| PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2019] What introduces friction into the ties between India and the United States is that Washington is still unable to find for India a position in its global strategy, which would satisfy India’s National self- esteem and ambitions. Explain with suitable examples. Linkage: The question directly links to GS-II themes of India-US relations, strategic autonomy, and impact of great-power policies on India’s national interests. It reflects recurring UPSC focus on India’s discomfort with subordinate roles in U.S. strategy, evident in issues like sanctions, trade coercion, and technology access. |
|---|
Mentor’s Comment
This article examines India’s muted diplomatic response to escalating unilateral actions by the United States across Venezuela, Iran, and South America, and evaluates the strategic, economic, and reputational costs of restraint. It raises a fundamental question for Indian foreign policy: whether silence safeguards national interest or erodes strategic autonomy at a critical geopolitical moment.
Why in the News
India’s foreign policy is being questioned as the U.S. takes increasingly unilateral actions, including regime-change threats in Venezuela and Iran and harsh tariff measures against countries trading with Russia and Iran. Despite being directly affected, India has avoided openly naming the U.S. or asserting its legal and strategic position. This silence is notable given India’s economic exposure, its investments in projects like Chabahar port, and its ambition to host the BRICS+ Summit, making the costs of restraint more visible.
Why is U.S. conduct described as unilateral and destabilising?
- Regime Interventionism: Signals disregard for sovereignty through actions in Venezuela, including the kidnapping of the President and his wife, violating core principles of international law.
- Coercive Trade Instruments: Mandates up to 500% tariffs on countries purchasing oil or uranium from Russia, weaponising trade policy for geopolitical compliance.
- Expansion of Threat Theatre: Extends regime-change rhetoric beyond Venezuela to Cuba and Colombia, indicating regional destabilisation.
- Economic Coercion on Iran: Threatens 25% additional tariffs on any country trading with Iran, escalating sanctions into secondary punishment mechanisms.
How has India officially responded to these developments?
- Diplomatic Language: Restricts response to expressions of “deep concern” without identifying U.S. violations or naming the perpetrator.
- Selective Silence: Avoids comment on Venezuela’s leadership abduction and threats to Cuba and Colombia due to perceived geographic distance.
- Operational Focus: Issues travel advisories for Iran and Israel and prepares evacuation plans for Indian students, prioritising contingency over diplomacy.
- Economic Retrenchment: Signals intent to further reduce already low levels of trade with Iran under U.S. pressure.
Why is India’s silence on Iran particularly puzzling?
- Strategic Neighbourhood: Iran is a close regional neighbour with deep historical ties to India.
- Economic Investment: India has invested billions of dollars in the Chabahar port, which faces direct U.S. pressure for shutdown.
- Policy Inconsistency: Avoids comment on Iranian protests while also remaining silent on U.S. threats of strikes and tariffs.
- Asymmetric Signalling: Demonstrates risk-aversion despite direct national interest exposure.
What explains New Delhi’s restrained posture towards Washington?
- Diplomatic Calculus: Anticipates improvement in ties following a tense year and failure to conclude the India-U.S. Bilateral Trade Agreement.
- Optimistic Signalling: Relies on assurances from U.S. Ambassador Sergio Gor regarding future cooperation.
- Technology Expectations: Seeks inclusion in the U.S.-led high-technology partnership Pax Silica, despite late-stage entry.
- Risk Avoidance: Assumes silence prevents further downturn in bilateral relations.
What are the costs of this approach for India?
- Economic Loss: Tariff threats and trade disruption directly harm Indian economic interests.
- Reputational Damage: Weakens India’s image as an autonomous and principled global actor.
- Strategic Erosion: Undermines India’s long-standing doctrine of strategic autonomy.
- Multilateral Credibility: Weakens leadership standing ahead of hosting the BRICS+ Summit.
What lesson does India’s past experience offer?
- 2019 Precedent: India ceased purchasing Iranian and Venezuelan oil under U.S. pressure.
- Policy Outcome: Concessions failed to secure long-term protection of Indian interests.
- Strategic Insight: Demonstrates that appeasement of a global power does not ensure national interest protection.
Conclusion
India’s restrained diplomacy reflects a short-term tactical calculation but risks long-term strategic dilution. National interest cannot be secured through silence or accommodation, but only through a clear assertion of strategic autonomy rooted in international law, economic self-interest, and diplomatic consistency.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
