Public opinion is generally cautious and skeptical about India's possible defense alliances with powers like Japan. There is a prominent concern that such alliances, particularly the idea of an 'Asian NATO,' might compromise India's historical stance on non-alignment and autonomy. While some individuals express frustration over India's reluctance to commit militarily, others appreciate its focus on economic growth and diplomatic flexibility. Concerns were also raised about provoking tensions with major powers like the US or China by committing to structured military alignments.

India

Japan

United States

China



🔗 **Bypass paywalls**:

* [archive.today - www.thehindu.com
                ](https://archive.is/submit/?submitid=&amp;url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-does-not-share-japanese-pm-shigeru-ishibas-view-of-asian-nato/article68706611.ece) | [Google Webcache - www.thehindu.com](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-does-not-share-japanese-pm-shigeru-ishibas-view-of-asian-nato/article68706611.ece)


📣 **[Submission Statement by OP](/r/GeopoliticsIndia/comments/1ftso4y/india_does_not_share_japanese_pm_shigeru_ishibas/lpu3wcl/)**:
&gt; SS-
&gt;
&gt;External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has said India does not share Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s view of the Quad and other alliances involving Japan eventually forming an ‘Asian NATO’ like structure to deter China from using military force. 
&gt;
&gt;“We have never been a treaty ally of any country. We don’t have that kind of strategic architecture in mind,” Mr. Jaishankar said, when asked about Mr. Ishiba’s remarks.
&gt;
&gt;Mr. Jaishankar had said that India was pursuing a policy of multi-alignment, a result of global rebalancing, accelerated by globalisation. 

**📜 Community Reminder**: Let’s keep our discussions civil, respectful, and on-topic. Abide by the subreddit rules. Rule-violating comments will be removed.



**📰 Media Bias fact Check Rating :**  The Hindu – Bias and Credibility 




|Metric|Rating|
|:-|:-|
|Bias Rating|left-center|
|Factual Rating| mostly|
|Credibility Rating|high credibility|

This rating was provided by Media Bias Fact Check. For more information, see The Hindu – Bias and Credibility's review 
[here](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hindu/).
***

❓ Questions or concerns? [Contact our moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/GeopoliticsIndia).

GeoIndModBot

Js: He himself does not know what he and Mudi G wants

AlecRay01

India will be like "we need all the benefits from our allies, but when it comes to you do need drag us into a war" lmao and certain Indians lamenting, US does not wants to supply with critical capabilities, unlike Russia did (maybe missile development), but US is closer to us than ever they are willing to share us with technologies and signed various logistics and intelligence sharing agreements, but not on par with countries that holds the designation "major non nato ally" If you want something big just contribute something big, atleast get along with them atleast vis-a-vis China, EAM talk lot of about US and Germany, but when it comes to China "we love peace,and will not confront" while some of our territories are still under their control and still claiming AP as theirs,we'll I understand they are experts at foreign policy, they just let the chinese take  de-facto control of our territories and just don't want to poke them

Conscious-Run6156

Playing both sides while trying to win Nobel prize ? We are a joke 😂

AristotleTalks

This Quad summit was to get assurance from india for troop commitment in case of war with china . India declined then they asked to commit via UN india declines that also . Quad is there just to get a troop commitment from india and  nothing else . Agreeing to this is just like shooting your own foot . China is our immediate neighbour not other quad members. It would have been just like the ukraine scenario,if india agreed to this .

Apizzzzzzz

Any major alliance with allies of US is going to bite us back in the butt.

[deleted]

If you follow Jaishankars policy of Plurilateralism in emerging treaty groups https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurilateral_agreement he’s sticking to the codified convention and reservation on the Japanese preferred option. Nothing weird about this.

Notintousername

Imo, India is wrong in straight up denying being in strategic security treaty with other like minded democracies. 

In 1965, Lee Kuan Yew requested Indian military assistance to train newly formed Singaporean military. He again asked Indira Gandhi to assume the role of net security provider of Singapore after British Navy left in 1968. 

But India never listened to him. Lee Kuan Yew even suggested India to adopt a [Monroe Doctorine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine) for South Asia considering India was the largest and strongest country in the region. This was even supported by Vietnam who maintained good relations with India. 

India missed the chance to act as a regional power in late 60s. We are doing the same mistake in 2024. 

Currently we have great relations with Singapore, Vietnam and Philippines. We have the chance to play the role of net security provider in Indo Pacific region along with USA,Japan and Australia.

AIM-120-AMRAAM

India needs to stay away from military alliances with anyone and everyone. 

Our sole focus should be to grow our economy.

Blackadder_101

Stupid. Asian alliance is better than reliying on the Americans when shit hits the storm.

Ready-Fisherman76

Jaishankar will keep making snark comments on the best , ree west bad , they don't gib weapons but muh strategic autonomy. Indian economy is heavily dependent on usa but still trying to make an enemy out of them.
Show some fking commitment

Al_Neri3

We should just focus on our multi-alignment here. Better to have good relation with our enmy than having none. Atleast we would have justification if China or Pakistan attack us so we can counter attack them. Growing our economy and people should be our very most focus. And also, no sane country will attack India as long as they also don't want a prolonged war.

