Back to blog

Why India avoids alliances

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

minfjord

As usual, this Pakistani-driven editorial policy fails to comprehend India. This is clearly viewing India through Pakistani sensibilities, much like the Guardian and Al Jazeera do (wow, big surprise). India does not really do alliances. It hates the idea of ganging up on people. India refused to boycott the Moscow games for America. It then refused to boycott the Los Angeles games for the Soviet Union. It refused to gang up on Iran. Now, it refuses to gang up on China. India is independently able to ensure that China will never invade it. This is because invading India will alter China's history permanently. India may be devastated, but Chinese cities will also disappear in puffs of smoke. And, then China will have an everlasting enemy on its most vulnerable flank which is technologically strong, will immediately work to bring external powers into the fray and work for the next 5000 years to destroy Chinese interests worldwide. This is classic mutually assured destruction, and China will likely never be stupid enough to provoke it. This has nothing to do with Pakistan at all. Here's the kicker. India actually really likes America, a lot. It feels ideological kinship with it and always has. It wants America to remain the predominant power in the world. It will help America a lot. But it does not want to hurt China either, because India actually likes China too. Russia, Iran, Saudi, Israel, China, America, Australia. India pretty much likes everyone in the world, except for Pakistan. And that's because Pakistan is an abnormal country. They are Stockholm-Syndromed converted Hindus (with classic Hindu surnames like Bajwa, Janjua, Sethi, Gujjar, Khokhar and so on) living out a fantasy of someone reconquering and Islamising the entire subcontinent, which is not going to happen. However, they are in league with the global Islamist movement. They are part of it.
China is in a bit of a fix with Pakistan. That country has always been an economic basketcase subsidised to the tune of tens of billions every decade to keep it going. Now, China needs to foot the bill. This is not some simple North Korea. It is a country of 230 million people. A lot of Pakistanis are already angry with China for not coming to their aid right now and shelling out a few billion dollars immediately. China cannot fully integrate with Pakistan to create a single economic zone either, because free movement of Pakistanis into China will bring Jihadis also. I don't think I have ever watched a program about China from Pakistan that didn't talk about how Xinjiang was Muslim. Pakistan has a history of biting its allies, because the psychology of the country is itself based on negativity and hatred. They will most assuredly bite China also, it is just a matter of time. And I think there is at least a 50% chance that the Pakistani bomb will make its way into Jihadi circles. It will be used against India, America, Europe, Iran (because it is Shia) and China alike. The irony is that the bomb is China-provided to start with. Pakistan is also a very expensive country to hold together, because in essence it is a Punjabi colonial enterprise from which Pashtuns, Baloch, Sindhis all seek independence. They have had zero issues killing 3 million Bengalis before - one of the greatest genocides of all time - or inflicting genocide on Afghans too. Time will tell, but my contention is that China is operating from ignorance when it comes to Pakistan. With India, it is quite simple. Treaty of peace and friendship. Status quo on borders and stop hindering the peaceful rise of India. There is really no need for friction at all. Also, intrinsic power being what it is, friction isn't a sustainable option for either country (this is an entirely independent bilateral dynamic, it has nothing to do with any other country in the world). India and China accounted for about 60% of global GDP until 500 years ago. We're seeing a reversion. The timelines are off by about 30 years but that's a blink of an eye in historical terms.
Remember how the Japanese always thought of the Chinese as culturally inferior, and the West bought the whole story for a while. From the economist in 1999 (https://www.economist.com/special-report/1999/09/09/the-last-emperors) - "In the 1970s and even the 1980s, when western scholars were asked to explain why Japan had prospered so mightily since 1860 and China had not, many reached for cultural explanations. Confucianism, stronger in China than Japan, frowned on commerce. Japan had a more homogeneous tribe, capable of organising itself in groups, whereas China was fragmented and fractious. It was nonsense, all of it. Japan had the rule of law, capitalism, and an economy fairly open to trade. As soon as China tried something akin to those three, it began to prosper. " This is sort of how India has recently been represented inside Chinese circles. It is nonsense also.

dcp123

Australia is not separated from China by a great ocean.

The natural conclusion of China's seizure and militarization of islands in the South China Sea is the conversion of the Philippines and perhaps Indonesia into satellites/vassal states with Chinese military bases close to Australia, which is currently the source of so much coal and iron ore. Perhaps China's ambitions will be thwarted or China will become less dependant on Australian raw materials (their importance is already decreasing), but otherwise I would not be surprised to see it fall under Chinese dominance.

ý@ýýýýH in reply to dcp123

[dcp123Jun 4th, 17:09

Australia is not separated from China by a great ocean.

