-By Abhinav Shankar
Part-1:- Why India is Rejecting the Washington-Beijing Binary
For recent decade, the world’s strategic conversation has been imprisoned by an assumption so deeply embedded that few pause to question it: every consequential nation must eventually choose between Washington and Beijing. The United States sees the twenty-first century as a contest to preserve a liberal international order against China’s revisionist ambitions. China views the same century as an irreversible transfer of power from the Atlantic to Asia. Most analyses of Indian foreign policy begin with the same flawed premise that New Delhi, sooner or later, must settle into one camp or the other. India is quietly rejecting the premise itself.
What is emerging is neither strategic ambiguity nor a sophisticated balancing act. It is something far more consequential: a geopolitical doctrine that could be described as “Minus Two”: an India that seeks to build an independent strategic pole by deliberately reducing structural dependence on both the United States and China.
This should not be confused with India’s post independence nation-state based non-alignment policy. As non-alignment belonged to a bipolar Cold War where newly independent states sought space between two ideological superpowers. It rested substantially on moral persuasion, developmental solidarity and the belief that international legitimacy could be shaped through normative leadership. It reflected the worldview of a post-colonial nation-state seeking room for economic development while avoiding military entanglement.
Today’s India inhabits an entirely different strategic universe. It no longer defines itself merely as a nation-state seeking security. Increasingly, it behaves like a civilisational state seeking influence.
The distinction matters. Nation-states often think in electoral cycles, economic indicators and territorial defence. Civilisational states think in centuries. They pursue strategic depth, technological sovereignty, cultural confidence and geopolitical permanence. Their objective is not simply survival but shaping the architecture of international order. India’s recent behaviour increasingly reflects this longer horizon.
The shift did not occur because India suddenly became more ambitious. It occurred because the international system became less trustworthy. The American alliance system, once regarded as the most dependable strategic insurance available, has begun exhibiting visible fractures. Allies across continents now openly debate whether American commitments survive changes in administrations. European anxieties, Middle Eastern recalibrations and Asian hedging all point towards the same uncomfortable conclusion: the credibility premium once attached to Washington is no longer absolute.
For India, this carries particular significance. The memory of sanctions after Pokhran, repeated American accommodation of Pakistan during critical periods with latest example of Operation Sindoor, abrupt withdrawals from conflict zones, changing trade priorities, sudden tariffs and the transactional nature of contemporary American politics all reinforce one strategic lesson: partnerships are valuable; dependence is dangerous.
China presents the opposite problem. Unlike the uncertainty surrounding American commitments, Chinese hostility is remarkably consistent. The Line of Actual Control remains contested. Beijing continues military modernisation at an unprecedented pace while expanding influence across the Indian Ocean through ports, logistics facilities and financial leverage. Simultaneously, Chinese industrial dominance creates supply-chain dependencies that translate economic power into geopolitical coercion.
India therefore confronts two different strategic risks. One partner may become unreliable. The other remains an enduring competitor. The logical response is not to oscillate between them. It is to outgrow both. This is the essence of Minus Two. Its foundations are visible across multiple domains.
(Abhinav shankar is an amazon best selling Author, Technocrat & a Commentator on geopolity, economy & public policy matters.)
