But Russia has moved dramatically closer to Beijing, making China increasingly important to its economic and strategic calculations. Putin may be the leader with whom Modi has the most durable strategic chemistry. But he is also increasingly tied to China, with which India has been walking on eggshells for decades. An India-Russia-China troika confronting America is, therefore, more fantasy than strategy. China wants greater primacy in Asia, India wants an Asian balance and Russia wants to remain an independent pole. Shared perturbation about American paramountcy is not common destiny.
Trump has made India’s economic autonomy harder to preserve. His unpredictable coercive diplomacy has exposed the uncomfortable truth that strategic partnership does not abolish strategic self interest. Tariffs have been weaponised and trade negotiations have acquired the character of coercive bargaining. None of this makes America an adversary. India needs America for technology, investment, defence and the Indo Pacific.
But the closer the relationship becomes, the more important it is for India to assert its right to disagree. A partnership that cannot survive disagreement is not a partnership between equals. It’s a hierarchy disguised as friendship. India’s dilemma is that every major relationship is indispensable for a different reason. America offers technology and capital; Russia provides defence continuity and energy; China is simultaneously India’s principal Asian security challenge, an unavoidable neighbour and a major economic power. The answer cannot be equidistance. It has to be freedom of manoeuvre and management.
For India, prudent autonomy means moving closer to Washington at her own terms. Retain intimacy with Moscow without becoming hostage to Russia’s dependence upon Beijing. But autonomy requires capability: economic resilience, military credibility, technological depth and diplomatic confidence. This is where Modi’s personal diplomacy faces its hardest examination. Putin has preserved a vital partnership; Xi engagement has prevented permanent hostility; Washington has brought technology and strategic depth. But diplomacy cannot be measured by access or applause. It must be measured by outcomes.
