B S Dara
bsdara@gmail.com
For many years, India has spoken about strategic autonomy as the guiding idea of its foreign policy. At its core, it means preserving the freedom to make independent decisions without becoming subordinate to any single global power. In an earlier era, this approach was known as non-alignment. Today, however, the landscape is far more complex. India now engages simultaneously with multiple partners, each relationship influenced by its own interests, expectations, and constraints. Cooperation comes with conditions. Dialogue carries underlying tension. No partnership is without limits. By 2026, India’s diplomatic environment has grown increasingly strained. Relationships that once appeared stable now require careful management. Old assumptions no longer hold. More than it being just a principle, Strategic autonomy has become a necessity, inspired by external pressure, persistent disagreements, and growing regional instability.
India’s relationship with the United States is not as smooth as it once appeared. Under Donald Trump, trade tensions increased. Tariffs were imposed on Indian goods. India lost certain trade privileges. These actions created friction and distrust. At the same time, Washington has repeatedly objected to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. Under American pressure, India though has signalled reducing its energy imports from Russia. This has led to visible discomfort in US-India ties. American officials expect India to align more closely with Western positions. India refuses to do so. From Delhi’s perspective, energy security comes first. Cheap Russian oil helps control inflation and protect the economy. Accepting external pressure would mean compromising national interest. This disagreement shows the limits of the partnership.
Russia remains important for India. Defence equipment, energy supply, and diplomatic history still matter. Even as Western countries isolate Moscow, India continues engagement. This has drawn criticism, but Delhi stands firm. It avoids condemning Russia directly. It calls for dialogue and peaceful solutions in Ukeraine. This position angers some partners but protects Indian interests.
China remains India’s biggest security concern. Relations are tense. Chinese troops have intruded into Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh. Border talks continue, but trust is low. Military deployments remain high on both sides. Trade continues, but security concerns dominate every discussion. India does not see China as just an economic competitor. It sees Beijing as a strategic rival. Yet India and China avoid open confrontation. Borth strengthen defence readiness while keeping diplomatic channels open. Strategic autonomy here means preparation without provocation. India joins groups like the Quad, but avoids turning them into military alliances.
Relations with Pakistan are at their lowest point in years. After Operation Sindoor, political ties collapsed. Dialogue stopped. Sports relations were affected. Players refusing to shake hands became symbols of bitterness. Diplomatic contact is minimal. Accusations and counter accusations continue. This hostility impacts regional politics. South Asia remains unstable. India avoids engagement unless security concerns are addressed. Strategic autonomy in this context means refusing third party mediation. India insists on bilateral solutions, even when tensions rise.
Bangladesh has now emerged as another sensitive front. Sheikh Hasina has taken refuge in India. Dhaka is repeatedly asking for her extradition. This has created strain between the two neighbours. Trust has weakened. Political debate inside Bangladesh increasingly targets India. Recent events have added fuel to this tension. The removal of Bangladeshi cricketer Mustafiqur Rehman from the IPL franchise KKR sparked controversy. Social media in Bangladesh accused India of discrimination. Political voices joined the debate. What began as a sports decision turned into a diplomatic issue.
These incidents show how fragile relations have become. Even cultural and sporting ties are now affected by politics. Strategic autonomy means India cannot ignore regional sensitivities, but it also cannot compromise its legal and institutional decisions under pressure.
India’s relationship with Israel is also under global scrutiny. India has openly aligned with Israel. Defence cooperation and political support continue. However, Israel’s actions in Palestine have drawn strong criticism worldwide. Many countries describe it as continuous violence and humanitarian disaster. India’s silence and support for Israel have damaged its image in parts of the Muslim world. Critics argue that this contradicts India’s traditional support for Palestine. It also affects relations with Arab countries at the public level, even if governments remain pragmatic. This alignment tests India’s diplomatic balance. While ties with Israel bring technology and defence benefits, they also create moral and political pressure. Strategic autonomy here means choosing interests over image, but the cost is rising.
The Gulf region remains important for India. Millions of Indians work there. Energy supplies are critical. India maintains good relations with Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. At the same time, it keeps contact with Iran. This careful balance protects Indian workers and trade routes. Yet even here, competition between regional powers creates risks. India avoids taking sides. It focuses on economic ties and citizen welfare. This approach reduces exposure to regional conflicts.
India’s growing economy gives it confidence, but also responsibility. It needs foreign investment. It needs stable trade routes. Foreign policy must support growth. That is why India avoids sanctions regimes that damage its economy. It keeps doors open even when partners disagree.
Global institutions are losing influence. Wars continue without clear mediation. The UN appears weak. Rules are applied unevenly. Powerful states act unilaterally. In this climate, India prefers flexibility. Fixed alliances carry long term risks. Critics say India’s foreign policy sends mixed signals. They want clarity. They want firm positions. But clarity in today’s world often leads to entanglement. Strategic autonomy protects India from being dragged into conflicts that do not serve its interests. Public opinion inside India also matters. National pride influences diplomacy. Social media intensifies reactions. Leaders must balance foreign policy with domestic expectations. Any decision is closely watched.
In 2026, India stands at the crossroads of global power rivalries. Pressure comes from every direction. The United States seeks economic and political alignment. China continues to challenge India’s territorial sovereignty. Pakistan remains adversarial. Relations with Bangladesh are uneasy. Strategic closeness with Israel draws criticism from parts of the Global South. Long-standing ties with Russia invite disapproval from Western capitals. India cannot afford blind loyalty to any single bloc. Every relationship today is transactional, guided by interest rather than ideology. This approach carries costs. It frustrates partners. It creates diplomatic friction. Yet the alternative is far worse, strategic dependence and loss of agency.
India has chosen difficulty over submission. Looking ahead, the world will become more divided. Power will matter more than rules. In such a world, flexibility is strength. India’s ability to talk to everyone while belonging to no one fully may be its greatest advantage. Strategic autonomy in 2026 is about staying independent without being neutral. It allows India to protect its interests without surrendering its choices. In a divided global order, true independence is rare. India’s determination to preserve it defines its global posture, and its long-term strength.
As an independent foreign affairs observer, I see India’s strategic autonomy today as a test of restraint. Pressure is coming from all sides. Partners are uneasy. Neighbours remain hostile. Global scrutiny is rising. In this climate, India must rely less on public statements and more on quiet diplomacy. Clear boundaries with China, controlled engagement with Bangladesh, and steady firmness with Pakistan will matter more than symbolism. Trust would return only through conduct, than declarations. Foreign policy is a long game. Interests shift quickly. Alliances weaken under stress. In this moment, Ahmad Faraz’s words feel painfully relevant:
“Tum takalluf ko bhi ikhlas samajhte ho ‘Faraz’,
dost hota nahin har haath milane vaala.”
The post India’s Strategic Autonomy in 2026 appeared first on Daily Excelsior.