Does Prime Minister Modi’s strategy of strategic autonomy and refusal to ‘bend the knee’ offer a more effective model of middle-power diplomacy than the UK’s alliance-dependent approach, as illustrated by contrasting treatment from U.S. leaders?
Strategic Autonomy and Alliance Dependence: Two Models of Middle-Power Diplomacy
In international relations theory, middle powers face a perennial dilemma: align closely with a hegemon to maximise security, or retain autonomy to preserve flexibility and status. The UK has traditionally chosen the former, embedding itself deeply within U.S.-led institutions, intelligence networks, and military coalitions. This strategy delivered influence during the Cold War and immediate post-Cold War period, when U.S. leadership was stable and institutionalised.
India’s approach has been different. Rooted in non-alignment and adapted for a multipolar world, Modi’s strategic autonomy does not reject partnership with the U.S., but resists subordination to it. India cooperates where interests converge (Quad, defence technology, Indo-Pacific security) while maintaining independent positions on Russia, trade, and regional security.
Transactional Great-Power Politics and the Cost of Dependence
The Trump era revealed the vulnerabilities of alliance dependence. Trump repeatedly questioned NATO allies’ military value and publicly criticised the UK’s role in Afghanistan, implying a lack of sacrifice by British forces. These remarks were factually contested but politically damaging. Britain’s deep alignment meant it had limited scope to challenge the narrative forcefully without appearing disloyal.
By contrast, when Trump made provocative claims about India, including exaggerated or false assertions about military engagements over Operation Sindoor – lying about Indian losses, as he did lie about British losses in Afghanistan, New Delhi responded with firm denial and strategic silence rather than public deference. India’s posture allowed it to contest the narrative without jeopardising a formal alliance because no alliance hierarchy existed to violate.
Narrative Sovereignty and Diplomatic Dignity
Britain’s alliance-centric identity, by contrast, ties prestige to proximity. When affirmation is withheld, humiliation follows. The UK’s inability to publicly rebut Trump’s Afghanistan remarks without risking alliance optics illustrates how dependence can undermine dignity even when material cooperation remains strong.
Middle Powers in a Multipolar World
The contemporary shift toward multipolarity weakens the protective value of rigid alliances. Power is diffused, institutions are contested, and leaders are less constrained by diplomatic norms. In such a system, flexibility becomes a strategic asset.
India’s model aligns well with this reality. It hedges across relationships, avoids entrapment, and maintains credibility with multiple blocs. The UK’s model, by contrast, remains anchored to a unipolar memory that no longer exists.
This does not mean Britain should abandon alliances, but that it must recalibrate from dependence to selective alignment. Strategic autonomy, properly understood, is not anti-alliance; it is anti-subordination. India got it right.
