One takeaway from the recent India-Pakistan military confrontation following the Pahalgam terrorist attack is that the policy of multi-alignment has inherent limitations during conflicts and wars. The more I think about the utility of multi-alignment, I am convinced that while multi-alignment offers several benefits and serves as an excellent strategy during peacetime, its usefulness is inherently limited in times of conflict or war. Put differently, and somewhat bluntly, does multi-alignment or the absence of specific, strong and committed strategic partnerships compromise our ability to respond effectively to externally induced national security challenges?

In an unstable and chaotic international system, states tend to hedge and avoid firm commitments, choosing to keep their options open—unless there are mutual, long-term, and clearly defined strategic interests at play. This is where multi-alignment faces challenges, especially during national security crises like the present one: there aren’t many countries that are willing to stand with us unconditionally, unequivocally and regardless of the circumstances.

While the outcome of this conflict is most definitely independent of whether India’s strategic partners pitch in with any assistance, this conflict must, however, make us consider whether multi-alignment is effective in times of national security contingencies.

Part of the reason why multi-alignment is........

© hindustantimes