Additional-Yellow457

I agree with our EAM here. It is another fancy alliance which America will headline. If Japan is really serious then QUAD should be a priority.

GovindaKeFan

Sounds like the Americans will continue to have a much stronger role in Asian affairs for the time being.

Impressive_Mud693

I know we are trying to appear neutral to not appear hostile against China but imo we should not outright say anything 

Let the Japanese PM say what he wants we should just stay quiet

just_a_human_1031

Asian NATO is a completely insane idea. The new Japanese PM sounds like a crackpot.

Edit : Subsequent google search on new Japanese PM shows that he cosplays as a cartoon character with purple cape and yellow gloves.

IntermittentOutage

They just want us to become cannon fodder in the wars because of our large population. 

Similar to how the British used us during the world wars.

satyanaraynan

naah that's good for us.

China shares "real" enmity with Japan and their proxy a.k.a N.Korea can easily wage small circus and missile shows anytime to Japan. India will have to deploy troops in those cases.

In comparison, Pak will never attack India directly and will use terrorists for which there are no clear laws of deploying troops and thus Japan will get the benefit but India won't.

So why sign this gig ?

Secondly, China just views India as a proxy to stop it's advent to become the main guy in Asia which in turn will increase it's size as a super-power but the downside is that India can easily stop them on Himalayan front and to take over India, they would need to empty half their resources which will only help USA along with the fact that China-India never shared a solid enmity.

So, it's better for us to avoid any enmity with China as USA can never cuck us on that(because they need us to be stand against China) and China won't do shit because that will fuck their economy too. Apart from the fact that India is a growing market with loads of money to make on international front.

Ok_Environment_5404

India wants to avoid active confrontation with China while keeping passive options alive. This strategy allows both India and China to keep their option flexible. Besides China and India do not share ancient enmity like Japan and China which means bitterness between them is shallow

DisastrousAd4963

SS-

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has said India does not share Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s view of the Quad and other alliances involving Japan eventually forming an ‘Asian NATO’ like structure to deter China from using military force. 

“We have never been a treaty ally of any country. We don’t have that kind of strategic architecture in mind,” Mr. Jaishankar said, when asked about Mr. Ishiba’s remarks.

Mr. Jaishankar had said that India was pursuing a policy of multi-alignment, a result of global rebalancing, accelerated by globalisation.

Various-Captain-8441

Asian NATO probably means India taking the major brunt of tackling China

throw_lifr

India playing 4D chess.  George Washington himself would be proud.

J-E-S-S-E-

Such NATO copies do not work out! One has to learn from our Western neighbour. SEATO existed yet South Vietnam had to capitulate despite SEATO guaranteeing its security. CENTO existed but ended up disappointing all of its members. And our Western neighbour was part of both of these treaty alliances. There is very little congruence between Western allied security structure and India beyond China. We should ask ourselves, keeping in mind  our issues with China, whether it is really that serious to attach with a group of countries that have also not respected our sovereignty and our integrity.

Temporarily locked due to severe brigading.

1010x

V3rri

I don’t know if India really stand with France, but I do know India definitely stand against Pakistan.

Christineapril

India stands with France in the hope that France will stand with India when India fights Pakistan !!

Rudoprophet

Pakistan [worships](https://twitter.com/alikeskin_tr/status/1172762537403867136?s=20) Turkey. Just go to Twitter to see their love for their Turkish "brothers'. India suffers from islamic extremism as well.

Pixamel

Islamist in India or in West will always portray themselves as victims. Whereas in reality they Muslims suffer most in Islamic States than elsewhere.

retard_404

Indians state that any nation that is opposed by Turkey and Pakistan must be on the right side. Being Dutch I agree with this.

gilga-flesh

I mean even muezzins are allowed to call muslims to prayer in India. Islam doesn't have the kind of freedom in the west. So this notion that India is some dictatorship like country is just nonsense. Honestly, non muslims living in muslim countries don't have half the freedom a muslim has in India.

Lets be honest it would be weird if Modi did not stand with Macron, he is infamous for his treatment of muslim indians

LoreleiPhilby_gr

India went through the same Islamic radicalism that is plaguing Europe currently for decades lol. Then Indians finally had enough, and western media began a defamation campaign against it. Most Indians literally have the same sentiment that is being felt throughout France at the moment, and we get called fascists for it.

Edit: To be clear, if not wanting my friends and family to be beheaded by an extremist is fascist, then yes, India under Modi is a fascist state.

itiswhatitis2323

Most people don't know India's one of the biggest victims of radical Islamist terror worldwide. Until a decade ago they had several major bomb attacks every year on various cities. There was also a strong domestic political lobby that made it difficult to speak or act against the problem for fear of upsetting voters from the Muslim community, which form an important electoral base for most Indian political parties.

casualphilosopher1

Its gonna be fun to see what happens in France 2030 with a even higher % of Islamic population. If we go by this thread, people think Hindus seem to be a bigger threat to France than Islam.

