India’s Strategic Autonomy at Risk

Explore Kanti Bajpai’s critique on India’s strategic autonomy, rising multi-dependence on China, Russia, and the US, and the urgent need for reforms.

Introduction

In the realm of international relations, few challenges are as consequential as the tension between autonomy and dependence. Indian foreign policy has long celebrated the ideal of strategic autonomy—an aspiration to engage widely while remaining beholden to none. Yet, as Kanti Bajpai argues in his article “A Wake-up Call” (The Indian Express, May 22, 2025), the reality is one of deepening multi-dependence. India’s economic and security reliance on China, Russia, and the United States compromises its agency and renders its foreign and security policy reactive rather than proactive. This essay examines Bajpai’s critique and situates it within the wider debate about India’s trajectory. Using the analytical categories of context, issue, thesis, hypothesis, warrant, qualification, and advocacy, it evaluates the sources of India’s vulnerability and advances the case for a decisive revolution in manufacturing and economic reform.

Chains of Vulnerability

India’s foreign policy since independence has revolved around the vocabulary of non-alignment, sovereignty, and self-reliance. Yet practice has rarely matched rhetoric. The post-1991 liberalisation era integrated India into global supply chains, attracted foreign capital, and unleashed private enterprise. But this growth also deepened reliance on external markets, technologies, and security partnerships.

By 2025, this integration has hardened into dependency. China dominates India’s import basket, from consumer goods to critical inputs like active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and electronics. Russia remains the source of up to 70% of India’s military hardware and a growing share of crude oil imports. The United States, meanwhile, is India’s largest export destination, key source of investment, and the gatekeeper of migration opportunities through the H-1B visa system.

These linkages, once benign expressions of globalisation, now appear dangerous in an era of fracturing geopolitics: border crises with China, US–Russia hostilities, and pandemic-era supply chain shocks. The environment in which India operates is unstable, and its dependencies increasingly constrain policy freedom.

Multi-Dependence Versus Strategic Autonomy

The central issue, as Bajpai frames it, is the contradiction between India’s proclaimed strategic autonomy and its actual entanglement in asymmetric dependencies. The triad of China, Russia, and the United States exerts influence across different sectors:

• China supplies the building blocks of Indian industry and healthcare.
• Russia provides defence platforms, spare parts, and discounted energy.
• The United States offers markets, investment, technology, and a crucial outlet for skilled labour.

These dependencies might have seemed manageable in a more cooperative world. In today’s competitive and conflict-prone system, they clash. Choices that align with one partner often alienate another. Dependence has become discordant, exposing India to coercive leverage and forcing it into reactive diplomacy.

Cornered by Dependence

The core thesis is that India’s autonomy is gravely undermined by this multi-dependence. The rhetoric of Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) and multi-alignment masks a structural weakness: the nation’s sovereignty is compromised by its inability to secure critical goods, technologies, and diplomatic support independently.

India’s posture increasingly resembles what Bajpai calls a “foreign policy corner”—unable to act without risking backlash from at least one of its major partners. Far from projecting confidence, India is at risk of becoming a supplicant, negotiating from weakness rather than strength.

The Consequences of Inaction

If India fails to address systemic dependence, the consequences are predictable: progressive erosion of strategic leverage, diminished agency in international forums, and a foreign policy that is reactive rather than proactive.

Historical precedents reinforce this hypothesis. India’s Cold War-era reliance on Soviet arms left it exposed after the USSR’s collapse. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the peril of dependence on Chinese APIs for life-saving drugs. The Trump-era H-1B restrictions showed how U.S. domestic politics could suddenly constrain Indian opportunity. Each episode underscores the risks of excessive reliance on external actors.

The Empirical Basis for Concern

Bajpai’s case rests on robust evidence.

