Rethinking India’s Asian Strategy Amid Geopolitical Flux

Rethinking India’s Asian Strategy Amid Geopolitical Flux

Syllabus:

GS 2

● India and its neighbourhood ● Organizations

Why in the News?

Amid shifting dynamics in Asia—marked by strategic uncertainty, great-power competition, and evolving regional alliances—India must reassess its foreign policy. The Shangri-La Dialogue and South Korea’s political turn underscore a new regional reality, challenging India’s past assumptions of stability and integration. A robust and flexible strategy is now essential to secure India’s interests and enhance regional influence in the face of growing American influence in Asia and the evolving balance of power. Recent Reuters on India coverage has highlighted these emerging challenges in the region.

Introduction: A Changing Asian Landscape

• Asia, long seen as the engine of global growth and regional stability, is entering a period of significant geopolitical upheaval, reminiscent of a new Cold War.
• Recent events, including the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) and South Korea’s presidential election, reflect and reinforce a broader churn in the strategic dynamics of the continent.
• These developments hold critical implications for India, whose decades-old Asian strategy was premised on stability, multilateralism, and economic engagement, including India-Pakistan relations and broader Central Asia diplomacy.

Shangri-La Dialogue: A Stage for Global Strategic Signals

About the SLD

• An annual inter-governmental security forum held in Singapore, hosted by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), showcasing Singapore geopolitics in action.
• Attended by defence ministers, military chiefs, and policy influencers from across Asia and beyond.
• This year’s edition was marked by tensions, absences, and divergence among major powers, highlighting the intensifying great-power competition in the region

Key Highlights

• US-China rivalry dominated the agenda, reflecting the ongoing India vs China dynamic in the broader Asian context.
• China’s Defence Minister’s absence symbolized deteriorating US-China relations and raised concerns about potential Indian China war scenarios.
• Asia, already caught in the economic crossfire of US-China trade wars, watched closely for Washington’s long-term intent and its impact on trade partnerships.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Address

• Focused on military rather than economic issues: “tanks, not tariffs”.
• Issued a strong warning against Chinese military assertiveness, especially regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea, highlighting concerns about the People’s Liberation Army.
• Reiterated US opposition to any kind of G2 arrangement (i.e., US-China power-sharing deal).
• Emphasized continued commitment to allies, but with conditionality:
• Urged allies to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP—a near-impossible benchmark for most Asian nations, including India defense budgets.
• Macron’s Divergent European Vision at SLD

Europe’s Independent Indo-Pacific Posture

• French President Emmanuel Macron gave the keynote address, offering a European take on Asian security.
• Diverged from US tone; emphasized strategic autonomy and balanced diplomacy.
• Stressed building new coalitions with Asian partners instead of falling into US-China binaries, highlighting the role of middle powers.

Key European Messages

• Macron and Kaja Kallas (EU’s Foreign Policy Chief) emphasized:
• The interconnectedness of European and Asian security.
• A multi-polar and cooperative Indo-Pacific.
• Nuanced criticism of China, avoiding outright confrontation.
• This marks a delicate European balancing act amidst the evolving US-Russia-China triangle, showcasing foreign policy of major powers.

US Position on NATO’s Indo-Pacific Role

• Hegseth discouraged NATO involvement in Asia, urging Europe to stay focused on Russia.
• Yet, European countries are increasing engagement in Indo-Pacific affairs:
• Naval deployments by France, UK, Germany, emphasizing freedom of navigation.
• Strategic partnerships with Japan, India, ASEAN, etc., forming new security alliances.

South Korea’s Political Shift: Strategic Autonomy in Action

Election Overview

•  The election was called after the downfall of conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol.
•  Left-leaning candidate Lee Jae-myung emerged as the frontrunner.
•  Represents a pivot in South Korea’s foreign and security policy orientation, potentially impacting the balance of power in the region and the role of middle powers.

Yoon vs. Lee: Contrasting Strategic Philosophies

• Yoon Suk Yeol:
•  Strong US and Japan alignment.
•  Tough stance on China and North Korea.
•  Lee Jae-myung:
•  Advocates “pragmatic realism”.
•  Seeks strategic balancing, not subservience.
•  Emphasizes economic pragmatism and legislative oversight over military engagements.

Lee’s Foreign Policy Agenda

• Wants to keep the US alliance intact but on more autonomous terms.
•  Will likely complicate US planning for Taiwan contingencies.
•  Plans to re-engage with North Korea, reviving joint projects.
•  Supports economic engagement with China:
•  China is South Korea’s largest trading partner.
•  Will prioritize stabilizing trade, especially in critical sectors like semiconductors and EV batteries, focusing on supply chain resilience.