711Reconquista1492

Wasn't India ravaged by Islam emperors for 1000 years before the Brits? Their temples were destroyed, they were forcefully converted. Yet Indians say that Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully before the Brits.

As an Indian who disapproves of Modi, I do not find it hard to agree with him in condemning a fucking terror attack. Fuck the coward who beheaded an innocent 70 year old woman and fuck all those who support him. I stand with France.

tigerponch

India that stands more with France than some European countries do.

Ra75b

China supports Frances fight against terrorism. Has some tips.

inside_out_man

Do any of the EU nations stand with France?

pufftanuffles

At this point, not sure why even express solidarity with a continent whose people clearly don’t want it or appreciate it. If I were him, would have shut up and let the Merkel or Kurz condemn it... Oh wait.

luftwaffleboi

Funnily enough filing police reports and threatening legal action over people "hurting Hindu sentiments" is a fairly popular strategy among Modi supporters. Make no mistake, this is more about bolstering India's anti-Muslim sentiments than defending free speech against religion.

nwdogr

Luddveeg

Am just gonna quote this comment from another thread:

" 

This has less to do with the idea of freedom of speech and more to do with the fact that India's Hindu nationalist government and their supporters despise Muslims. It's not like India is a bastion of freedom of press as it ranks at [an abysmal 142](https://rsf.org/en/india). Not to mention, [Muslims are regularly lynched](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_vigilante_violence_in_India) on suspicion of being in possession of beef.

This is the same country that charged a well renowned Indian-Muslim artist for "hurting sentiments of people" because of his [nude depictions of Hindu gods and goddesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._F._Husain#2006_%E2%80%93_2011) back in 2006. He was forced to go into self-exile and never returned to his home country due to an arrest-warrant against him and a multitude of death threats against him.

[You had a high-ranking leader of the ruling BJP party equating Indian-Muslims to second-class citizens and are not equal to Hindus to foreign journalists.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCyBL8dBOEo)

India doesn't give a shit about French or Western notions of Freedom of Speech. If Charlie Hebdo started shitting on India tomorrow, they'd be out for blood there too."

credits: tinkthank

phoney_edge

TheWorkingParty

Modi isn't gonna pass up a chance to condemn Muslims so I'm not surprised

Sigma_F0x

Modi's populist regime probably has more in common with Erdogan than France tbh.

I would argue it's hard to compare this to 9/11; that distracted the US because they invested all their military, diplomatic, and foreign policy efforts towards the Middle East. That won't happen here. Yes there economy will be on the back foot for a while, but realistically speaking that won't have so much impact on their diplomatic and foreign policy efforts. A much closer equivalent would be the Great Depression or 2008; neither really saw much of a withdrawal from the world stage.

A weakened economy does not mean a withdrawal from foreign policy, it often leads come leaders to look for a scapegoat. As it stands, most major powers are insenced by China's propaganda efforts over the pandemic, and even as they're distracted by the full brunt of the disaster, as you note many are already railing against the CCP. 

This Pandemic certainly presents China with economic opportunities, but having had their first recession since records began, it's fair to say they won't be immune from consequences. Moreover, China has previously flourished from an accommodating Western world, one that has facilitated economic integration and even turned a blind eye to technology transfers. We can see that rhetorically beginning to shift, and if there is a decoupling, China will have to rebuild huge swaths of its economy. 

In short, this is not comparable to 9/11. The US military isn't going anywhere, and neither are it's foreign policy efforts. It may be weakened, but it may also have gained a more confrontational attitude. China prospered because it had no one trying to confront it, and was going through a period of rapid industrialization. Both of those have now changed. From here on on, China's growth will be slower and more contested than ever before.

squat1001

I want to be careful when responding to this post since it's obvious that emotions are running high. My immediate impression is that it sounds a little triumphalist or gloating, similar to how people in the West perceive China having off largely scot-free from a problem for which they are to blame, while the talking points of their media and pro-China publications appear almost smug, even as Europe/US approach hundreds of thousands of deaths. The U.S. in particular is in the ballpark of one 9/11 or Pearl Harbor worth of deaths every day. 

With that said, there was also schadenfreude amongst western societies when China was the epicenter of the outbreak. There was sentiment that this would finally be what might crush the CCP, be it's "Chernobyl moment", or lead to a collapse of the Chinese economy that might shift jobs back to the United States. Many hoped the death of Li Wenliang might ignite a revolution to topple the CCP. Many people in the west had a mentality of this being "justice" for a decrepit government and backwards culture, and thus could "never happen" in the civilized Western World. 

With the emotional baggage noted, I would say that the situation can be summarized as: Since China's relationship with the developed countries (the West in particular) is largely in doubt and is probably un-salvageable for a while, the silver lining for China is that China managed to prevent domestically almost all the death and most of the economic fallout, leaving it not too damaged from where it was before entering the Crisis. 

