Thread by @ConstantinoX

"Modi’s external balancing game is either shrewd and ambitious or naive and dangerous, depending on whom in Delhi you speak to."

Here's a long THREAD with annotated quotes from my recent strategic-geostrategy essay...
brookings.edu/opinions/is-mo…

Every few months or so, I get out of my "neighbourhood" shell and take a look at the big picture of India's foreign policy. This 5k words essay focuses on the big Delhi debate: how should India (re)align in an changing world order? I analyze a range of positions... highlights:

"The world order’s volatility has animated the eternal Indian #debate about the tactical terms of strategic diversification ...how exactly should Delhi balance these — competing/conflicting—friends, partners, and allies into a bundle that enhances India’s strategic autonomy?"

Modi's #balancing act is "focused on pursuing a middle way: limiting Indian exposure to conflictual Sino-American dynamics by keeping decent relations with both Washington and Beijing, giving minimally necessary love to Russia, and deepen partnerships with other middle powers"

"India’s non-aligned #strategy is not without dangers because it often boils down to a lazy attempt to just muddle through. Can India, as so many times in the past, afford to ignore strategic forks in the road and instead of pursuing bold alignments, continue on its middle path?"

The new problems in #US-India relations "serve as a lesson to those who complacently bank on China as the natural propeller of U.S.-India convergence... The DC-Delhi honeymoon of the last fifteen years is now coming under stress."

"Nobody in India is under the illusion that #China is an ally. Most would probably concur that India’s diversification strategy now demands a tactical engagement, even if only to make the most of rising US-China tensions... but Indian levels of trust [in China] remain low."

Many here believe that "the United States and Europe are wasting precious time confronting #Russia when everyone’s eyes should, instead, be on the main ball—China. Even if only for the Russian “spoiler power,” India has thus been forced to give some love to Moscow."

Beyond the US and China, "Modi’s balancing hinges on a new #MiddlePower diplomacy by engaging Japan and other regional actors to create an alternative architecture that facilitates coordination and cooperation [and reduces exposure to either a US-China conflict or #G2]."

"The India-#Japan middle power partnership seeks to raise the costs for Chinese unilateral action and, at the same time, lower the costs of collective action among like-minded Asian partners concerned about rising China’s hegemonic preponderance."

India’s #trilateral maritime security dialogue with #France and #Australia ... reflects Delhi’s investment in crafting a flexible architecture of regional powers that refuse to wait for Washington or Beijing to get along bc, as history often reminds us, hope is not a policy."

BUT... *drumroll*... "India’s sophisticated external balancing game [is all worthless] unless Modi’s is willing to “do the needful” at #home... however costly in terms of political capital: to liberalize the economy, reform the military, and expand bureaucratic capacity."

"Economically speaking, India continues to punch well below its weight in the changing Asian order: the asymmetry with China keeps growing. More #protectionism and insulation, whether on trade or data, is unlikely to be the right solution." [Thus Delhi's RCEP dilemma...]

"Seeking to compensate for economic protectionism, India’s #military/security-centric balancing is counter-productive, inviting China’s wrath + raising alarm bells in Asian capitals already under Beijing’s scanner for allegedly bandwagoning with the Indo-American “alliance”."

"Modi has been unwilling to recognize that India’s geostrategic interests rely on economic openness and regional #interdependence. He is trying to reverse the Chinese success story: assuming that India can achieve its security interests before/without integrating economically."

"India’s #military modernization plans have stalled, exposing critical capability + doctrinal gaps. Despite two nuclear neighbors, domestic insurgencies, terror threats, and a rapidly changing security context marked by new technologies, Delhi has been surprisingly complacent."

India’s balancing act is also "hobbled by a growing gap between Modi’s global ambition and India’s small/stressed diplomatic corps + institutional coordination deficiencies. The #bureaucratic body is not always able to cope with the hyperactivism of Modi’s mind."

Indian bureaucratic inability to follow up and deliver on Modi's many #commitments abroad [100 countries in 5 years] "has led to a mix of frustration and disappointment among many small and middle powers that were initially keen to finally get on Delhi’s geostrategic radar."

"Modi’s geostrategic middle way hinges on external balances + bridge internal capacity gaps. In the age of interdependence and rapid technological change, India is unlikely to sustain its rise on the cheap by relying on the financial capital or strategic interests of others."

This piece refers to / based on the analysis of many in Delhi and beyond, incl @suhasinih @samirsaran @ShivshankaMenon @tanvi_madan @Z_DauletSingh @srinathraghava3 @MohanCRaja @d_jaishankar @AbhijnanRej @rahulsagar @SunilKhilnani @RajivKumar1 @AyresAlyssa @Mukherjee_Anit et al 🙏🏽