Relations with Japan

• Will maintain trilateral defense dialogues.
•  Demands historical accountability for Japanese wartime atrocities.
•  Risks reigniting diplomatic tensions with Tokyo.
• Broader Themes Emerging in Asian Geopolitics

A. Rise of Strategic Autonomy

• Countries like South Korea are now rejecting binary alignments.
• Want to preserve independence in policy choices, despite alliance structures, adopting multi-vector policy approaches.

B. Fragility of Multilateral Institutions

• Regional forums like ASEAN, ARF, EAS appear ill-equipped to manage rising tensions.
•  SLD’s value as a dialogue platform is diminished by major absentees and rigid positions.
•  This highlights the need for preventive diplomacy and stronger regional mechanisms.

C. Economic Interdependence vs. Security Polarization

• Countries seek to benefit from economic ties with China, even as they align with the US on security.
• This dual-track diplomacy is becoming harder to sustain due to rising decoupling pressures, challenging the concept of omni-enmeshment.

India’s Dilemma: Strategic Calculus in a Fractured Asia

Traditional Indian Strategy: Now Under Strain

• For over three decades, India’s Asia policy was built on:
• Great-power harmony.
• Regional stability.
• Economic interdependence.
• Strengthening multilateralism.
• These assumptions are now increasingly untenable.

New Challenges for India

• Great power competition has intensified, particularly between the US and China.
• Asian countries are fragmented in their response strategies.
• The Indo-Pacific strategic theatre is getting militarized, with growing concerns about Chinese navy vs Indian navy capabilities.
• China’s assertiveness across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and in the Indian Ocean is rising, intensifying the India vs China dynamic.
• US demands for greater military burden-sharing are unrealistic for most Asian partners, including India.

What India Must Do: Strategic Recommendations

A. Enhance Strategic Flexibility

• Must adapt to multi-alignment realities rather than overdependence on any one power.
• Prioritize issue-based coalitions—for example:
• Maritime security with ASEAN + France.
• Technology partnerships with Quad countries.
• Energy diplomacy with West Asia + Japan.
• Develop a comprehensive deterrence strategy that accounts for both conventional and non-conventional threats.

B. Strengthen National Capabilities

• Boost defence spending beyond current ~2% of GDP, particularly in cyber, space, and naval domains.
• Accelerate defense indigenization under Atmanirbhar Bharat, focusing on military modernization.
• Build a robust economy, the ultimate foundation of any credible foreign policy.
• Enhance technological cooperation with like-minded partners to stay competitive in emerging fields.

C. Reinvigorate Regional Diplomacy

• Lead initiatives in Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and South Asia where India enjoys natural advantages.
• Rebuild trust in SAARC and BIMSTEC.
• Deepen economic and connectivity partnerships with ASEAN.
• Strengthen Kazakhstan-India relations as part of broader Central Asian engagement.

D. Counter China with Smart Balancing

• Push back against China where necessary (e.g., LAC, Indian Ocean).
• Engage selectively on multilateral platforms (e.g., BRICS, SCO) to prevent isolation.
• Foster stronger Quad and I2U2 (India-Israel-UAE-US) frameworks.
• Develop diplomatic coalitions to address specific regional challenges.
• Consider the role of religion in China and its impact on regional dynamics when formulating policy.

Conclusion

• Asia is no longer an arena of stable, rule-based cooperation—it is becoming a contested, multipolar space.
• India must shed old assumptions and embrace strategic clarity without sacrificing strategic autonomy.
• This demands:
• Tough choices.
• Better foresight.
• Stronger institutions.
• As the “great churn” in Asia continues, New Delhi must become a pole of stability, resilience, and leadership in the evolving global order.
• India’s ability to navigate this complex strategic space will be crucial in shaping the Asian century.
• The evolving geopolitical landscape may require a reassessment of prime minister powers to ensure swift decision-making in foreign policy matters.
• India’s approach should balance liberal nationalism with pragmatic engagement, fostering both domestic unity and international cooperation.
• Policymakers must remain vigilant about the potential use of economic sanctions as a tool in great power competition and prepare contingency plans accordingly.

UPSC Mains Question (GS-2 – International Relations)

Q. The changing geopolitical dynamics in Asia — as reflected in forums like the Shangri-La Dialogue and political shifts in key countries like South Korea — challenge the assumptions underlying India’s Asian strategy. Critically analyze the implications of these developments for India’s foreign policy and suggest a way forward for New Delhi.