Particularly, while the Pandemic is probably the worst crisis for western Countries since WW2, for China and the CCP it does even rank in the top 5 in the past since world war 2. (It comes behind the Chinese Civil war, Korean War, Cultural Revolution, Great Leap forward, Tiananmen). Similarly, China has faced mass casualty disasters with tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths every few decades such as the GLF Famine, Cultural revolution, River floods, Tangshan earthquakes, Sichuan earthquakes, etc, so for Chinese audiences the CCP has by "official numbers" done remarkably well. Likewise, China has faced much stronger international opposition from a far weaker position several times in the past ~100 years, such as the Boxer rebellion or the Korean war where they faced overwhelming international coalitions, or the period from 1949 - 1972 when it was locked out of the UN completely. For Chinese leaders, as long as they maintain national unity and competent leadership in a crisis, they can be reasonably confident that no external pressure can topple them - and that is ultimately all that matters to them. 

On the other side of the coin, it's clear that the West wants China to pay (or at least 80% hold China responsible, 50%+ want retribution according to polling). But what can the West really do? I addressed this in a long listing of how the West could extract compensation from China [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/fwkhea/how_to_make_china_pay/fmosno7/?context=3)

In addition to the following points we can add a systemic embargo or boycott, coordinated tariffs and so on. 

&gt; * an international health inspection program led by the US. I think this is that this is unlikely to enlist Chinese participation. 
&gt; * Banning Confucius institutes - I think this isn't that meaningful as they were being curtailed anyways.
&gt; * Banning advanced tech exports - I think this could be very significant in some sectors where China is more than 10 years behind. If china is only a couple years behind then it will have a limited effect. This would hit China's high end assembly industries
&gt; * Sanctioning CCP members - I think this wouldn't cause much economic pain to the US or China to be honest, and has been used already in recent years, so this is likelier than other measures to pass. 
&gt; * Banning Chinese scientists from enrollment/research at US universities - I see this policy would probably induce strong political opposition; see the reaction over "Chinese virus" from the media and establishment. I think the DOJ/FBI could simply ramp up inspection and investigation without an outright ban, with much less opposition. It is unclear whether a bad would really hurt the US or China more, as this could lead to an even greater exodus of Chinese scientists if they see their career prospects crushed in the US. 
&gt; * Seizing property of Chinese SOEs in third countries (Belt and road recipients)

All in all, I think these measures are 90% symbolic, 10% actually causing significant pain. If the cost of the Coronavirus cost the west 50 trillion for example, all of these measures would scrape together maybe a few tens of billions of "losses" to China (mostly through decreased competitiveness of Chinese high tech exports if industry-leading intermediates are withheld, seizing some copper mines in Africa, farmland in Australia or ports in Europe).

The problem is that there are proportional responses that China could take. 

&gt; * double down on WHO support and refuse to participate in the US-led health monitoring system
&gt; * double down on recruiting disillusioned Chinese scientists 
&gt; * Curtailing further any Western NGOs, media and cultural outreach initiatives
&gt; * Discouraging outbound tourism, which was to the tune of 150 billion a year
&gt; * Boycotting or otherwise hindering Western companies in China, to encourage Chinese replacements to take their place. For example in fashion, retail, hospitality, consumer electronic and food service, China could find a way to cause domestic companies to take market share away from Western companies if Chinese consumers are offended by western actions. There isn't a significant presence of Chinese companies in the west that could lose their market share.

PermOffended

Just a few comments:

• I find the analysis kind of lacking. From what I understand, the only reason according to you that China has a golden opportunity now is because the US and EU is turning inwards and China has a strong industrial base that can produce what the US and EU lacks? The US and EU were dependent on China before the crisis, including during the Greek crisis. So I don’t really see the connection. Could you please elaborate?

• Keep in mind, that even though the image of the EU has definitely been damaged and that I agree that populists will exploit this to get votes, it’s wrong that the EU has incompetently handled this. The EU can really only handle coordination between member-states, but the problem is that member-states did not want to help each other, and the EU is dependent on member-state’s wills and authoritization in order to carry out these kinds of operations.

• I feel like you glossed over China’s image and making it out not to be a big deal. I agree that US-Sino relations would get worse even without Covid-19 but to me, the issue China is facing is that before covid-19, the public image across the planet was fairly neutral to China, so there was still goodwill and willingness to trade and look past the human rights abuses of China. I think now when we see China deny any fault in the situation, and in fact exploiting this situation to try and buy up companies (Chinese requests for investments and buying up European companies and infrastructure has never been as many as now) there will be a lot more hostility from both governments and citizens towards China, at least from a European perspective. Basically, China’s rubbing salt in a wound they made and deny to take blame for.

menvadihelv

I have heard this story about countries “planning” to move production out of China for decades, as the Chinese manufacturing sector continues to grow faster than any other country’s.

tarotato

China is toast.  No oil, no significant allies, and soon, no customers to buy their exports.  Thanks for the cheap products but it was never a sustainable model.

