India's unrealised Indo-Pacific destiny

The idea of Indo-Pacific is an evolving one, with scholars interpreting it according to their point of view. Aditi Malhotra's refreshing new book offers a theoretical perspective

India in the Indo-Pacific: Understanding India’s Security Orientation towards Southeast and East Asia

Author: Aditi Malhotra

Publisher: Verlag Barbara Budrich

Price: Rs 5,783

In the last decade, Indo-Pacific has become a buzzword in international politics. The origin of the term can be traced to a speech by the late Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe in 2007 while addressing India’s Parliament. Japan has been a strong advocate of the idea of the Indo-Pacific. Even though India has been regarded as a focal point in the Indo-Pacific, it has been consistent on its stance of free and open Indo-Pacific and has not been comfortable with it being an exclusive grouping. However, the idea of Indo-Pacific has gained support from the US, when Washington renamed its Pacific command the Indo-Pacific command in 2018. On the other hand, China has been wary and has constantly argued that this is a grouping that is strategically formulated to challenge and curtail Chinese influence and rise in the region.

The Indo-Pacific idea provides an image of the interconnectedness of the seas and the role that naval power can play in managing and controlling the sea lanes of communication. The importance of the Indo-Pacific also emerges from the fact that sea routes are one of the primary routes for the transport of resources and energy. Most goods still move through sea routes. Any idea or indication of strategically using these routes can affect countries adversely. No surprise that Beijing has been worried about the movement of its resources that is rooted in the Malacca Dilemma, which refers to the US presence of the Straits of Malacca through which the bulk of cargo is transported to China.

India in Indo-Pacific: Understanding India’s Security Orientation towards Southeast and East Asia by Aditi Malhotra is an attempt to analyse and understand New Delhi’s  foreign policy approach towards the Indo-Pacific by basing the argument in strong theoretical perspectives, especially the Role Theory. “The Role Theory explains a state’s foreign policy behaviour by focusing on the unit of role(s)”). With the help of the Role Theory the author attempts to locate India’s policy behaviours domestically as well as externally vis-à-vis new developments in the region. The author also provides a detailed historical background to the evolution of the Indian foreign policy towards Southeast Asia and East Asia since independence.

Indian perceptions towards these regions have changed drastically. This change is not only on account of the external environment but has also been strongly driven by domestic concerns. The author highlights this idea by arguing that “foreign policy is not immune to ideational attributes, material factors and structural settings at home”. Eventually, she adds, “It became a well-established role conception after external actors grew supportive in view of India’s economic emergence and its security potential”. So, the domestic strengthening of the Indian economy made it more attractive to external actors who believed that India could play an important role in the region.

India-China relations, however, play a crucial role in determining the direction of Indian foreign policy towards Southeast and East Asia. India-China share a disputed border and a turbulent history. Today, China is the world’s second largest economy, and this economic growth has reflected in strong military modernisation. Thus, it is no surprise, that “the Chinese leadership does not accept India as an equal in Asia and generally prescribes a limited subcontinental role to New Delhi”.

With the strengthening of ties between India and Japan, and the warming of relations between India and the US, however, New Delhi is seen as a potential active player in the East Asian region. So the concept of Indo-Pacific, which gained strength from Abe’s speech, expects New Delhi to play a critical role. “India was indispensable within the ambit of Japan’s diplomatic vision and the Arc of Freedom and Prosperity,” the author writes. In the last few years, India-US and India-Japan relations have consistently become stronger. In addition to this, India’s growing focus towards Southeast Asia is also because those countries want India to play a role in the region. The growing Chinese assertion in the South China Sea has complicated the security environment there. With the ongoing territorial disputes and the rise in Chinese military and economic strength, the smaller nations in the region need an alternative. The question is: Can New Delhi be that alternative?

As the author argues, in the case of India-Vietnam relations, “Vietnam regards India as one of the important states in the network of five major powers and not an exclusive country of choice …. and if push comes to shove and Vietnam is compelled to ever “balance” or contain China, India is unlikely to be the first choice”. This underscores the argument that New Delhi is not a primary potential alternative for Southeast Asian countries, and they still do look at the United States or Japan. Given the fact that India has several domestic and regional challenges, it appears to be restricted in its capacity to actively participate in Southeast Asia.

The idea of Indo-Pacific is an evolving one and every scholar and student has been interpreting it according to their point of view. What makes this book different and refreshing is that the author attempts to analyse developments in the Indo-Pacific from a theoretical perspective. She attempts to discuss the idea of the Indo-Pacific and not just provide a descriptive compilation of India’s relations with the countries in the region. This makes it a useful addition to the growing literature on the subject.

The reviewer is assistant professor, OP Jindal Global University