India and the world: strategic autonomy explained

Strategic autonomy is the idea that India should decide its own foreign policy on the basis of its own interests, rather than by following the instructions of any other country or by joining a binding military alliance. It is not the same as isolation. India trades, negotiates, buys weapons and joins international groups, but it tries to keep the freedom to say yes to one partner and no to another, even when those partners disagree with each other.

The idea has roots in the Cold War, when India, under Jawaharlal Nehru, helped lead the Non-Aligned Movement and avoided joining either the United States-led or Soviet-led bloc. After the Cold War ended in 1991, scholars and officials began to describe the updated version as strategic autonomy, and more recently as multi-alignment: active engagement with many centres of power at once. Former External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee described building strategic autonomy of choice as a central task of Indian foreign policy, and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has described the approach in similar terms, as engaging America, managing China, cultivating Europe, reassuring Russia and drawing neighbours in.

In practice, this means India can sit at several tables at the same time. It takes part in the Quad with the United States, Japan and Australia, while also taking part in BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation alongside Russia and China. It has continued to buy Russian oil despite Western pressure, presenting that choice as a sovereign economic decision, while also expanding trade, investment and technology ties with the United States and Europe. Supporters argue that this flexibility protects sovereignty, keeps energy affordable and gives India leverage. Critics argue that trying to please everyone can look like fence-sitting, and that pressure from major powers — through tariffs, sanctions or security demands — can narrow India's choices in a crisis.

Strategic autonomy therefore works best as a question to ask, not as a slogan to accept. For any decision, ask: who benefits, what dependence is created, what alternative was given up, and who in India bears the cost? A policy that preserves choice today may still create a dependence tomorrow, whether on a single arms supplier, a single market or a single energy source.