The Coronavirus has absolutely decimated China's softpower. That will be the lasting legacy of this crisis. In the grand scheme, a year of lowered productivity will not be the end of any major economy, like the United States. Meanwhile, take a look at nations opinions of China [at the start of the year.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/05/people-around-the-globe-are-divided-in-their-opinions-of-china/) Combine that with a virus, which China (unwittingly) spread to the rest of the world, and relations with Europe are about to get much worse. And, now, both parties in the USA are unified in their negative opinion of China in America. And the blatant racism that Chinese have shown to blacks will hurt them in Africa, which ironically was one of the few areas that had a positive opinion of China. This was a disaster for China no other way around it.

And to make matters worse, as a manufacturing based economy, even if they recover from the pandemic, which they seem to have done, global demand for goods are at an all-time low. Hence, China will have suffered two economic downturns, both domestic and international.

&gt; America's historical distraction from China to other issues such as the War on Terror and its downfall in the GFC is what allowed China to economically grow.

This is simply not true. For starters, the U.S. economy has been growing robustly (albeit slowly) since the GFC concluded around 2010. This is evident in everything from employment numbers to GDP growth. Also, if you look at similar numbers for China, you'd see that they were already on an upwards trajectory even before the GFC (Starting around 1999 - 2000).

I_the_God_Tramasu

glcn77

Interesting analysis, a;though I'd like to point out that COVID-19  will likely cause greater economic damage to China than other countries. China's own assessment is very likely under-reporting infection numbers and downplaying the damages, and with reduced export both due to the economic slowdown abroad and the increasingly fierce anti-China altitude held by numerous Western nations, I find it hard to predict the long-term geopolitical consequence of this pandemic. Another unknown variable is the effectiveness of the Chinese effort to repair its reputation via donation and export of medical equipments and medical assistances. While Reddit, both this sub and others, are trying to convince me that China's effort is largely ineffective, I am suspecting biased reporting is at play. 

Furthermore, you pointed out that 9-11 and the War on Terror have provided an expedient distraction for China. I agree on this point very much. In fact, there are many other events that helped China to divert the attention of the United States, for example the whole Crimea situation, Syria and Arab Spring, and North Korea (before the recent thawing of relations). However, the Coronarivus is unlikely to serve as a good diversion as the aforementioned ones: it brings attention toward China instead of away from it. Overall, I expect China's position after the end of the pandemic to be moderately to severely weakened compared to its position before.

johnlee3013

There's too much hiding behind the idea that geopolitics simply dictates that nations will compete. You need to unpack your assumptions to better understand the situation. Why? Because sometimes nations manage to rise beyond the urge to compete, or at least manage and restrain their competition. 

The US is not trying to constrain China simply because China is a potential challenge to the America's #1 position. China is not doing everything it can to undermine US power simply because it wants to be #1 instead (though in this case this is closer to the truth). Neither the US nor China are angels, but this does not mean each are equally at fault for what is going on.

WilliamWyattD

At the moment? India would stay out of it, probably.

Broadly, though; India seems to be shifting it's interests away from Russia and towards the United States. BRICS has kind of lost it's relevancy, and India finds itself opposed to China first and foremost. The US is essentially the only natural potential ally India can get against China, as Russia isn't interested.

The primary reason the US and India *used* to be opposed (and why India turned to Russia) was entirely over Pakistan. US support for Pakistan's been on a downward trend since the War on Terror (and particularly since the OBL raid), so the US and India are no longer opposed. Further, Indian disapora are a pretty significant minority group in both the US and Canada, and Indian nationals form a pretty significant cadre within the tech, research, and academic sectors of the US, ergo there's a lot of American cultural familiarity with (and fondness for) Indians, and there's a growing group of Indian millennials who now have direct relationships with American millennials.

Thus, a shift towards more cooperation is largely inevitable.

r3dl3g

It’s because the interest of the Indian state does not have major conflicts with either the American and Russian governments.

If a escalation were to happen today between Russia and the USA (highly unlikely) then India would stay neutral.

A common misconception is that Russia and US are “enemies” and are out to get each other. The real situation between these powers is that Russia is in no position to be seeking the collapse of the United States post Cold War and it’s main focus is stability and reassertion of it’s force in former Soviet states while the US seeks to establish liberal democracies in Russia and Post Soviet States.

HarveyNico456

I think OP is basically looking at things in a binary BestFriends/WorstEnemy dichotomy.  The relations between India and the US/Russia are more transactional and nuanced than that.  What are the circumstances to the 'escalation' you speak of?  Also, "BRICS" isn't any kind of alliance or official affiliation, it's just a media term for a collection of middle powers.

GarbledComms

India and Russia have historical ties from the Cold War. Most of our defence platforms are Russian. Recently, India also committed $1billion to develop Vladivostok. 

Our ties with US developed after the collapse of the USSR and the opening up of our economy in 1991. Since then, ties have been at an upswing, especially since the 2005 civil nuclear deal. Right now, India is a major part of the Indo-Pacific strategy of the Group of Democracies. At the same time, US' traditional ally in the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan, has completely pivoted to China. 

India has been able to walk the fine geopolitical tightrope with finesse till now. We have good relations with both:

1) Palestine and Israel: PM Modi is the first Indian PM to make official visits to both Palestine and Israel, separately.  
2) Saudi, UAE and Iran: UAE has conferred their highest civilian honor to PM Modi. Simultaneously, we were developing the Chabahar port in Iran, till CAATSA kicked in.   
3) Despite Pakistani persistence, OIC has been reluctant to speak against India. It is noteworthy that Pakistan is a member of OIC, while India is not. 

