Ideas like ‘autonomy’, ‘strategic dominance’ and ‘territorial sovereignty’ trace their lineage from early strategic thinking, which in turn is a product of the Machiavellian model of governmentality – a framework that lays a significant emphasis on the powers and rights of the Sovereign and follows a linear, hierarchical structure of power relations in which there is an all-powerful sovereign and subjects on which power is exercised.
This linear conceptualisation of power does not hold in the present context in which power is dispersed amongst various institutions and groups and is no more unidimensional.
In this regard, India should look beyond these medieval conceptualisations of the nation-state and adopt a more inclusive and humanitarian approach with other nation-states. India should drop its obsession with strategic autonomy and proceed towards creating a more inclusive, interconnected and globalised world. Instead of romanticising the superficial idea of an ‘autonomous and powerful India’, it should focus on formulating a strategic policy that addresses rising economic inequality and other socioeconomic challenges.
The pursuit of the strategic autonomy is a standard line of thought running through the foreign and security policies of successive governments in New Delhi. During independent India’s initial years, when it was still a young nation-state, it was referred to as “the non-alignment” under the leadership of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Later, it’s abstract gradient increased. It turned into an umbrella term called “strategic autonomy”.
‘Non-alignment’ is different from the more abstract concept of strategic autonomy because it was an ideologically motivated movement. It was defined as a “struggle against Imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, domination and hegemony”. It was a movement against bloc politics that divided the international world into two neat camps – capitalists and communists. It was an act of rebellion against this divisive politics.

However, today, India’s obsession of exercising its strategic autonomy and its aspirations of becoming a superpower is irrational and no longer feasible in the transformed international system. In order to counter the complex emerging challenges, a level of collaboration and interdependence is required among nation-states. Issues like the rise of violent non-state actors, climate change, cybersecurity, uncontrolled immigration, refugee crises, and the likes require countries to give up their traditional notions of sovereignty and collaborate.
The pursuit of strategic autonomy in India’s case is to maintain its fundamental need for territorial sovereignty. This comes from a long tradition of Indian scholars and policymakers conceptualising the international system through the realist prism of International Relations. However, there are deep methodological, ontological and epistemological flaws in the theory of realism.
It is a one-dimensional conceptualisation of power structures and has medieval roots. It propounds dogmatic and static notions of territory, population and security. The realists argue that the pursuit of national interest must be treated as the principal justification for all state action. However, they face a major theoretical problem – the problem in defining ‘national interest.’ Is it the sum-total of the interests of all citizens of a nation? Is it an expression of the interests of the governing class, or is it the manifestation of the elite, financially essential power brokers?
Also read ‘Why the United States Should Avoid a ‘Maximum Pressure’ Policy on Iran‘
The challenges that India’s ‘autonomy’ faces are merely perceived threats on a socially, politically and theoretically constructed notion of an ‘autonomic India’, which is legitimised through historical discourse. These perceived threats to Indian ‘autonomy’ ultimately paralyze any mode of sustainable and developmental engagement, which could help solve its more concrete, people-centric problems, like rising wealth inequality, poverty, socioeconomic growth, unemployment, food security, quality education, clean water and sanitation.
One significant example of India prioritising strategic autonomy over its socioeconomic interests is its boycott of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – a collection of interlinking infrastructure projects and trade deals throughout the Pacific and Eurasia. The project aims to create the largest platform in the world for economic cooperation, which includes financing and trade collaboration, policy coordination and cultural and social cooperation. The BRI’s primary objective is to establish sea and land links between Europe and China through power projects, roads, ports and railway lines in potentially more than sixty countries.
Interestingly, India insists on maintaining a distance from the huge infrastructure enterprise. This detachment will seem odd in the years to come, especially as the infrastructure continues to emerge on the horizon. New Delhi has also indicated that it sees the program as a Chinese unilateral, national initiative that other countries aren’t obligated to buy into.

This move by India to not collaborate with China is justified on the grounds of protecting its territorial sovereignty and strategic autonomy. However, one may argued that this boycott has ultimately blocked India’s potential chance to join this initiative, which would have benefitted the country economically and would also have proved to be a great platform to engage and collaborate with China constructively. This, in turn, would have led to better communication and greater prosperity among the two Asian nations. Skeptics of this obsession of India with strategic autonomy argue that it often is used to block partnerships that would have customarily boosted India’s national capabilities, and BRI is a significant example of that.
India should formalise a security and strategic policy that takes variables like poverty, hunger, health and well-being, quality education, affordable and clean energy, and climate action into consideration. Needless to say, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) could be a great reference source while formulating holistic and long-term security and economic policies. The romanticisation of medieval ideas like ‘strategic autonomy’ in a transformed International order is hurting its socio-economic prospects.
Views expressed are the author’s own.
Also listen to:

writes on international relations and sociology. He holds a Bachelors in IR from O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat.