16/05/2025

India's Multidirectional Foreign Policy

India's steady rise over the past decades has been one of the most remarkable developments in international politics. The multidirectional nature of its global strategy, combined with the high professionalism of its diplomats, has resulted in a significant expansion of its international influence and in the clarification of its foreign policy profile.

A central figure in this process over the last decade has been its current Minister of External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, a sharp observer of the international arena and an assertive advocate for India’s national interests. In carrying out his duties, this brilliant career diplomat is far from naive, referring to competition among nations—be it military, economic, technological, or geographic—as “the games nations have always played.” His thinking may offer relevant insights for Argentina’s own foreign policy.

Jaishankar believes that foreign policy involves clinically analyzing the global landscape and assessing a nation’s capabilities. He argues that we are heading toward an era of high volatility and disruption, in which navigation must go hand in hand with risk and threat mitigation. Interdependence among nations, in itself, cannot always be relied upon as a secure foundation for international peace and security. He maintains that the global rebalancing of power—with Asia playing a prominent role—will naturally lead to multipolarity. While rising powers tend to prefer stability, India must plan its ascent amid deep unpredictability.

To illustrate the complexity of implementing Indian foreign policy, Jaishankar often describes it as a mandala—multidirectional, radial, and patterned—though always susceptible to modifications in certain elements or structures, yet without losing sight of national interests. In 2020, the minister noted that it was time to engage the United States, manage China, cultivate Europe, reassure Russia, bring Japan into play, attract neighboring countries, and extend the neighborhood.

However, a show of force by China on India’s border in May 2021—at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic—prompted New Delhi to reassess its relationship with Beijing and adjust certain patterns in its diplomatic mandala. As an immediate response, tens of thousands of troops and military equipment were sent to the shared border. India then deepened its commitment to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—with Australia, the U.S., and Japan—to coordinate planning and naval actions in the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, it opted not to join the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific. This repositioning vis-à-vis China increased strategic-military cooperation with the U.S., with both sides seeking a bilateral agreement to double mutual trade by 2030.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine complicated India’s diplomatic courtship of Europe but simultaneously offered an opportunity to reaffirm ties with Moscow. India adopted an ambivalent stance toward the conflict, purchasing Russian oil during the European embargo. Nevertheless, India maintained close relations with France—its second-largest military supplier—signing deals for Rafale fighter jets and acquiring three Scorpène submarines. With Germany, India agreed to purchase six submarines from Thyssen-Krupp. At the same time, the continued purchase of Russian oil and arms—Moscow remains New Delhi’s top weapons supplier—strengthened its strategic alignment with Russia. A clear demonstration of India's multidirectional approach is its simultaneous acquisition of S-400 missiles from Russia, MH-60 helicopters and P-8 aircraft from the U.S., Rafale jets from France, and Spice bombs from Israel.

When it comes to regional outreach, India’s efforts have seen mixed results. It supported Sri Lanka during its 2022 economic crisis and finalized border agreements with Bangladesh. However, relations with Pakistan remain tense, focusing primarily on condemning and responding to terrorism on Indian soil, such as the recent attack on tourists in Kashmir. Following Indian airstrikes on terrorist group bases in Pakistan, Islamabad retaliated by targeting Indian military facilities, claiming Indian attacks on three Pakistani airbases. Yet, there has been no troop mobilization to date, and U.S. mediation has effectively de-escalated tensions. A particularly traumatic episode was the informal trade blockade imposed by India on Nepal in 2015, prompted by dissatisfaction with Nepal's new constitution. This blockade, which occurred just after a devastating earthquake, is still bitterly remembered in Kathmandu due to the severe shortages of food and medicine it caused.

What is new is the emergence of the concept of an “extended neighborhood,” stretching from the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific. This informal geography encompasses all locations east and west of India that can be reached within a six-hour flight. Within this framework, India has strongly condemned Hamas’s terrorist attacks against Israel while simultaneously expressing support for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Jaishankar notes that from a distance, this integrated foreign policy may resemble a swan gliding gracefully on the surface, concealing the frantic paddling beneath. That unseen motion consists largely of internal debates and complex interactions with foreign officials, with whom strong professional and personal ties must be cultivated. In these critical engagements—especially in a continent with numerous autocratic regimes—Indian diplomacy must pragmatically deal with both democratic and “less cyclical” leaders.

The minister also asserts that, given India’s current political landscape—with the Bharatiya Janata Party in power—a nationalist worldview will naturally yield a nationalist foreign policy, and that the world must adapt to this reality.

According to Jaishankar, India must draw strength from its historical and cultural heritage while facing future challenges with the optimism offered by democracy and technology. The world will witness a new India, one capable of defining its own interests, articulating independent positions, crafting its own solutions, and advancing its own model. These traits will undoubtedly reinforce the execution of its multidirectional foreign policy.

Patricio Carmody is a specialist in International Relations. He holds a degree in Industrial Engineering from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA), an MBA from Dartmouth College, and is a doctoral candidate in International Relations at the École des Hautes Études Internationales in Paris. He has completed postgraduate programs at the Kennedy School of Government (Harvard) and Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) in partnership with the World Bank. Carmody worked at PepsiCo Inc. for over three decades, where he served as Vice President of Global Marketing for PepsiCo Foods (based in New York), Vice President for the Asia-Pacific region, and Vice President in Brazil, in addition to positions in Spain, Portugal, and Argentina.