If by escalation you mean at the LAC with China, I think the Quad will keep China contained in the South and East China Sea. US and India are already sharing real time intelligence on the border situation. Russia would most likely provide covert support to India as China has also raised claims on Vladivostok. Recently, news came that Russia has stopped deliveries of S400 to China.

At the end, I think it is our favourable geographic location, huge demographic advantage, thriving and open economy and a liberal-democratic government which makes India a trusted friend of all parties.

space_diplomat

As a matter of record and interesting trivia, the first official interaction between the militaries of India and the US after the US backed Pakistan in the 1965 war was in late summer and early fall 1988. A team of mountaineers from both countries climbed Mana Peak. I was team photographer.

Base841

India is ally to none of these countries for now. India just has good relations with them due to common interests in some areas. With the US mostly because they share antagonism with China. More or less India has regional problems (Kaschmir, China boarders etc) and however is on her side is this "ally" you are describing

GaiusCal

There are many weird alliances out there.

1. USA is allied with Pakistan as well as India
2. USA is allied with South Korea and Japan
3. Iraq is allied with USA and Iran
4. USA was, until recently, allied with Turkey as well as Syrian Kurdish rebels

Damn, it's really a USA problem, huh.

cfwang1337

Geopolitics is a complex game. The relationship between countries often be confusing. For example, USA has close ties with both India and the rival Pakistan. Pakistan has close ties with both USA and China.

bikbar1

Look up the "Non-aligned movement" and as the others mentioned India's interests don't really align with America. 

Russia actually enjoys a fair bit of goodwill here and we're friendly with Iran too.

Very specifically as long as Pakistan keeps using F-16s against India while Russia is supplying equipment to deal with it, it's a miracle India isn't entirely aligned with Russia.

The American policy of using India as a counter weight to China and use Pakistan as a counterweight to India works only so far as India has problems with China. Aside from that Russia is much better for India's objectives.

damaged_and_confused

Because....It's not just US-India-Russia. It's US-India-Russia-China. You cannot just leave China out of this equation.

&amp;#x200B;

US and India are both democracies and better relations between two is beneficial for both in terms of countering China.

**Why US-India are together no matter what:**

China has unleashed indirect sabotage in India for decades. So India has always seen China as a problem. It'd be a nightmare for India, if China becomes a world-leader. Similarly, US is not going to like China's rise and would do anything to stop that from happening.

This is biggest (but not the only) reason that'll keep US with India, no matter what India does, Period. US can probably contain China on it's own but India is like a trump card:

1. Formidable armed forces
2. capability to single-handedly, blockade China in mallakan strait.
3. already existing, border dispute.
4. support for tibet, and hosting tibetan government in exile and Dalai Lama.
5. huge young population to replace china's manufacturing (at least partially)

It's not only with Russia, India was also given exemption to buy Iranian oil, and investing in a port in Iran.

**Why India-Russia have good relations:**

Russia has always supported India internationally. It doesn't get involved in India's internal matter, and India does the same. Also, people in India see Russia as a friendly country, because it supported India in 1971 war. Things like this cannot be easily forgotten.

But practically, todays Russia-India realation is mostly based on:

1. India buys most of it's defense equipment from Russia, it has been this way for decades. That defense reliance cannot change over night. Besides, their equipment is quiet affordable. And India has a large defense demand.
2. Russia can help India diversify it's huge energy import.(natural gas, crude)
3. Russia always maintains same stand as India when it comes to Kashmir. It's always better to have a country with veto power supporting you on your weakest point(Kashmir).
4. Russia also sees India as a balancing force for China. None of China's neighbors are comfortable with China's rise. IMO, if China becomes the most powerful country, they would not spare the far east Russia either. They would want access to the arctic circle.

**Real question should be "do US-Russia need to be enemies":**

Again, "IMO"(based on my limited understanding), most of the US-Russia  problems are because of the NATO. It' seems like NATO's sole purpose is to defend Europe from Russia. I find that stand really defensive and a really unnecessary one; It just looks like a paranoia. Looking at Russia's economy, looks like they are barely surviving. I just cannot imagine such a poor nation as a threat. And even if it's a threat, it's a threat for europe and not US. But maybe I'm wrong.

I really hope that US-Russia-India are on the same side. At least for the time being. :D

minimi42

They've been pursuing this kind of policy since the cold War as far as I know

Briarhorse

Short answer: China.

Long answer: India borders and opposes China, which is a geopolitical adversary to the US. Russia benefits economically through partnership. India has never had any bad relations with either country in history. A neutral country can easily make partnerships with both Russia and USA.

India has some ties with Russia due to its socialist and anti-western past. But it's a much more natural ally of America, given that it's a proud democracy with a massive diaspora in the US and a very tight economic relationship with the West due to its tech smarts and widespread knowledge of English. In geopolitical terms, although it has an ongoing relationship with Russia as regards military cooperation and procurement, it's a staunch enemy of radical Islamism due to its history with Pakistan, and a close ally of Israel, which also align it strongly towards the USA.

