasion of Iraq. As regards India, which co-operate USA on the issue of global terrorism, WMD, civil nuclear, climate, Iran, South Korea etc. but it ignores US views on Pakistan, China, Palestine etc. India, therefore, can be a strategic partner, but not a pliant subordinate.
The fact remains that the Indo-US Nuclear Deal helps India in dealing with other global powers like France, Russia, European Union, Japan, Germany etc. on various issues including nuclear, science and technology. As Indo-US relations grow closer, Pakistan finds it politically more and difficult to play the asymmetric warfare game with India. China too takes India more seriously after the said Deal as happened during the recent Copenhagen Summit on climate change. India allying with USA does not mean against China. The US itself is not inclined to do more than hedge against China, and India has common interest with it. Unless there is a positive breakthrough, the present policy of India towards China – hedging on political-military front and side by side giving a thrust to economic co-operation – is likely to continue. India has grown global responsibility after its unconventional reaction on Iran’s nuclear controversy.
The recent Copenhagen Climate Change conference has marked the beginning of global relevance of India being a multi-polar power along with China, from where India is unlikely to look behind. Apart from diplomacy, India is also, undoubtedly a potential military power having capability to defend her national interest against any threats. Today, India is successfully balancing economic development with defence as well as managing diplomacy together with military muscle to serve national interest from a strong position.


Reference: