Multipolarity and Autonomy: India’s Strategic Debate
Exploring India’s role in a multipolar world—balancing risks with strategic autonomy.
Introduction
The global order is shifting from a unipolar dominance led by the United States towards a multipolar world with several powerful countries vying for influence. India, a rising power in its own right, views this change with mixed feelings. On one hand, the multipolar world promises greater choices and flexibility for India. On the other hand, it brings unpredictability and uncertainty about alliances and partnerships. Kanti Bajpai and Shashi Tharoor, two leading Indian thinkers, offer contrasting views on this global transformation. Bajpai (“Multipolarity and us,” The Indian Express, 6 September 2025) presents a cautionary and somewhat pessimistic outlook, warning of the risks of instability and isolation that multipolarity may bring. Tharoor (“India’s Strategic Autonomy in a Multipolar World,” The Hindu, 6 September 2025) counters with a more optimistic and pragmatic vision centred on India’s strategic autonomy, suggesting that India can successfully navigate this complex world order by maintaining sovereign decision-making and flexible engagements. This essay weighs both perspectives carefully but ultimately supports Tharoor’s argument as a more constructive and hopeful pathway for India’s foreign policy.
Bajpai’s Warning
Kanti Bajpai outlines the idea that the current world is far from truly multipolar. According to him, only the United States and China stand as pre-eminent powers with a significant gap separating them from others. Although India has long advocated for a multipolar world, Bajpai emphasises that multipolarity often results in less stability than bipolarity. He draws on the scholarly consensus that bipolar systems are more stable because the two main powers focus on one another, making their interactions more predictable despite rivalry. In contrast, multipolarity involves three or more co-equal powers with competing interests, ambitions, and shifting alliances, making the international environment more complex and less predictable. Bajpai highlights how this creates uncertainty for countries like India, which faces the challenge of balancing relationships with multiple powers that may not be reliable partners in the long term.
He further warns that India’s favoured approach of “strategic autonomy” and “multi-alignment” could translate into a solitary and even hostile international existence. Alliances are tentative, and countries may switch allegiances or cut deals that leave India isolated. Bajpai points to recent events where China and Russia voiced support for India against US tariffs but cautions that if these countries strike their own deals with the US, India’s position could become precarious. He describes a multipolar world as one where countries “cut their deals and good luck to everyone else,” underscoring the lack of dependable alliances. Bajpai also notes that India’s expectations of a rules-based multilateralism in a multipolar world may be overly optimistic since the reality might be a receding of multilateral cooperation as big powers pursue self-interest.
Tharoor’s Autonomy
Shashi Tharoor offers a robust counterpoint by focusing on the concept of strategic autonomy in India’s foreign policy. He traces the term’s evolution from academic debate to a central tenet guiding India’s diplomatic decisions in a fast-changing and volatile multipolar world. For Tharoor, strategic autonomy means the ability to make sovereign decisions free from undue external pressure or binding alliance obligations. This autonomy does not imply isolation but rather flexibility, independence, and the capacity to engage with multiple global powers on India’s terms. He argues that this approach echoes India’s historical experience of colonial subjugation and the post-independence desire to retain freedom in global affairs, from Nehru’s non-alignment to contemporary “multi-alignment.”
Tharoor views the present fragmented world order—with American dominance declining, Chinese assertiveness rising, and Russia pursuing revisionism—as an environment that demands recalibrated diplomacy. India’s strategic partnership with the United States has grown deeper but not without frictions, such as erratic trade policies and pressure points like defence dealings with Russia. He promotes a measured Indian response that continues engagement while prioritising national interest and rejects ideological subjugation. More importantly, Tharoor highlights India’s necessary balancing act with China and Russia. Despite border clashes and geopolitical rivalry with China, India maintains cautious engagement and firm deterrence, participates in regional forums involving China, and controls economic ties without capitulation. The relationship with Russia is similarly historical and multifaceted, maintained despite global pressures and Western criticism.
Balancing Powers
The two thinkers diverge sharply on the implications of balancing multiple powers. Bajpai emphasises the unpredictability and fragility of alliances in a multipolar world. He fears that India’s strategic autonomy risks becoming a passive, lonely stance where no power can truly be trusted, leading to insecurity amid shifting global deals. Conversely, Tharoor sees balancing as India’s proactive diplomatic art. He stresses that autonomy allows India to remain sovereign and independent, refusing to be a proxy or counterweight for any power. This approach demands diplomatic skill, institutional resilience, and a clear understanding of India’s core national interests, such as territorial integrity, economic growth, technological advancement, and regional security.
Tharoor argues that India’s active management of relationships with the United States, China, and Russia demonstrates the practical utility of strategic autonomy. It enables India to pursue partnerships where beneficial, deter threats, and maintain communication channels without ideological allegiance. Far from passive isolation, this is an empowered position that fosters India’s voice and influence in international affairs.
Multilateralism’s Role
Both authors address the role of multilateralism in a multipolar world. Bajpai is sceptical about the resurgence of multilateral cooperation, suggesting multilateralism may recede as powers prioritise narrow interests. He sees a world where consultative rule-making is not guaranteed, making diplomacy less predictable and more transactional. This view underlines his broader concern about the instability and uncontrollable complexity of a multipolar system.
In contrast, Tharoor acknowledges the fragility of global cooperation but highlights India’s participation in significant multilateral forums such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. He portrays India as a voice of the Global South, championing peaceful pluralism and promoting partnerships driven by shared interests rather than inherited biases. This diplomatic stance is neither anti-West nor pro-West but seeks India’s rightful place as an assertive yet sovereign global player. While adaptive to global realities, Tharoor’s vision continues to uphold multilateral engagement as essential, albeit in a transformed, pragmatic form.
Domestic Imperatives
Tharoor uniquely emphasises the domestic dimensions of strategic autonomy, which differentiates his argument from Bajpai’s mainly external focus. He notes that external autonomy must be supported by domestic economic strength, political coherence, and technological capability. India cannot achieve true strategic autonomy from a position of internal weakness. He highlights the importance of investing in indigenous defence technologies, securing critical minerals, and asserting digital sovereignty in an age of cyber threats. Political polarization and economic vulnerabilities within India could limit autonomous decision-making externally.
This holistic view underscores that India’s foreign policy independence depends on strong internal fundamentals, making autonomy a full-spectrum national project that is both resilient and progressive.
Risks and Rewards
While Bajpai’s caution regarding unpredictability and fluid alliances is undeniable, his emphasis on the risks tends to obscure the possibilities embedded in multipolarity. His concerns about India’s potential isolation in a world where deals shift rapidly and alliances dissolve are important warnings. However, if India assumes a passive or fearful stance based on these downsides, it may forfeit the ability to shape outcomes to its benefit.
Tharoor’s strategic autonomy advocates neither naïve optimism nor rigid isolation. It calls for an active, confident diplomacy that uses India’s unique position to engage flexibly, deter threats, and harness opportunities. India’s growing global stature, democratic strength, and economic potential support this path. The ability to balance competing powers without being dictated to allows India to remain sovereign and speak with authority on the international stage.
Conclusion
The debate between Kanti Bajpai and Shashi Tharoor captures the complexity of India’s foreign policy challenges in an evolving multipolar world. Bajpai provides a sober reminder of the uncertainties and instability inherent in a system where no single power dominates and alliances are fluid. His apprehensions highlight the pitfalls awaiting India if it misjudges the nature of multipolarity. Tharoor, however, offers a clearer route forward centred on strategic autonomy — an active diplomatic stance underpinned by sovereign decision-making, institutional strength, and adaptable engagement.
Tharoor’s vision recognises the difficulties but transforms them into opportunities for India to reclaim agency and leadership without yielding to the pressures of great power rivalries. In a world marked by global flux and shifting alliances, India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy is not only sensible but necessary for securing its interests and future. Thus, while Bajpai’s warnings must be heeded, the ultimate prescription lies in Tharoor’s pragmatic and hopeful framework for navigating multipolarity.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias
The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH
