Autonomy under strain? Growing American shadow on Indian foreign policy

By Ram Puniyani 

After independence, India’s foreign policy was rooted in the principle of non-alignment. The country refused to submit to either of the two dominant Cold War blocs led by the United States and the Soviet Union. Pakistan, by contrast, aligned itself closely with the United States from the beginning. American influence, combined with the role of the military and religious establishments, contributed to the weakening of democracy there and the rise of Muslim communal politics. Even today, religious extremism and military dominance continue to shape Pakistan’s political landscape. One military general after another has either directly ruled the country or exercised overwhelming influence over political affairs. The recent invitation extended by Donald Trump to Field Marshal Asif Munir for an official dinner reflects the continuing centrality of the military establishment in Pakistan.

It was often jokingly said that Pakistan was ruled by the “three As” — Allah, the American ambassador, and the Army. Though exaggerated, the phrase reflected an underlying reality: when politics becomes deeply entangled with religion, democratic institutions weaken and authoritarian tendencies gain strength.

India, on the other hand, charted a relatively independent course. It pursued multi-dimensional development with support from different nations while maintaining strategic autonomy. One example was the establishment of the first five IITs, each built with assistance from different major countries. India resisted pressure from global powers, and one of the clearest examples came during the events leading to the creation of Bangladesh.

At the time, the Pakistani military was carrying out brutal repression in East Pakistan, forcing millions of refugees into India. US President Richard Nixon warned India against intervening. Yet Prime Minister Indira Gandhi refused to yield. Instead, India signed a Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union and intervened militarily despite the presence of the US Seventh Fleet in the Bay of Bengal. The Indian Army, alongside the Mukti Bahini, helped liberate East Pakistan from the domination of West Pakistan, which had attempted to impose Urdu as the sole national language on the Bengali-speaking population. India ignored American pressure and supported the aspirations of the people of East Pakistan, leading to the birth of Bangladesh.

After 2014, India’s foreign policy gradually began shifting closer to American strategic interests. India also deepened its relations with Israel while weakening its traditionally close ties with Iran and Palestine. During “Operation Sindoor” and the subsequent military tensions between India and Pakistan, India maintained that the ceasefire emerged through bilateral talks and Pakistan’s request. However, Trump repeatedly claimed that his administration had used economic pressure to secure the ceasefire.

For decades, Pakistan has been projected in India as the country’s principal enemy. Yet there were also efforts to foster peace between citizens of both nations through initiatives such as Aman Ki Asha and Indo-Pak people-to-people forums. Aman Ki Asha, launched jointly by The Times of India and Pakistan’s Jang newspaper, sought to encourage dialogue and reconciliation. At the same time, Kashmir remained a central issue between the two countries. Kashmiris have faced violence from militants crossing over from Pakistan as well as the burden of heavy militarisation within civilian areas.

The stance of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party toward Pakistan now appears to be evolving. RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale recently stated that the doors for dialogue between India and Pakistan should always remain open. This is noteworthy because the Sangh Parivar has historically blamed Jawaharlal Nehru for the Kashmir issue while consistently foregrounding the conflict in its political narrative.

Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had earlier attempted to improve ties through his Lahore bus journey, and later Pakistani ruler Pervez Musharraf visited India. Yet the deadlock persisted. Against this backdrop, Hosabale’s statement is seen as a potentially significant departure. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has also linked India-Pakistan relations to the idea of “Akhand Bharat.” Meanwhile, the BJP government has shown little interest in revitalising South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), once envisioned as a platform for regional cooperation in South Asia.

Hosabale claims that keeping dialogue open has always been the RSS position, though this marks a noticeable shift in tone. Since the statement came after his visit to the United States, some observers suspect American influence behind the change. Whether or not that is true, India increasingly appears willing to accommodate American strategic priorities. This is reflected in India’s muted response when the United States reportedly raised import tariffs sharply before partially reducing them again, as well as in India’s compliance with American pressure regarding purchases of Russian crude oil.

This argument was further reinforced by remarks made by senior BJP-RSS leader Ram Madhav at the Hudson Institute in Washington, where he reportedly acknowledged that India had accepted American decisions on tariffs and Russian oil imports. Though he later withdrew the remarks following criticism, the controversy intensified concerns that India’s strategic autonomy was weakening.

The RSS has historically aligned itself with several American geopolitical positions, including support for the US war in Vietnam. Its political wing, the former Bharatiya Jana Sangh, opposed the mixed-economy and public-sector development model that played a major role in India’s industrialisation after independence.

Pakistan’s dependence on the United States weakened its democratic institutions and hindered the development of independent industrial, educational, and research infrastructure. India now risks moving in a similar direction. The present government’s emphasis on identity politics, cow protection debates, and religious symbolism has increasingly overshadowed scientific and educational advancement. The rejection of evolutionary theory, the removal of Mendeleev’s periodic table from parts of the curriculum, and the growing influence of godmen and superstition reflect a broader shift away from rational and scientific thinking. Combined with closer alignment to American strategic interests, these trends raise concerns about the future of India’s democracy, secularism, and independent development trajectory.

---

The author formerly taught at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay and is the president of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism