India needs a new foreign policy plan

Indian Express

Context and Core Theme

The paired opinion pieces respond to a shared strategic concern: the uncertainty in India–US relations during the second term of President Donald Trump and the broader implications for India’s foreign policy. Together, they argue that India can no longer rely on assumptions of strategic reassurance from Washington and must recalibrate its external engagement through greater autonomy, diversification, and strategic clarity.

The articles are situated in a period of global flux marked by transactional diplomacy, weakening multilateralism, and heightened great-power competition.

Key Arguments

1. End of Strategic Comfort in India–US Ties

The central argument is that the India–US relationship has entered a phase of strategic unpredictability:

• Trump’s second term offers no guarantee of continuity in cooperation.
• Policy positions are driven by domestic political calculations rather than alliance logic.
• India cannot assume automatic convergence on trade, immigration, technology, or security.

The earlier phase of optimism around the “natural allies” narrative is treated as exhausted.

2. Transactionalism over Partnerships

The articles underline a shift in US foreign policy towards transactional nationalism:

• Pressure on trade balances and tariffs.
• Reduced tolerance for strategic ambiguity by partners.
• Conditional cooperation rather than institutionalised trust.

This is portrayed as structurally incompatible with India’s long-term interests if left unaddressed.

3. Limits of Indo-Pacific Reassurance

While the Indo-Pacific framework remains relevant, the authors argue it cannot substitute for:

• Independent Indian strategic capacity.
• Regional diplomacy beyond US-led constructs.
• Engagement with multiple power centres simultaneously.

India’s security and economic interests cannot be nested entirely within US strategic priorities.

4. Need for a New Foreign Policy Plan

The call is for a recalibrated Indian foreign policy that:

• Reduces over-dependence on any single major power.
• Strengthens strategic autonomy in defence, technology, and diplomacy.
• Revitalises ties with Europe, ASEAN, West Asia, Africa, and Russia alongside the US.

Foreign policy is framed as requiring active design rather than reactive adjustment.

Author’s Stance

The authors adopt a realist and cautionary stance:

• They reject ideological alignment in favour of interest-based diplomacy.
• There is clear scepticism toward the reliability of US commitments under Trump.
• Strategic autonomy is presented not as non-alignment nostalgia, but as pragmatic realism.

The tone is measured but firm, signalling the need for policy maturity rather than emotional responses.

Biases and Assumptions

1. Realist Bias

The analysis privileges:

• State interests over values-based diplomacy.
• Power politics over normative internationalism.

This may underplay the role of democratic convergence and people-to-people ties.

2. US-Centric Framing

While arguing against over-reliance on the US, the discussion itself remains heavily US-focused, giving less analytical depth to:

• China-specific strategies.
• India’s leadership role in the Global South.

3. Executive Capacity Assumption

There is an implicit assumption that India’s diplomatic machinery can swiftly recalibrate strategy, despite bureaucratic and political constraints.

Pros of the Argument

• Realistic appraisal of changing US foreign policy behaviour.
• Timely warning against complacency in strategic partnerships.
• Reinforces the principle of strategic autonomy in contemporary form.
• High relevance for aspirants studying evolving international relations.

Cons and Limitations

• Limited operational detail on how diversification should be sequenced.
• Underestimates domestic political pressures shaping India’s foreign policy.
• Less engagement with economic diplomacy and supply-chain strategy.

Policy Implications

1. Strategic Autonomy

• Invest in indigenous defence and critical technologies.
• Avoid security or economic dependencies that constrain choices.

2. Diplomatic Diversification

• Deepen ties with middle powers and regional groupings.
• Balance major-power relations without rigid alignments.

3. Institutional Foreign Policy Planning

• Move from personality-driven diplomacy to institutional continuity.
• Strengthen strategic forecasting and scenario planning.

Real-World Impact

If internalised by policymakers, the arguments could:

• Reduce vulnerability to external political shocks.
• Strengthen India’s negotiating leverage globally.
• Encourage a more confident, interest-driven diplomacy.

If ignored, India risks:

• Policy drift amid great-power rivalry.
• Strategic overexposure to unilateral decisions by partners.

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II – International Relations

• India–US relations
• Strategic autonomy and multi-alignment
• Indo-Pacific strategy

GS Paper I – World History / Post-Cold War Order

• Changing nature of global power politics

GS Paper IV – Ethics

• Prudence, realism, and responsibility in statecraft

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The articles together present a sobering assessment: Trump’s second term removes any illusion of reassurance in India–US ties. Rather than signalling rupture, this moment demands strategic maturity from India. A new foreign policy plan must be grounded in autonomy, diversification, and institutional foresight. The future of Indian diplomacy lies not in choosing sides, but in maximising options in an uncertain world—a challenge that will define India’s global role in the coming decade.