• China: India’s trade deficit with China exceeds $100 billion, encompassing APIs, electronics, rare earths, and solar technology. These are not luxuries but essentials for healthcare, digital infrastructure, and the green transition. Dependence on a strategic rival is not leverage; it is vulnerability.
• Russia: Around two-thirds of Indian military equipment is Russian. Maintenance, ammunition, and upgrades tie India’s security to Moscow’s fortunes. Western sanctions in the wake of the Ukraine war complicate procurement and force awkward diplomatic balancing. India’s surge in Russian oil imports, while financially expedient, compounds reliance on an increasingly isolated partner.
• United States: India’s IT sector and educated middle class depend on access to U.S. markets and visas. Militarily, American technology and intelligence are indispensable for counterbalancing China in the Indo-Pacific. But this alignment narrows India’s options, tethering autonomy to American goodwill.

The simultaneity of these dependencies is particularly problematic. Each alone would be manageable; together, they create systemic fragility.

Reformist Efforts and Persistent Constraints

The Indian state is not blind to these vulnerabilities. Programmes such as Make in India and Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes seek to boost domestic manufacturing and reduce import reliance. Defence indigenisation policies aim to cut dependence on Russian systems. Energy diversification, including renewables and nuclear partnerships, is slowly broadening the portfolio.

Yet progress is patchy. Manufacturing’s share of GDP remains stagnant. Critical technologies like semiconductors and advanced materials lag far behind global leaders. Bureaucratic inertia, land and labour constraints, and uneven infrastructure stifle competitiveness. Despite strong GDP growth, the “animal spirits” of Indian industry have not ignited the kind of productivity revolution seen in East Asia. The rhetoric of self-reliance often rings hollow when juxtaposed against rising import bills.

Reforming India’s Future

India’s transition from multi-dependence to true autonomy demands nothing less than a bold revolution in economic and strategic policy. The advocacy advanced by Bajpai and echoed in broader reformist discourse highlights an urgent need to address structural weaknesses that leave the nation vulnerable to external shocks.

At the heart of this agenda lies a manufacturing transformation. Sweeping land and labour reforms must be undertaken to unlock industrial expansion, while infrastructure—spanning logistics, transport, and energy networks—requires modernisation to sustain competitive production. Equally vital is the cultivation of innovation ecosystems, with targeted support for sectors such as semiconductors, renewable technologies, and precision engineering that can anchor India’s place in the global value chain.

Complementing this is the imperative to diversify supply chains. Reliance on Chinese inputs in pharmaceuticals, electronics, and critical materials exposes India to strategic coercion. Sourcing alternatives from Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe, alongside boosting domestic production, can mitigate this risk. Defence procurement, too, must be broadened beyond Russia to include European and indigenous systems, while energy security should be rebalanced through partnerships with the Middle East, America, and renewables.

Equally important is reigniting policy momentum. Simplifying regulations, rationalising taxation, and expanding credit access for small and medium enterprises will empower business. Education must also be aligned to industrial needs, equipping a skilled workforce. Finally, galvanising “animal spirits” requires restoring trust between state and industry, ensuring policy stability, and mobilising the diaspora as investors and innovators.

This comprehensive effort, reminiscent of the 1991 reforms, is essential not for deeper integration into globalisation but for building resilience against its uncertainties.

Conclusion

India’s foreign policy narrative of multi-alignment risks degenerating into the reality of multi-dependence. Reliance on China for industrial inputs, on Russia for arms and energy, and on the United States for markets and technology exposes India to coercion and weakens its agency. The H-1B visa restrictions symbolise this wider vulnerability: the fortunes of millions can hinge on decisions made abroad.

Bajpai’s warning is timely. Without decisive reform, India’s foreign policy will remain reactive, its leverage diminished, its autonomy compromised. The alternative path is arduous but essential: a bold inward turn towards manufacturing revival, supply chain diversification, and structural reform that rekindles entrepreneurial energy.

Autonomy in the twenty-first century is not autarky. It is the ability to manage interdependence on one’s own terms. For India, that requires transforming rhetoric into reality, dependence into resilience, and illusion into genuine sovereignty. The decade ahead will determine whether India emerges as a truly autonomous power or remains ensnared in the web of its own dependencies.

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