.

The natural conclusion of China's seizure and militarization of islands in the South China Sea is the conversion of the Philippines and perhaps Indonesia into satellites/vassal states with Chinese military bases close to Australia, which is currently the source of so much coal and iron ore. Perhaps China's ambitions will be thwarted or China will become less dependant on Australian raw materials (their importance is already decreasing), but otherwise I would not be surprised to see it fall under Chinese dominance.]

.

The over-populated country closest to Australia is Indonesia. Further away, there is Vietnam. A bit further there are China, Bangladesh and India...

.

If I were among the white guys occupying a vast country that does not even belong to us, I would be worried!

.

Devil's

Realize

I guess after Nixon’s and Kissinger’s fanatical support of Pakistan in the early 70’s and with Trump and May kicking out India’s highly educated STEM immigrants or blocking legal immigration routes, Modi is wondering if these Western democratic Whites really have their heads screwed on straight. Russia has a consistent record of protecting democracy in India, by willing to use their nuclear power to check the dangerous Americans. China is now too powerful economically and militarily for India to play around with. Throw the Tibetians and their remaining land to the dogs and cool down China. A small price to pay while the Indians spend their money on electricity water and medicine for their billion Hindus. India seems to be hell bent on keeping Kashmir and screwing Pakistan, a sure fire way to win the elections and the admiration of all Hindus. Humiliating Muslims is what catches the imagination of the Hindus. On the other hand Hindus have a huge amount of admiration and love for the Chinese. Fighting China ain’t going to win elections. Indians love to travel there. One of their own saints, The Buddha Himself made a huge splash over there.

ý@ýýýýH

"Nor are the devastating effects of democracy limited to democratic states, for they wage war. India has been involved in continuous border wars since independence, at a minimum, with Pakistan. Meanwhile, China has fought less in the past 40 years than the UK, France and the US did in one weekend of bombing Syria. The West calls the Tiananmen Square incident a “massacre”, but it is insignificant compared to the deaths meted out by the democratic West’s militaries."
.
-------------------
.
"A pacific China is possible because its political system is moral in a manner impossible for democracies. China is moral for delivering freedom, more equitably and efficiently than, at the very least, India. Until the 1950s, India’s gross domestic product per capita was higher than China’s. In 1978, China’s was US$13 more than India’s."
.
"That China’s political system achieved this is all the more remarkable because those decades saw the tumult of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but no economic reform. The superiority of China’s political system is confirmed by the freedoms citizens – and beneficiaries of Chinese investment globally – now enjoy thanks to stupendous growth, distributed equitably, over the past 30 years. As the World Inequality Report notes, Chinese inequality is “moderate” because Beijing invests in everyone but Indian inequality is “extreme” because investments are made by them for themselves."
.
------------------
.
"In short, China’s political system, without deluding its people or resorting to international violence, ensures the elite deliver freedoms to the people in a manner unimaginable in India or other democracies. Representative is the freedom to travel and think. In 2017, just 16,000 Indians, versus 88,000 Chinese, were allowed to study in the UK."
.
"Their predecessors imported democracy to Asia, but it is now time for Indians to reassess their inheritance and for the Chinese to disseminate the truth about democracy vis-à-vis Beijing’s system."
.
"The latter is unlikely because Chinese politics encourages humility. After all, which democrat speaks of building a moderately prosperous society, as Xi Jinping did, and that, too, with his political system’s unparalleled success at bettering not just Chinese citizens, but also, mankind?"
.
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2148249/india-proves...

Realize in reply to ý@ýýýýH

China is frightening. Talking rubbish and justifying the existence of the one party system is ridiculous. They will always be needled by India through Western influence despite being 5 times richer than India. Anyway denying me human rights is not acceptable to. I lecture businesses from abroad about India. We Indians love our freedom and human rights. It's been a long time since we've had a democracy. And it's working, albeit inefficiently.l

guest-ajjlmeww

The anonymous author has missed the most important reason, which is that India is a civilization state. Our people, Dharmic religions, languages, and culture are largely confined to the current Indian landmass. So we have very little in common with the inhabitants of the world outside our borders, and there are no "obvious" or organic alliances to be formed.

Moreover, we are non-supremacists navigating a treacherous world with three competing supremacist philosophies: Anglo-white / western supremacism, Sunni Islamic supremacism and increasingly, yellow Han Chinese supremacism. The basic Indian ethos is to live and let live, and we cannot really have alliances with races and religions whose modus operandi is to destroy, subjugate, or dominate others.

