Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Over the past decade, India’s focus on the Indo-Pacific has increased dramatically.
New Delhi has built or upgraded existing strategic partnerships with a number of
key actors in the region, and has embraced the new ‘Indo-Pacific’ concept with
uncharacteristic speed. At the same time, India’s objectives and strategy have been
left unclarified. While the original ‘Look East’ policy, launched in 1991, appeared
to be focused on the pursuit of economic growth by slipstreaming behind the
dynamic economies in south-east Asia, strategic concerns occasioned by China’s
rise eventually became an important consideration. India’s Indo-Pacific strategy
has now become, in the main, a subset of its China policy, with other elements
fading into the background. But contradictions also abound. The Indian govern-
ment is loath to admit that China is the main driver of its Indo-Pacific policy,
and indeed actively discourages any such idea—even while its actions and words,
especially its increasingly close strategic relationships with the United States and
its allies, such as Japan, suggest that very interpretation.1 As Rajesh Basrur points
out, India’s ‘relationships with the US and Japan are clearly a response to the rise of
China, though policy-makers are predictably chary of saying as much’.2 Equally,
India also periodically seeks accommodation with China, further clouding the
logic of its policy.
It is not just India, of course, that is attempting to fashion a complicated mix of
policies to deal with China’s rise and its consequences for the region, and finding
the process fraught with contradiction.3 Most of China’s other neighbours are
also engaged in similar efforts. There is little consensus in the theoretical litera-
ture about how to characterize these policies, many scholars describing them as
‘hedging’ while others insist that most states are actually balancing.4 I argue that
* This article is part of the January 2020 special issue of International Affairs on ‘Unpacking the strategic dynamics
of the Indo-Pacific’, guest-edited by Kai He and Mingjiang Li.
1
Harsh V. Pant and Kartik Bommakanti, ‘India’s national security: challenges and dilemmas’, International
Affairs 95: 4, July 2019, pp. 835–58.
2
Rajesh Basrur, ‘Modi’s foreign policy fundamentals: a trajectory unchanged’, International Affairs 93: 1, 2017,
pp. 7–26.
3
Joseph S. Nye, Jr, ‘The rise and fall of American hegemony from Wilson to Trump’, International Affairs 95:
1, Jan. 2019, pp. 63–80; Christopher Layne, ‘The US–Chinese power shift and the end of Pax Americana’,
International Affairs 84: 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 89–112; Doug Stokes, ‘Trump, American hegemony and the future of
the liberal international order’, International Affairs 84: 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 133–50.
4
Van Jackson, ‘Power, trust, and network complexity: three logics of hedging in Asian security’, International
Relations of the Asia–Pacific 14: 3, 2014, pp. 331–56. The balancing argument can be seen in Darren J. Lim
18
Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, ‘Address by foreign secretary at the Regional Connectiv-
ity Conference: south Asia in the Indo-Pacific context’, 1 Nov. 2018, https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-
Statements.htm?dtl/30556/Address+by+Foreign+Secretary+at+the+Regional+Connectivity+Conference++S
outh+Asia+in+the+IndoPacific+Context.
19
Abhijit Singh, Aparna Pande, Jeff M. Smith, Samir Saran, Sunjoy Joshi and Walter Lohman, The new India–US
partnership in the Indo-Pacific: peace, prosperity and security (New Delhi: Observer Research Foundation, 2018), p.
11.
20
Constantino Xavier, ‘The new Indian realpolitik: China is pushing India’s foreign policy into unchartered
waters’, Foreign Affairs, 20 Dec. 2018, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-12-20/new-indian-
realpolitik; Sumit Ganguly, ‘India and China: on a collision course’, Pacific Affairs 91: 2, June 2018, pp. 231–44.
21
See e.g. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, ‘India–Vietnam joint statement during state visit
of President to Vietnam’, 21 Nov. 2018, https://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/30615/indiav
ietnam+joint+statement+during+state+visit+of+president+to+vietnam; Douglas Guilfoyle, ‘The rule of law
and maritime security: understanding lawfare in the South China Sea’, International Affairs 95: 5, Sept. 2019,
pp. 999–1017.