This is way too simplified. India allied with Russia because India was enemies with the west specifically Britain during the Cold War but the were mostly neutral. China is enemies with India over the Himalayas and Tebet, so China allied with Pakistan(which is also enemies with India) and now China is enemies with the US, the US and India are getting closer.

I'm surprised none of the suggestions to OP's question talked about India's national history that influenced their foreign and economic policy; And how the latest change in leadership (i.e. Modi) has impacted India's position in global politics.

yunir

After ww2, Pakistan entered into at least two anti communist/socialist alliances with US(CENTO &amp; SEATO?) way back in the 50’s while India pioneered the non alignment cause. So in reality, it is america that wants to jump ship. 

Britain carved out pakistan during ww2 for the geopolitical goal of continuing the afghan campaign. This largely resulted in genocide during the partition and beyond and polarising the populations on religious grounds. Islamic fundamentalism was used as a tool to create a country and cleanse minorities, then fight religious wars in Afghanistan, bangladesh &amp; kashmir. This was the geopolitical policy of the west in this region. 

The afghan jihad was considered very beneficial by Americans and they funded the war until the ussr fell apart. Militants from afghan jihad were then turned towards kashmir after 1989 which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of kashmiri hindus from the kashmir valley. The 90’s were the height of militancy and this phase lasted until everything changed. 

In 2001, a jihadi previously funded by CIA attacked the world trade centres in USA in a terrorist attack that killed thousands of innocent people. Realisation dawned that snakes in your backyard won’t just bite your neighbor and america decided enough is enough with pakistan. And thus began a great policy change in the US about their strategy in central asia. Eventually bin laden was found living in a mansion under the security of pkistan army and brought to justice. The pakistanis found out on twitter. 

With weaning engagement, pakistan, the staunch anti communist ally, decided to jump ship and became best friends with communist china. thus began a new phase in international geopolitics. 

The ball really is in america’s court at the moment. Our interests align and we’re ready to forgive &amp; forget the past. It’s tough to say this because we’re talking about glossing over genocide but genocide has been our past and we have to move on to avoid the next. 

What will america do?

karmasutrah

fieldsofanfieldroad

Its high time for India to choose which side of the coin he wants to be..a non-aligned power is cannot benefit India in the long run...economic might need a powerful stance on issues there is not always the time that you need to balance ..its comparable to  a man without a strong voice in his opinion and always agree for the sake of conformity

themanicalchemist

India's international position has been pretty clear and consistent no? Looking out for itself without rocking the boat too much.

The US should aboslotely work on having good relations with india, but expecting a drastic change in its stance won't happen overnight..

Herzyr

The author doesn't really have a source for what goal US foreign policy is in regards to India. 

Ally is a very fungible word. If your interests and actions align with what I want then are you not an ally regardless of how we might feel about one another?

&amp;#x200B;

I would argue the US is more interested in making India a reliable trading partner than they are in trying to somehow convince India to join a military alliance.

They want India to be a competitor to China economically in order to weaken China's global economic power. Adding more strong trading partners to the region helps them already.

&amp;#x200B;

The idea that the US is looking for a mutual defense partnership with a nation on the other side of the world is rather silly on its face.

&amp;#x200B;

I'm sure Washington would love to have India as puppet, in the same way that any nation loves to puppeteer another, but all they NEED is for India to be a check on China's influence, which it will do out of its own self-interest. They don't need to foster any kind of attitude there.

Maladal

Clickbait title obscures the honestly sensible advice that India is never going to get as close to the US as its other long time allies, so it has to be realistic about what it can get from India. India wants partnership but not a full throated alliance against everything Chinese.

shivj80

I can see Europeans writing this about the United States in the 1930s. India is doing exactly what the US did until WW2:Focusing on its own development. Our own early leaders said things about alliances that are identical to what Nehru said about them.

If we're worried that an autocracy will dominate all of Asia, then strengthening that region's largest democracy, and helping Modi with his "build in India for the world" plan, then in a few years, India will have a direct economic interest in helping protect it's trade partners in Asia.

And *then* India will be far more interested in checking China.

That's why so much of this is economic. If we want India to compete with us as a security exporter, which we would like to do due to the distance between us and Asia and the costs involved in being the primary security exporter to Asia, then we need to help India grow into a position where it is in India's interests to start providing those security services.

OllieGarkey

India and America should be partners not allies its almost impossible for India to Accept orders from Washington they took freedom from the British not to again be mentally conlonoized by west, they wanna be independent and unlike China we respect everyone and want good Relations. Partnership with US will keep growing business is booming India soon might start buying American and is buying French made weapons. 
And as far as China is considered India sino direct hot war is kind of impossible fighting in large numbers in Himalayan borders wont work out well for both sides, if US is successful in convincing India that they can defeat China in a war I'm not sure India would want to get in or start a new front. 
I think both DC and Delhi in diplomatic community know this about each other it's just people who don't understand it

&gt; India's own unwillingness to return the favour outside of issues that directly impact it, stems from its refusal to be a junior partnership to a greater power

Pretty sure India being competent enough to distract China and continuously compete for Asian hegemony (as far as the US elite concern are concerned)  is the return of the so called favour? Besides who doesn't loathes being a junior partner

Full_Entrepreneur_72

Great article and great discussion. I will forgive the clickbaity title even. I have a few responses, but this is one of the most level-headed assessments of Indian-USA strategy I've seen recently.