As an Indian I want us to be strong enough (economically and militarily) to defend ourselves while improving the lot of our people. For the foreseeable future we will trade and cooperate with others on a strictly pragmatic basis while putting our own interests first, second and last.

Houshu

India is an important member state of:
1) Non-aligned movement
2) british common wealth
3) shanghai cooperation organization
4) the group of brics
.
With our exorbitant subscription fees, TE owner shall invest in staff writers' basic education to reduce his/her ignorance.
Don't be a greedy capitalistic pig!
hehehe......

kapit

India has all the making of a world power: huge land mass, population (soon to be the world’s largest), high economic growth, and a GDP soon to be within the top 3. There is no reason why India should align itself with Russia or with US (and the West). 200 years of British colonialism has left an indelible scar on the Indian psyche. US together with UK, NZ and Australia are part of the alliance that still considers world domination by anglo-saxon culture as its unwritten objective. It is wise for India to steer clear.

There is much to be gained for both India and China, and for Asia as a whole, if they can settle their differences. And this is what US, in particular, does not want to happen.

The biggest obstacle confronting India-China relation is the 1962 border war. There is a huge misconception among the Indian population, led to believe that China was an aggressor and India a victim. It doesn't help that this belief is continuously reinforced by retired Indian army generals, ministers, foreign ministers, professors with personal agenda,… and stirred up by the West. The Government of the day with access to the Henderson-Bhagat report has always been considerably restrained on this issue, because the report contains the truth. The way forward would be for the political leaders to have the courage and will to look at the war in an objective manner, resolve the boundary issues and move on. India and China would be all that much better. It would for the first time in 500 years for both countries to be free from the yoke of imperialism and western domination. Both India and China would provide the needed leadership for Asian countries.

MarquoPolo

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. India sees itself developing into a powerful nation, and what happens to China will have lasting influence on India. India sees that as China grow stronger, US is increasingly fearing the loss of its dominance in economically and military in the pacific. Indians are clever and they don't want to be part of US' prawns to contain China. Because if US successfully contain China, the next target, the new up and coming is India. US would then probably want to ally with China to contain India, remember how US tried to be friendly with China during the Cold-War era to counter balance USSR? If India cooperate with US strategy of containing China now, it would give China the incentive to help US keep India down as well. Resulting in a lose-lose situation, with the biggest benefactor being US.
However, if India does stand fast, not taking sides. It is in a position to win aid/investment and other incentives from both China AND US, which will help India develop even faster. It's like how a swing state in the election will always win more attention than a hard blue or hard red state.
From an Indian perspective, they would want to see US and China duke it out, vying for India's support by trying to outbid each other in order to court India to their side. By the time, US and China has caused mutual economic, or even military losses, India would come out on top. The final winner would be India. If any Western politicians are confused, it lies in their shortsightedness and self-centered view.
Divide and conquer may have worked well during the colonial era, but that lesson has been well learned since.

ý@ýýýýH in reply to MarquoPolo

[MarquoPoloJun 1st, 17:45

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. India sees itself developing into a powerful nation, and what happens to China will have lasting influence on India. India sees that as China grow stronger, US is increasingly fearing the loss of its dominance in economically and military in the pacific. Indians are clever and they don't want to be part of US' prawns to contain China. Because if US successfully contain China, the next target, the new up and coming is India. US would then probably want to ally with China to contain India, remember how US tried to be friendly with China during the Cold-War era to counter balance USSR? If India cooperate with US strategy of containing China now, it would give China the incentive to help US keep India down as well. Resulting in a lose-lose situation, with the biggest benefactor being US.]

.

You have clear vision. Here is a Jewish joke:
.
{An old Jew was dying, and his sons were gathered around his deathbed.
.
His last wish was for his sons to look after the African-American people to the greatest possible extent of their ability. Over and over he said, "Sons, you must help and protect the blacks!".
.
At last, his sons grew exasperated. "Father," they said, "We're Jews, not Blacks. Why should we care what happens to them? We should only look after our own."
.
With the last burst of energy, the dying old Jew rose from his bed and yelled out furiously: "Fools! Without black people, they would come after us instead!}
.
Without the USSR, they DID come after China. That was why Deng Xiaoping cursed Gorbachev to no end-- Not because Deng had much love for the USSR but because he knew that without it China would be subjected to all kinds of pressure from the West, and the US in particular, before China became strong enough to face it. I can still remember how awkwardly President Jiang had to deal with the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, the sailing through the Taiwan Strait by the US carrier battle-groups, the stopping of a Chinese freighter on the high seas. Bush version 2.0 would have followed McClinton's examples-- Witness the collision between the J-8 and EP-3 near Hainan Island. Then Al Qaeda rode in-- On a white horse. That took pressure off China for a decade. Through that decade, China's economy, and national power, grew and grew. By 2010 China became sufficiently strong that it was no longer vulnerable to US pressure.
.
If there were no China today, curry eating would become the greatest evil on earth.