22
Jeff Smith, ‘Unpacking the free and open Indo-Pacific’, War on the Rocks, 14 March 2018, https://warontherocks.
com/2018/03/unpacking-the-free-and-open-indo-pacific/.
23
Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, ‘FS’s keynote address to the 1st Disarmament and
International Security Affairs Fellowship’, 14 Jan. 2019, https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.
htm?dtl/30910/fss+keynote+address+to+the+1st+disarmament+and+international+security+affairs+fellows
hip.
24
Indrani Bagchi, ‘Chinese subs in Djibouti to fight “pirates” worrying: navy’, Times of India, 10 Jan. 2019,
79
International Affairs 96: 1, 2020
32
Daniel H. Nexon, ‘The balance of power in the balance’, World Politics 61: 2, 2009, pp. 330–59.
33
T. V. Paul, James J. Wirtz and Michel Fortmann, eds, Balance of power: theory and practice in the 21st century
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 3.
34
Paul et al., eds, Balance of power, p. 369.
35
Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, ‘Hard times for soft balancing’, International Security 30: 1,
Summer 2005, pp. 72–108; Kier A. Lieber and Gerard Alexander, ‘Waiting for balancing: why the world is
not pushing back’, International Security 30: 1, Summer 2005, pp. 109–39.
36
Nexon, ‘The balance of power in the balance’, pp. 340–47.
37
Norris M. Ripsman and Jack S. Levy, ‘Wishful thinking or buying time? The logic of British appeasement in
the 1930s’, International Security 33: 2, Fall 2008, p. 151.
81
International Affairs 96: 1, 2020
Balancing China
Partnering with other states to balance China has become an increasingly impor-
tant aspect of India’s strategy towards the Indo-Pacific, even though it goes against
New Delhi’s traditional aversion to balance of power politics.44 India was never
keen on balancing China: even before independence, its leaders saw China as
a partner because of the countries’ shared anti-colonial heritage, and this view
persisted well after the end of British rule in India in 1947 and the communist
victory in the Chinese civil war in 1949.45 However, over the past two decades, as
the economic and military disparity between the two countries has grown dramat-
ically, India has become much more receptive to the idea of external balancing.
This shift has brought its approach nearer to that of others, for example the United
States, which became much more interested in enlisting India in such efforts,
even though both sides officially dismissed these notions.46 While a number of
scholars have questioned India’s capacity or even willingness to balance China,
much of India’s behaviour in the Indo-Pacific cannot be described as anything
but balancing, however incompetently it is carried out.47 Balancing, it is worth
noting, is a behaviour rather than an outcome.48 India’s current balancing effort
has a number of components, including partnerships not only with the United
43
Montgomery, ‘Breaking out of the security dilemma’; Kydd, ‘Trust, reassurance, and cooperation’; Andrew
H. Kydd and Roseanne W. McManus, ‘Threats and assurances in crisis bargaining’, Journal of Conflict Resolution
61: 2, 2017, pp. 325–48; Kai Quek, ‘Are costly signals more credible? Evidence of sender–receiver gaps’, Journal
of Politics 78: 3, 2016, pp. 925–40.
44
On India’s aversion to balance of power politics, see Pratap Bhanu Mehta, ‘Still under Nehru’s shadow? The
absence of foreign policy frameworks in India’, India Review 8: 3, 2009, pp. 209–33. For opposing perspectives,
see C. Raja Mohan, ‘India and the balance of power’, Foreign Affairs 85: 4, 2006, pp. 17–32; Nabarun Roy, ‘The
anatomy of a story less told: Nehru and the balance of power’, Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs
3: 3, 2016, pp. 337–58.
45
Manjeet S. Pardesi, ‘The initiation of the Sino-Indian rivalry’, Asian Security 14: 1, 2018, pp. 1–32.
46
C. Raja Mohan and Alyssa Ayres, ‘Situating the realignment’, in Alyssa Ayres and C. Raja Mohan, eds, Power
realignments in Asia: China, India and the United States (New Delhi: Sage, 2009), pp. 307–27.
