Strategic autonomy and no military alliances are two tenets of India‘s foreign policy. In this regard what do you understand by ‘strategic autonomy‘? Do you think India is strictly pursuing strategic autonomy? Critically analyse. (200 Words)
India‘s NAM policy has been root cause of its strategic autonomy. India never favored wars and partnered with any of Super Power (Hegemony). Strategic autonomy for India is non-involvement in any conflict which is on political ground anywhere in world.
Economic crisis in 1991 compelled India to support Gulf War and bend its Strategic Autonomy.
India has signed Defence and Strategic Agreements with Russia, USA, France, Australia, and other nations. But these agreements don‘t provide that India‘s will support any war which is not initiated unless resolution by UNSC (example – India supported War against Terrorism in 2001).
India has never signed any military alliance treaty with any country whatsoever. But when matter of Pakistan sponsored terrorism or Islamic terrorism in concern India has always favored Hegemonic Powers.
But, India has not followed same strategic against LTTE in Sri-Lanka, and other countries like Iran, Palestine and Egypt. So it generates doubts about India‘s commitment to its own “strategic autonomy”. Recent, agreement with US and Japan, distorts India‘s position of neutrality in ―world strategy‖ for sure.
To conclude, India‘s ―strategy Autonomy‖ has changed but not terms of ―Substance‖, and only in terms of ―Responsibility‖. India as an important rising nuclear powered nation needs Global strategic policy which includes (East, West, South and North). Our government (formed of any political party) is committed to world peace and prosperity of all people of world as enshrined in Article 51 of Indian Constitution.