nearmsp

For much of the last 70 years, US did much to push India away. The architect of this policy was Henry Kissinger. He hated India and did much to kow tow to China and helped prop Pakistan. India thus was pushed into the bear arms of the soviet union. But Indians love the US and is the first country they would love to visit, go study or immigrate to, not Russia. Russia in the last few years has been selling arms to Pakistan and so the socialists and communists are unable to advocate closeness to Russia and away from the US. That said, India will remain non aligned because it is capable of standing up to any country and will unlikely need an ally. It is US, Australia and Japan that need India to ally with them to stand up to China. India is unlikely to offer itself as a prop. Under Trump, he has done everything to target H1B, of which India is the main beneficiary. He has changed and continues to change OPT rules and make it tougher for Indian students educated in the US to settle in the US. Indian student new enrollment will fall by 30% in the next 18 months. I was part of a Education US fair in South Asia and parents do not want to send their children to the US as they see the US has become a very unwelcome place. I think there will be deep and long term affects from Trumps megaphone diplomacy and xenophobia. While the mass of Indians are still very poor by OECD standards, India will continue to grow at a decent 7-9% growth for the next decade. It will continue to remain non aligned. The article should have mentioned that Obama had banned Modi until he was elected as PM to get a US visa. A previous President on a personal visit was frisked and body searched even after being told he is a president at a TSA check point. Indians are unlikely to forget such insults. During the Trump administration's tenure, Russia is very likely to take advantage to draw India back into its close circle of friends.

Dr Reddy

India got independence in 1947 and sympathised with communist China and advocated Mainland/Red China's admission to the United Nations Organization without any second thoughts.But China viewed India with skepticism.
India under Nehru has evolved the policy of Non- alignment and convened Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi and attended Afro- Asian Conference in 1954 to which China was attendee.
Later, Peking intervention in Tibet and Dalai Lama's asylum in India, often Mao's claim over Indian territory in North East leading to the 1962 war caused embarrassment for India .
India focused on economic development rather military became show case model in Americans view.

China has been supporting Pakistan against India in all fora even today. The end of cold war witnessed the emergence of decontrol regime in India paving the way for fast economic growth along with China.
The United States as a world power recognized Indian potentiality in all aspects for stable relations ,while acknowledging China rival in Asia and Pacific regions. Both Washington and Beijing have been competing for expanding influence at each other costs. While doing so , Washington roped New Delhi into the scheme of limiting if not containing Chinese influence in the region.
Towards this end the US-India Agreement was concluded in 2016 and renamed as US,India-Pacific Command ..With this India assumed greater responsibility in maintaining regional stability connecting Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean through South China Sea, the contentious water passage for freedom of navigation. Further, China has reclamed submerged islands in the said sea and installed military hardware. Beijing has claimed South China Sea is in the jurisdiction of China sovereignty, no other country has a right to have free passage.
The near blockade, has threatened the commercial, security, strategic etc interests of global power,US, European powers like UK , emerging Asian power, India often confrontations with China.
It is worth to note that US never initiate military action against any country whether big or small ,it forms an alliance with regional actors for logistic support.
India did not show any interest in the military alliances since independence ,1947 irrespective of regional wars ,1948,1962,1965,1971 etc.
By signing Pacific Command,India moved closer to Pentagon and distanced from Kremlin let alone Beijing. Further India entered into the vortex of Asian version of Cold War in view of recent conclusion of Russia, China Friendship Pact with a aim to limit US influence.

siddsa

India's lack of alliances historically it has lot to do with NAM (no aligned movement) which was fostered by PM Nehru and resulted in Nehruvian institutions stepped in Socialism and romance of like minded poor countries. It was useful to extent but was junked strategically by his Daughter Indira Gandhi when she allied India with USSR in 1971 to counter USA threat when Nixon threatened to invade India over Bangladesh issue. Since then India has meandered along with its leadership being indifferent to international relations. Only recently some interest has come back to international relations and India's leaders are unsure of all and playing it along with everyone for benefits.

In a analogy being young and beautiful a women gets lot of suitors, she may entertain all on limited basis in bid to get maximum benefit rather than marrying young and be tied to one. India has suitors at hand for alliance it can gain more from courting all while committing to none, for now. Later it will have to decide its strategic shift more decisively (currently it is shifting towards USA and western countries, however it is new and can be reversed).