47
See e.g. Frederic Grare, India turns east: international engagement and US–China rivalry (New Delhi: Penguin/
Viking, 2017); Scott, ‘India and the allure of the Indo-Pacific’.
48
Susan B. Martin, ‘From balance of power to balancing: the long and winding road’, in Andrew K. Hanami,
ed., Perspectives on structural realism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), pp. 61–82.
83
International Affairs 96: 1, 2020
Internal balancing
The balancing component of India’s China strategy includes both internal and
external balancing elements. The Indo-Pacific strategy is only a subset of the
larger strategy and it is primarily focused on external balancing, as outlined above,
but there is an internal balancing component also. This includes setting up a new
army strike corps facing China, building up Indian infrastructure along the joint
border, repositioning Indian air power to this border and building up India’s
nuclear and space deterrence capabilities. All of these efforts are facing difficulties:
the army strike corps has been reduced because of its cost, infrastructure-building
has been delayed because of bureaucratic incompetence, the Indian Air Force’s
squadron strength has declined by a quarter because of delays in acquisition, and
two decades after the nuclear tests India still does not have a long-range missile
that can cover all of China from any part of its own territory.
India is also seeking to build up its naval power. It has bought a number of
advanced P-8I naval surveillance aircraft from the United States, and there are
plans to increase the numbers of both aircraft carriers and submarines. These plans
are running well behind schedule because of the general difficulties that afflict all
Indian defence acquisitions; but India’s naval modernization faces a more funda-
mental problem too. Allocation of resources for the Indian Navy not only remains
74
‘India, Indonesia elevate ties’, The Hindu, 31 May 2018, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-
indonesia-elevate-ties/article24039667.ece.
75
Jayanth Jacob, ‘India, Indonesia agree to step up defence and maritime cooperation during Modi’s visit’,
Hindustan Times, 30 May 2018, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-indonesia-agree-to-step-
up-defence-and-maritime-cooperation-during-modi-visit/story-vMI9DjVMMAwHRPS7qYxkqI.html.
88
International Affairs 96: 1, 2020
Reassuring China
While India’s Indo-Pacific strategy can definitely be seen to be helping to balance
76
Ajai Shukla, ‘India has a grand maritime strategy, but the naval tools are missing’, Broadsword, 1 July 2018,
https://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2018/07/india-has-grand-maritime-strategy-but.html.
77
Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, ‘Prime Minister’s keynote address at Shangri-La Dialogue’.
78
‘India will pursue own interests in the Indo-Pacific: envoy’, Economic Times, 16 Nov. 2018, https://econom-
ictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-will-pursue-own-interests-in-indo-pacific-envoy/printarti-
cle/66650914.cms.
79
Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, ‘Speech by vice-president of India on “Calibrated futurol-
ogy: India, China and the world” at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing’, 3 June 2014, https://
www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/23518/speech+by+vice+president+of+india+on+calibrated+f
uturology+india+china+and+the+world+at+the+chinese+academy+of+social+sciences+beijing+june+30+2014.
89
International Affairs 96: 1, 2020
80
Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, ‘Q No. 53 discussion on terrorism with China and Russia’,
5 Dec. 2013, https://www.mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/22572/q+no53+discussion+on+terrorism+with+ch
ina+and+russia.
81
Amy Kazmin, ‘India orders officials to stay away from Dalai Lama rally’, Financial Times, 6 March 2018, https://
www.ft.com/content/1aa2876c-2149-11e8-a895-1ba1f72c2c11.
82
Sunil Khilnani, Rajiv Kumar, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Prakash Menon, Nandan Nilekani,
Srinath Raghavan, Shyam Saran and Siddharth Varadarajan, Nonalignment 2.0: a foreign and strategic policy for
India in the twenty-first century (New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research, 2012).
83
‘India needs to focus eastward: Ram Madhav’, The Hindu, 17 Jan. 2018, https://www.thehindu.com/news/
national/india-needs-to-focus-eastward/article22458036.ece.
90
International Affairs 96: 1, 2020