The author draws a distinction between tactical support and logistical integration. This is an excellent frame of reference, but maybe misses some key goals. First, India's border skirmishes with China are basically all at the tactical level now. Indian forces getting limited intel, training in the rockies (?), and better cold weather gear from USA is a thing that immediately goes to good use. This is obviously transactional and even mercantile in nature, but still is building intangibles like Indian trust / knowledge of American capabilities (not American values necessarily). Maybe it turns out to be unimportant, but at least you can test out theory on real world problems.

This type of collaboration happens over (not to be disrespectful for the soldiers dying there) a relatively unimportant matter. The border shifting a few miles in any direction there doesn't matter so long as each nation as a good enough buffer zone. China won't be as triggered by this as it would for the USA selling weapons to Taiwan, or setting up new bases closer to the south china seas. It will make China more cautious on its Himalayan frontier without much cost. If the Baseball Bat Wars there heat up, India now has a conduit to advanced tech.

The author has a really important point that left unsaid. "USA needs to treat India with respect and careful consideration." India has its own security incentives, geopolitical context and homeland defense to worry about. They will not necessarily ally with the West against China. Their viewpoint must be understood, and expectations kept reasonably low while still striving for cooperation on key areas, the same as any other great power. It can't get away with nonsense like *not having an ambassador to India* for more than two years, for example.

India has a lot to offer but doesn’t actually want to offer it. The US should understand this is where they want to be and meet them there. India won’t be an ally and they don’t want mutual defense treaties. So keep all cooperation very limited and treat them the same way they treat us. Keep it transactional, do some trade and mostly leave them alone otherwise.

&gt; Yet New Delhi sees things differently. It does not harbor any innate allegiance toward preserving the liberal international order and retains an enduring aversion toward participating in mutual defense. It seeks to acquire advanced technologies from the United States to bolster its own economic and military capabilities and thus facilitate its rise as a great power capable of balancing China independently, but it does not presume that American assistance imposes any further obligations on itself. 

I mean.. yeah? I think most people in the US elite understands this. India has its own ambitions but those dovetail nicely with US intentions to contain China.

FWIW, I think the effort to build up India is partly eased by the fact that many in the West privately do not believe that India can ever become the superpower many folks in New Delhi fantasize publicly about. Which is why India never wanting to be a liberal democracy like the US isn't a major issue because they will never be a real threat like China is now.

India will never be a US ally. Ever. Full stop. 

The US shouldn't want them to be. Friendly as possible at a distance seems the best for both parties.

bkiantx

Finally some good Western idea about their relationship with India. They are absolutely right, India and the West are very much never going to be allies. The statement "Being an enemy of America is dangerous but being an ally is fatal" wether or not you agree with it has basically embedded itself in the Indian strategic culture. 

The West should not pursue India as an ally, our interests intersect at China and some other minor spots but certainly not enough to be allies. 

You may be wondering but why would an Indian like me be staunchly against the West wooing India as an ally ? Well, because in the long run its more healthy for public relations.

When India first bought oil from Russia it was not seen as a simple purchase but a Betrayal. There was significant delusion between how India saw its Geo-political allignment and how the West saw India's Geo-political allignment, which caused outrage in the West over this betrayal.

Yet so many other countries such as Indonesia,Vietnam and Many more countries bought a and purchased oil from Russia yet there was no such feelings towards them even though they were soft alligning with America against China. This was because to the public they were never in some alliance with America, they just shared strategic interests.

In the end, Its best for public relations of the West doesn't see India as an ally but as a friend of coincidence who just so don't happen to like China.

South-Midnight-750

I don't think India needs particular motivation from the US in order to be against China. They've had their own reasons for a long time and that's not going away. Better to be on their good side as they continue to grow, and to slowly supplant their reliance on Russia for their defense materiel.

UNisopod

Was the prequel to this article "America's bad bet on Pakistan"?

SensitiveSamurai

US thinks India is another France where its leaders preach about multipolarity but don't actually mean it. US needs to realize that when India preaches about multipolarity, they actually mean it. It's not a De Gaulle or Macron like soundbite.

Still_There3603

Finally someone said it. Been saying for ages that the US shouldn't rely on India too much but people get upset whenever I do.

By all means, prop up India to counterbalance China but we (the West) should not expect India to play the role of Ukraine or be a junior partner or vassal.

Gaius_7

In a series of bilateral meetings held in New Delhi, India's Defence Minister and Japan's Defence Minister discussed strengthening defense and security cooperation...

India-Japan Defense Relations and Anti-Terrorism Cooperation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want