For Viksit Bharat, a determined pursuit of strategic autonomy is vital. It will not be easy, but we must persevere, for no country has ever risen as a great power without perseverance. — Vinod Johri

(Continued...)

Recently there are serious discussions in the newspapers, media and think-tanks about strategic autonomy following the recent US-Iran, Israel-Lebanon, Russia-Ukraine wars where energy crisis has precipitated world over, global supply chains have been disrupted and economies have started failing. President Donald Trump is passionately pursuing MAGA through global hegemony and dictating his own terms. In Bharat’s perspective, the dimensions of the strategic autonomy have been interpreted in terms of balancing international trade in the multi-polar world, trade pacts, FTAs, self-reliance in defence production, semi-conductors, industrial production and earth minerals without succumbing to global pressures. On the ground level, the pearls of wisdom of our diplomats define the strategic autonomy comprehensively. I came across the text of speech of former ambassador DB Venkatesh Varma in memory of late Ambassador PS Raghavan, at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru on 23 February 2026 which seeks to examine international politics for coming decade while facing the challenges of the determined effort of the United States to reconfigure its domestic political - economy, referred to as the Make America Great Again (MAGA) campaign, which involves resort to what has been called ‘regressive modernization’ – re-industrialisation of America through imposition of tariffs, or other levies and a stringent migration policy. Obviously, we aim at our strategic autonomy while facing fierce challenges from the US and China in every aspect of international politics, global trade pacts, external threats, energy self-sufficiency and defence technology.

A few key trends are discernible. As the foremost global maritime power, the US is seeking a continental beachhead on the Eurasian continent, primarily to encircle Russia and China, as is clearly stated in the US National Defence Strategy, and in doing so is seeking to shore up its position in key geopolitical choke points- Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Arctic, Iran and in different points in the Indo-Pacific. The US Secretary of State Rubio’s important speech at the Munich Security Conference is a good indicator of the broader direction of US policy. In addressing his European Allies – he said, “we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline.” He received a standing ovation.

We can unfold the meaning of strategic autonomy through delineating its dimensions - declaratory, operational, economic / technological and societal, in the context of Bharat’s needs and priorities. But first it is necessary to start with a working definition to set out the parameters, as very often strategic autonomy is used as a synonym for an independent foreign policy or even as justification for multi-alignment or the pursuit of multi-polarity. This is partly due to the general nature of the term - means different things to different people - but more importantly its use is often for multiple purposes - to assert a national policy choice or sometimes a convenient tool to avoid difficult policy outcomes.    

Therefore, a working definition of strategic autonomy could be ‘the will and capacity to think and act independently on matters of war and peace that affect the vital interests of the country.’ Seen from this standpoint, strategic autonomy is but a subset of an independent foreign policy but is not co-terminus with it, even as one is a necessary condition for the fulfilment of the other. Vital interests are not merely military but also economic and cultural. It means protecting not just our territory. Protecting our economy as also our cultural identity is also an act of independence; the right to do so is an act of sovereignty; the will and capacity to do so is a measure of strategic autonomy.

In terms of scope, strategic autonomy focuses mainly but not exclusively on the country’s ability and willingness to engage in the use of armed force to secure its national interests - the use of armed force can be both direct and indirect - and in the current era, increasingly indirect and hybrid, without being unduly constrained by externally determined factors. There is a significant internal security dimension – maintaining security against multiple threats, societal cohesion and vitality that reinforce rather than impede national objectives. Thus, strategic autonomy is both a policy prescription and a pathway to prioritise, mobilise, and channelize national resources to fulfil long-term objectives that impinge on our national security interests - for objectives that are nationally determined and through resources that can be nationally mobilised.

Placed in the international context, a key question for assessing strategic autonomy is – when does engagement become dependency and where does dependency slip into vulnerability? Strategic autonomy ceases to be autonomous when that redline is crossed. The viability of strategic autonomy diminishes if national decision - making is constrained, outsourced or subordinated to decision-makers beyond national control. Diminished strategic autonomy will hollow out national independence over time. Once lost, national independence takes generations to recover - history’s brutally unforgiving lesson.

