Opinion | The Great Pivot: How India Is Balancing The New Multipolar World

Gautam R Desiraju and Venkatakrishnan Asuri

Ultimately, it is Sanātana Dharma that provides the key to navigating this complexity, and Bharat is embracing this approach by leveraging its inherent strengths

Throughout history, a pivot state occupies a unique position in the global order, acquiring leverage between warring states, even at times without having the heft of the major players in the conflict.

In plain terms, and as its name suggests, a pivot serves as a fulcrum upon which rests the balance of power between the multiple competing powers or empires.

Right Word | From Harrow To Harvard: Confronting The Many Faces Of Hinduphobia In The West

Opinion | Why The Great Nicobar Project Matters More Than Ever

Opinion | Bangladesh After Poll Results: Jamaat's Rise Is A Wake-Up Call For India

Opinion | Mandal 2.0 In Bihar: When Social Justice Moves From State To Market

However, history has also shown that pivot states do not remain pivots indefinitely. The sheer exhaustion of continual monkey-balancing often (and automatically) forces a pivot state to move towards a more definitive alignment. It either becomes a proxy of one of the major states or graduates to become a major power in its own right.

The best recent example of the pivot state was during the great European conflicts of the 17th and 18th centuries, when England and Russia served as pivots for the European subcontinent, easily able to tilt the continental balance of power in smaller conflicts. In the extreme case, no European power could win a war if, by mischance, it alienated both these pivots, which were at the geographical extremities of the continent, forming a giant nutcracker that could destroy anything in the middle if it chose to fight both. This was a lesson that both Napoleon and Hitler failed to understand and refused to accept – that a pivot state, by refusing to assimilate, can eventually determine the fate of the hegemon.

India chose a cautious entry into the world of geopolitics when it became independent, with a mixture of pragmatism, half-heartedness and altruism, preferring to stay non-aligned with respect to both world hegemons of the post-World War 2 era, the United States and the Soviet Union. With three other relatively poor countries, Egypt, Indonesia and Yugoslavia, all suffering from a post-colonial hangover, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was indeed a remarkable show of collective doughtiness in a strongly bipolar world where if one was not an ally, one was an enemy. The only fig-leaf of respectability that NAM could hold on to was the pretence of multilateralism, which was more a polite way of enforcing the rules-based order of the US in the so-called “free world" or the jackboots-based order of the Warsaw Pact countries.

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 marked a significant turning point in international relations, leading to a decline in the relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). During this period, the geopolitical landscape transitioned from a bipolar world, dominated by the US and the USSR, to a monopolar one characterised by the United States asserting itself as the global authority and “world’s policeman." This monopolar dominance persisted until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

However, geopolitical dynamics are subject to change, and the rise of China—facilitated by US assistance—coupled with a growing disillusionment with NATO, particularly from Russia, led to the emergence of a new doctrine: the multipolar paradigm. This development signifies a profound reorganisation among states, moving from simplistic binary categories to a more complex understanding of international relations.

Countries began to perceive themselves not just as individual entities but as integral parts of larger, interconnected systems. During this transformative period, India redefined its national identity, increasingly viewing itself not merely as India, but as Bhārat, a significant player on the Eurasian landmass, echoing the ideas of geopolitician Halford John Mackinder. This shift reflects a broader recognition of the intricate relationships among nations in a multipolar world.

The recent, highly anticipated India-EU agreement, often referred to as the “mother of all deals," marks a significant milestone that took 20 years to finalise. This event highlights how thoroughly India has grasped its crucial role in the evolving global landscape. India has skillfully navigated relations with four major players—the US, Russia, China, and Europe—securing favourable positions with each, while maintaining a delicate balance that avoids crossing any lines with these powers, despite the often-fluctuating dynamics among them.

India has reached an initial trade deal with the United States while maintaining a balance in its energy purchases from Russia. The country has gradually reduced its dependence on Russian oil without causing offence to Russia. At the same time, India has committed to buying oil from Venezuela, paying for it in dollars as preferred by the US. China, traditionally viewed as a rival, has been forced to purchase the surplus Russian oil in a seller’s market.

However, it recognises the need for India as a market to export its goods, especially at a time when it is reluctant to send money abroad in order to strengthen its position in distant regions. As a result, China cannot afford to offend India too much. Under the agreement with the European Union, India gains access to high-quality European goods, which will help foster a greater appreciation for quality in a country where it has been lacking. In return, Europe gains access to India’s vast domestic market.

This deal aims to boost manufacturing in India, creating jobs as service-related employment declines due to AI advancements. The trade agreement with Europe comes at an opportune time, revitalising Europe’s economic standing. It also catalysed India’s trade deal with the US, signed shortly after the EU pact. Notably, India has achieved these goals while maintaining its domestic interests as the focus of its foreign policy. As noted by the Greek Foreign Minister, India has transitioned from a second-choice country to an indispensable partner for the great powers, including Europe.

Looking at the EU deal in a geostrategic context, it can be seen as a team-up of two weaker powers, India and Europe, against two stronger ones, the US and China, with Russia possibly serving as a new pivot, with India expending minimal political capital. This is classical Chanakyan thinking. A traditional pivot state in a simple bipolar or unipolar world suffers from the obvious disadvantage that it can end up offending either power between which it pivots when its monkey-balancing cannot go further. Bhārat has now found that it is possibly easier to pivot in a complex, multipolar world than in a simple bipolar one, because complexity, in and of itself, implies balancing. By thinking of itself as a useful and tactful intermediary in a number of small binaries, it can acquire an identity as the sole pivot in a non-binary world. It is a truism that in any complex system, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Never has this been truer than in India’s handling of the other four entities, the US, China, Russia and the EU, today. It is the return of the pivot, but it is a pivot that is operating on new and complex ground rules. In effect, India has reclaimed its role with a degree of sophistication and has moved beyond its age-old policy of mere survival to actively participating in the reshaping of the disintegrating world order. The pivot is also serving its own economic interests—and how!

It is enlightening to compare Bhārat and China concerning their attitudes toward simplicity and complexity. A key distinction between the rise of Bhārat and China lies in their respective strategic schools of thought. The philosophy of Sun Tzu emphasises direct confrontation with opponents, employing deception if necessary, with the ultimate aim of defeating the adversary in battle.

In contrast, Chanakya’s perspective differs significantly. He does not perceive the world as merely a series of confrontations or wars; rather, he views it as a complex system, a permanent state of existence where the balancing of mandalas creates a situation in which many can succeed. This approach to balancing differs from what might be termed “monkey-balancing", especially if understood in its usual context. In this comparison, one might argue that the Chinese state is not truly civilisational. Unlike Bhārat, it operates as a comparatively simple top-down system optimised for centralised control, influenced by Confucian principles. This simplicity shapes its interactions with others as one would expect in any straightforward system.

In today’s increasingly multipolar world, we’ve turned to the framework of complex systems to better understand the dynamics of interactions between global entities. The dissolution of the Soviet Union marked a pivotal transition from a unipolar world dominated by direct, confrontational power to a complex interplay characterised by weaker, more nuanced interactions.

In this new landscape, the cumulative effect of these weak interactions has become crucial. Ultimately, it is Sanātana Dharma that provides the key to navigating this complexity, and Bharat is embracing this approach by leveraging its inherent strengths.

Gautam Desiraju is a Professor Emeritus in IISc Bengaluru and Visiting Distinguished Professor in UPES Dehradun. Venkatakrishnan Asuri is a B.Tech student in IIT Madras. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.

© News18