New Delhi, Sept. 29 -- "I am entitled to

have my own side."

- S Jaishankar

There was a time when foreign policy came with simple instructions. Pick a side. Stay there. Know who your friends are, preferably your enemies too. That world is disappearing. Today, the United States wants countries to take a harder line against Russia. Europe is worrying about its own security and economic future. China is challenging the established order. Russia remains important to India for energy, defence and diplomacy. The Global South wants a greater voice. And trade itself is being shaped by geopolitics.

India, meanwhile, would rather keep the doors open. That is not necessarily indecision. It is just a reflection of India's interests. New Delhi wants a strong relationship with Washington, a functioning one with Moscow, stable ties with the Gulf, deep engagement with Europe, a way to manage competition with China and a larger role in the Global South.

At the United Nations this week, India's position has continued to emphasise reform of an international system that it says is struggling to deal with contemporary conflicts. The problem is that the world is becoming less comfortable with such flexibility.

No Easy Choices

The latest pressure point is Russia. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has raised India's concerns with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the new US sanctions law targeting major buyers of Russian energy.

India's imports of Russian crude have already begun falling: imports dropped 16.5 per cent in August to about 2.1 million barrels a day, with preliminary September data pointing to another decline.

But this is not simply about choosing Moscow or Washington. It is about energy security, prices, trade, strategic relationships and the consequences of decisions made thousands of kilometres away. India just cannot afford a foreign policy in which every relationship is viewed through somebody else's alliance map. That is the real test of strategic autonomy. It is not saying no to everyone. It is being able to say yes to different countries for different reasons.

India may buy oil from one country, technology from another, defence equipment from a third, attract investment from a fourth and cooperate diplomatically with all of them. The world may find that untidy. India has to find it useful.

Room Has Value

There is a second and more important part of this strategy as well: economics. India's expanding network of free trade agreements is no coincidence. Commerce Secretary Rajesh Agrawal said last week that recent FTAs have been designed to give long-term investors greater predictability and help diversify India's export supply chains. That is strategic autonomy in another form.

The more markets India can access, the less dependent it becomes on any single market. The more supply chains it can plug into, the harder it becomes to isolate. The more products it can make competitively, the greater its bargaining power. This is why strategic autonomy cannot survive on diplomacy alone.

A country that depends on somebody else for energy, technology, capital, critical components or markets will eventually discover that foreign policy has a price tag. India's answer cannot be to retreat from the world. It has to be the opposite: become more deeply connected to more parts of it. For diversification is not distance; it is insurance.

Strength Buys Space

This is where India's current foreign-policy experiment becomes interesting. Strategic autonomy sounds grand when discussed at diplomatic conferences. In practice, it is quite mundane. It means having enough economic strength to withstand pressure. Enough military capability to protect interests. Enough domestic capacity to reduce dangerous dependencies. Enough diplomatic credibility to maintain relationships that may not like each other. And enough confidence not to confuse friendship with obedience.

India's room to manoeuvre will not remain automatically available, or in perpetuity. The more the world divides into competing camps, the more pressure there will be to choose one. That pressure may increase because India is becoming more important.

There is an important distinction between being neutral and being independent. Neutrality can mean staying out. Strategic autonomy means staying engaged without surrendering the right to decide. That is a much harder game.

Stakes are Higher

India has played versions of it for decades. The difference now is that the stakes are higher. Much higher. India is no longer a small developing economy trying to keep its head above the geopolitical water. It is a major market, a growing economic power, a nuclear state, a technology and services hub and a consequential player in global supply chains.

That gives India something valuable. Space. The world may demand sides. Washington will have its expectations. Moscow its interests. Beijing its ambitions. Europe its priorities. India will have its own. And perhaps that is the point of strategic autonomy in 2026. Not refusing to choose, but making sure that when the moment comes, the choice is India's to make.

Views expressed are personal. The writer is a journalist & communications specialist

--

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.