Declaratory Dimension

In recent years, strategic autonomy has been mentioned prominently both as a characteristic and objective of Bharat’s foreign policy. The context is often to assert Bharat’s independent view on global issues. However, contradictions tend to appear when strategic autonomy is juxtaposed with multi-alignment or our adherence to a Rule-based international order when in fact many of the challenges to Bharat’s autonomy arise from that very order. The pursuit of multipolarity through forums such as G20 or BRICS is projected as a means to strengthen Bharat’s options in pursuit of strategic autonomy. Multi-alignment presumes a certain maturity in multipolarity. In its absence, when the world is still largely unipolar in power terms, advocating multi-alignment then becomes in practise a way of justifying alignment with the sole custodian of unipolarity. In the absence of multipolar options, such unipolar alignment- cohabitation with military alliances under the label of multi-alignment- can potentially cripple the pursuit of strategic autonomy even in its infancy. These power calculations are thus a necessary backdrop to the declaratory dimension of strategic autonomy - whatever the public statements, it presupposes a permanent search for options, however difficult those options might be.

Operational Dimension

We know defining war aims and the terms of war termination is perhaps the most important attribute of sovereignty, for there is no other state function that defines independence of decision making as on the issue of war and peace. On numerous occasions, Bharat has demonstrated substantive independence of decision-making, most recently in the case of Operation Sindoor. To further underline the unique operational dimension, Bharat declared that it reserved the right to use armed force in retaliation against terror perpetrators and their sponsors across the border even if it involved the use of armed force within the nuclear overhang.

With changing geopolitical conditions, Bharat’s ability to respond to China’s growing asymmetric power and its linkages with Pakistan and perhaps even Bangladesh, will be severely tested unless it is able to come up with an updated military doctrine that is capable of defending Bharat’s national security interests within its national resources - broadly defined as military forces, supporting industry, economy and technology, where external support supplements but has no controlling function on the operational dimensions of Bharat’s military doctrine. The way Bharat should and can fight is dependent on the nature of the threat posed by its adversaries but also on the resources at its command. Reconciling these two parameters is of paramount importance.

In operational terms, Bharat’s military doctrine would be constrained if its military capacities were critically linked to unreliable external supplies even for a short duration conflict, or the military equipment in its inventory has external linkages in the name of interoperability that doesn’t preclude a ‘kill switch’ or our armed forces have external commitments that detract from their exclusive use for our own national priorities. This latter divergence could well occur if there is a large gap between the maritime and continental aspects of our security as China develops the capabilities to challenge us on both dimensions simultaneously. Overdependence on a few or dependence on unreliable external powers for defence material or getting sucked into an alignment with war fighting doctrines of external powers are factors that degrade strategic autonomy significantly.

In the recent past, there has been a welcome emphasis on the part of our Government on the need for comprehensive defence reforms and modernization. This process should be taken to its logical conclusion. A good military doctrine for Bharat would presume that the available external diplomatic options would be limited. This would reinforce the national focus on dealing with a huge asymmetry in power with China largely through our own resources. This focus has been somewhat blurred until now as there was an unreal expectation of external balancing through such mechanisms as QUAD. With its uncertain future, it would be imprudent for our Armed Forces to count on its deterrent potential against China. Similarly, the elevation of Pakistan in US Central Command strategy is an ominous development that requires further analysis. In a conflict-ridden world, Bharat’s ability to choose to fight its own wars, only when absolutely necessary and on its own terms, will be the litmus test of its strategic autonomy. 

External engagement and mutual dependencies are necessary but not at the cost of weakening national capabilities or perpetuating national vulnerabilities. Bharat should be confident about the former and vigilant about the latter. For Viksit Bharat, a determined pursuit of strategic autonomy is vital. It will not be easy, but we must persevere, for no country has ever risen as a great power without perseverance.            

(Source - Bharat’s Strategic Autonomy in Changing World, VIVEKANAND INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION – 25.02.2026)