Abhijit Bhattacharyya | An undiplomatic storm over India’s ‘strategic autonomy’

Soon after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Moscow, when Washington’s man in Delhi, Eric M. Garcetti, made a highly uncharacteristic and undiplomatic outburst targeting his host country, questioning whether India was taking its now-close partner, the United States, for granted while it pursued “strategic autonomy” in its relations with Russia, what kind of message was the Biden administration actually sending?

Eric Garcetti is not just any diplomat; he is, to use the formal phrase, the “Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of India”. So, his comments can’t be treated as a tantrum thrown by a junior diplomat or a minor official. When he speaks, it is the United States of America that speaks, and not just a mere “angry young man”.

His remarks on India’s policy thus needs careful scrutiny. “Don’t take the (India-US) relationship for granted… pay something into it. It’s like a marriage. Let’s listen to each other in this relationship”. But who exactly is taking this relationship “for granted”? And if it’s like a marriage, then who is the husband and who is the wife? And hasn’t it happened, even in a “successful marriage”, that the couple haven’t always “listened to each other”?

Mr Garcetti says: “I know that India likes its strategic autonomy… but in times of conflict there is no such thing as strategic autonomy”. That is totally unacceptable and amounts to a direct threat to India’s 1.4 billion people. That effectively means that “you have to follow my diktat at the time of conflict in the West, and that your business of strategic autonomy is of no use to American interests”. That India should remember US interests stand supreme, and no one dare ignore its fatwas.

While India and the US are strategic partners today, in the Quad and in several other forums, the ambassador should be well aware that in a number of situations, even close allies can agree to disagree. The external affairs ministry, in its first official response to the remarks of the US ambassador, reiterated that New Delhi values its strategic autonomy and that two nations can “agree to disagree on certain issues, while respecting each other’s viewpoints”. The ministry’s spokesman said on record: “The US ambassador is entitled to his opinion. Obviously, we have different views. Our comprehensive global strategic partnership with the US gives us the space to agree to disagree on certain issues, while respecting each other’s viewpoints.”

Saying a “cynical calculation” cannot pass off as a “trusted relationship” between India and the US, the ambassador had said, in remarks seen as a clear warning to New Delhi, that while US ties with India were “deeper than they have ever been”, they were “still not deep enough”.

From all accounts, the US ambassador is an erudite man well versed in the nuances of international affairs and geopolitics over almost three decades in public life. Thus, when he says that “the US and India have to act together and take a stand in principle against war”, does he recall that India always stood against war since 1947, despite facing repeated attacks and land grabs by China and Pakistan? Didn’t the US often look the other way in case of Pakistan?

Isn't it a fact that the policy of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, founder and mentor of non-alignment as a philosophy, who coined the term “Panchsheel”, or the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, has been followed by every succeeding Indian government, irrespective of ideological differences?

The United States is well aware that India has crucial development and other economic priorities, which require it to act in its own interests, and due to its immense size and population it cannot be equated with smaller countries in Europe or Asia. Any thought of war will only retard India’s development, and therefore it can’t be a party to either of the belligerent camps of the twin ongoing wars of the West.

India’s “strategic autonomy” today is driven by compulsion, not choice. If India gets oil, gas, fertiliser, etc, at competitive price from anywhere in the world, why shouldn’t New Delhi go for it? Despite lofty thoughts that the US and India “are two countries with one heart”, can India fulfil all its energy needs at a concessional price from the West? Just see what happened to Europe after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and the subsequent cutoff of Russian oil and gas to the West.

See what happened to globalisation. It was the brainchild of the West, supposed to be the perfect solution to avoid all future wars as the Soviet Union crumbled and the Cold War became history. Now it is falling apart and one of its biggest detractors is poised to return to the White House as America’s next President. The US and Western sanctions on Russia over Ukraine may have been the final nail in the coffin.

Contextually, why did not tiny Switzerland, located in the heart of Europe and with a very small population, ever join any alliances for hundreds of years? Why did the bigger powers never coerce it to join one camp or the other? Was it because it was the world’s bank, and the belligerents needed to have their money in a safe, neutral place? No one, therefore, should castigate India for not choosing sides, or to see it as an act of hostility.

Unfortunately, the US ambassador had gone on, hitting below the belt, with further remark that “over past years countries had witnessed ignoring borders… and I don’t have to remind India how important borders are”. That was a clear reference to the Ladakh incursion four years ago, the Galwan attack of June 15, 2020, a humiliation inflicted by China. India is fully aware of the sanctity of borders and forced occupation of its territory by China and Pakistan. But India, unlike the West, has no love for war and is doing its best to resolve issues without violence.

The United States and its chief diplomat in New Delhi must avoid being judgmental about India’s policy of “strategic autonomy”, and particularly in relation to its ties with Russia. The US needs to accept that New Delhi has friendly relations with both Washington and Moscow and does not want to be forced to choose between the two.

Now, as earlier, India has to follow a policy of non-alignment out of compulsion, not choice.