India’s Strategic Autonomy Faces Growing Challenges in a Polarizing World

India’s longstanding doctrine of strategic autonomy is evolving into a source of significant challenges, transitioning from a tool of flexibility to one of strategic drift. Originally crafted to navigate the complexities of post-colonial geopolitics, this approach now incurs rising costs—economic, military, and diplomatic—without yielding the anticipated leverage. As global dynamics shift and polarization intensifies, sustaining this strategy is proving increasingly difficult.

Historically rooted in the Nehruvian era’s non-alignment, India’s strategic autonomy aimed to avoid alignment with Cold War blocs while securing developmental aid from both sides. In present times, this concept has been redefined as “multi-alignment,” which seeks to deepen defense and technological ties with the United States, maintain longstanding military and energy relationships with Russia, and sustain significant economic interactions with China. Theoretically, this diverse portfolio should enhance India’s options within a multipolar world. However, the reality reflects a loss of coherence in this strategy.

India’s reluctance to fully align with Western sanctions on Russia has helped secure discounted energy supplies. Yet, this has also led to increased scrutiny from a more transactional Washington, where trade and security are now closely linked. Additionally, despite ongoing border tensions, India’s economic engagement with China persists, resulting in a bilateral trade deficit exceeding US$100 billion and reinforcing dependencies in critical sectors such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, and renewable energy.

The consequences manifest as a widening gap between costs and returns. While Russia remains a crucial defense supplier, delays in the delivery of military equipment due to its wartime constraints are imposing additional operational and financial burdens on India’s armed forces. In contrast, deeper cooperation with the US and its partners has led to valuable signaling and interoperability. However, this has not translated into the level of technology access or policy support typically afforded to full allies.

India is often described as an indispensable partner, yet its treatment reflects a more conditional status. Economic exposure mirrors this strategic asymmetry, as reliance on Chinese intermediate goods continues despite political confrontations. This dependence leaves India vulnerable to supply disruptions while Beijing consolidates its manufacturing dominance.

Diplomatically, India’s strategic autonomy is becoming a double-edged sword. Its measured stance on global conflicts has attracted criticism from Western allies while failing to secure meaningful concessions in return, whether on market access, sanctions relief, or defense technology. Although multilateral platforms enhance India’s voice, they do not automatically translate into tangible benefits. The risk is that autonomy may become more performative than productive.

The core issue lies not within the concept of autonomy itself, but in the absence of clear prioritization. Flexibility can create advantages only when backed by credible alternatives. Currently, India’s options are constrained by historical dependencies and unresolved vulnerabilities. Economic strength has yet to convert into bargaining power, and strategic partnerships have not matured into enforceable commitments.

Recalibration does not necessitate formal alliances but demands sharper strategic choices. Accelerating defense indigenization is essential to mitigate reliance on single-supplier risks. Moreover, trade diversification should be viewed as a strategic necessity rather than a mere economic consideration. Partnerships with the US, Japan, and Europe must be leveraged explicitly for technology access and supply chain resilience, rather than assumed as a natural outcome of goodwill. Engagement with Russia should also be managed with clearly defined parameters, moving beyond historical sentiment.

In an increasingly hostile international landscape, ambiguity carries significant costs. India’s strategic autonomy was intended as a means to secure sovereignty through leverage. When the methods begin to undermine the intended outcomes, a course correction becomes essential. Without greater clarity and discipline, India risks discovering that misapplied autonomy is not a protective measure but rather a liability that becomes increasingly untenable.

This analysis underscores the need for a strategic re-evaluation as India navigates a complex and evolving global environment.