Just as 9/11 legitimized an era of American global expansionist policymaking since 2001, the Ukraine crisis of 2022 might well signal the end of unipolarity once and for all. The rise of alternative power centers has challenged the dominant narratives espoused by the American elite and their European allies with non-Western, post-colonial counter-narratives.
For India, which follows a time-tested policy of strategic autonomy and balancing, the heralding of multipolarity – a more balanced and complex global system where several states or regions have relatively equal levels of influence – works in its favor.
Diplomatic juggling
In the unipolar model, India would run the risk of being exposed to entrapment by the hegemonic power in contradiction to its own state interests. Within a bipolar world, Indian strategy would rest on the little wriggle space existing between the contending great powers. In contrast, multipolarity works hand-in-hand with the Indian way of balancing its relations with one set of stakeholders on an issue while interacting with other powers on a different problem. Such delicate diplomatic juggling is the hallmark of Indian diplomacy.
Importantly, the Ukrainian crisis has led to another, deep-seated crisis within the Western system – the increasing irrelevance of the liberal international order. Despite the US and its allies stating the crisis as “affecting the whole world,” the truth of the matter remains that it’s the unilateral sanctions imposed by Western governments that have stunted the global economy.
The international world is driven by two interlinked factors: military and finance, which explains why the US has been the world’s sole hegemonic state for decades. Militarily, US defense expenditures alone are equivalent to the military spending of the next eleven largest competitors combined, according to SIPRI. Financially, American supremacy is maintained through the dominance of the US dollar in the international monetary system. The US wielding its influence to exclude Russia from the SWIFT international messaging system for banks or imposing unilateral sanctions on states that failed to live up to the standards of American foreign policy is just another example of how this dominance works. Although in direct violation of the UN Charter, international law, international humanitarian law, and the Geneva Conventions, the use of sanctions in US foreign policy has become customary.
However, in the wake of the Ukraine crisis, instead of isolating Russia, the West, ironically, has instead alienated itself from the hearts and minds of the Global South. Hijacking multilateral forums to divert the spotlight back to Ukraine has led to disaffection among the “third world” nations. Such tactics only work to weaken the Western-led liberal internationalist “rules-based” project.
Within this unraveling world order, we are moving from institutionalism, globalization, and Responsibility to Protect (R2P) towards the 3 R’s – regionalism, realignment, and realpolitik. Shivshankar Menon, a former Indian national security adviser, opined, “We are headed for a poorer, meaner, and smaller world.”
Multi-alignment strategy
During the Cold War, the newly independent Indian republic was careful not to get entangled in alliances. This striving to maintain its independence and territorial integrity stemmed from its dark colonial history of exploitation. Such a singular focus of New Delhi on preserving its sovereignty extends up to the present day, especially after it witnessed Britain hand over the mantle of maritime dominance to the US. This also explains why today, despite being a democracy, India doesn’t “promote democracy” in the international realm as the US does.
The end of the Cold War left India’s foreign policy in peril. One of its staunch and greatest allies – the Soviet Union – had disappeared from the world map. Worse still, in 1991 New Delhi underwent an economic crisis of its own. A serious balance of payments deficit, exhausted foreign exchange reserves, and lack of allies in the international realm forced it to open up its economy under pressure from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund – organizations largely under American influence.
The consequent restructuring of the economy from a closed, bureaucratic-socialist to a mixed-market economy has produced remarkable growth in the world’s largest democracy. The crisis also compelled New Delhi to search for new allies and relationships, thus beginning a steadfast commitment to engaging multiple partners simultaneously while balancing stakeholders between global issues.
A closer analysis of India’s foreign policy pillars would reveal that its foundational bedrock is based on 'Panchsheel', or Five Values, declared during the Indo-China Agreement of 1954. These are mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence.
This has evolved to govern India’s relationship with other states over time. Another pivotal pillar has been the strategic balancing of partners. With the rise of alternate centers of power, a policy of multi-alignment became key.
India’s rise also coincided with the resurgence of Russia and China in the international realm with their 1997 joint UN declaration on a multipolar world. Ironically, the watershed moment arrived 25 years later in the culmination of the Ukraine conflict.
The rift with Europe has pushed Russia towards China and, by extension, Asia. At the same time, the Western bloc is becoming aware of its limitations in countering Russia even as it feels threatened by a resurgent China. The states of the Global South feel that a “European war” is hijacking critical global issues such as food security, climate change, and alleviating poverty. Within this new era of realignments, India has risen as a prominent power that has successfully walked the tightrope of preserving its old friendships while forging new relations.
Superpower redefined
Some critics see India’s rise as overrated since New Delhi’s foreign policy has remained aloof and avoided restrictive alliances and entrenched positions. It is no secret that India deliberately follows a policy of strategic ambiguity. Diplomacy is used to provide subtle overtures to allies, partners, and rivals regarding Indian intentions while abstentions at international organizations such as the UN are implicitly used to show covert support for its allies or the lack thereof.
Some scholars mark such careful balancing as a weakness, rather than as a state’s source of power. In countering such criticism, India’s rise is questioning the traditional definition of what a superpower is. The term is often defined negatively in terms of aspirations for global domination, pursuit of entrenched alliances, and rhetoric of war and conflict, but India is posing difficult questions to traditionally held definitions of a great power.
Why can’t a superpower be seen as a balancer and a bearer of peace and stability? Why should a superpower always promote a hidden agenda through forever wars? Why must a superpower always forge and maintain alliances to merit the title of a great power?
Such revisions, especially originating from the Global South, are crucial to both reforming international relations and ensuring stability in an uncertain world of plurality. The demise of the liberal international order will pave the way for a new set of rules, which will encompass the aspirations and ambitions of the emerging powers.
In a multipolar world where the US isn’t a hegemonic power but just another “big kid on the geopolitical block,” it is imperative to follow partnerships instead of alliances, establish economic relations instead of neocolonialism, and focus on harmony rather than conflict.
India’s foreign policy had been chastised for avoiding alliances during the Cold War. In a new world where balancing is key, India’s internationalist foreign policy is emerging as a model of stability, sovereignty, and sustainability in the face of global uncertainty.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.