1장
India's Strategic Awakening in a Fractured World
In a world where geopolitical certainties are crumbling, "The India Way" offers a rare insider's perspective on how rising powers navigate global turbulence. Written by S. Jaishankar-Harvard-educated diplomat turned External Affairs Minister-this book has become required reading in diplomatic circles from Washington to Beijing. When Barack Obama included it on his 2022 summer reading list, it catapulted into bestseller status, praised for its candid assessment of India's strategic challenges. What makes this work particularly fascinating is how it breaks from diplomatic niceties to deliver unvarnished truths about international relations. Drawing from ancient Indian strategic wisdom while addressing contemporary challenges, Jaishankar articulates how a civilization with 5,000 years of history positions itself in a world where power is rapidly shifting eastward. For anyone seeking to understand how India-soon to be the world's most populous nation and third-largest economy-views its place in the emerging world order, this book provides the essential roadmap.
2장
The Lessons of History: Avoiding Strategic Complacency
Like the nawabs in Satyajit Ray's film who remained absorbed in chess while the British East India Company seized their kingdom, India cannot afford strategic obliviousness as another global power rises in its proximity. China's emergence should ideally inspire India to sharpen its competitive instincts rather than retreat into complacency.
The international landscape is undergoing momentous shifts-a larger rebalancing overlaid by regional volatility, increased risk-taking, stronger nationalism, and rejection of globalization. Most critically, America's recalibrated posture-long the bedrock of the international system-and its response to China's rise may determine contemporary politics. As India rises in the world order, it must visualize its interests with clarity and communicate them effectively.
International relations may focus on other nations, but neither unfamiliarity nor indifference lessens its consequences. Rather than allowing events to overtake us, we must anticipate and analyze them-something not reflected in India's history, as demonstrated by the "Panipat syndrome" where invading forces repeatedly entered the Indian heartland for decisive battles.
India's historical misjudgments have been costly: agnosticism about WWII's outcome had major repercussions; Cold War mishandling allowed Pakistan to close the power differential; understanding of China has been inadequate; and political romanticism led to misjudging power equations. Missed economic opportunities by turning away from global progress further impacted India's standing, though recent stronger realpolitik has begun overcoming entrenched dogma.
The rise of China as a potential superpower is naturally disruptive. When societies are built on different principles, reconciling contestation with collaboration becomes harder. For India, this scenario raises strategic challenges that must be handled adroitly. With America reinventing itself and the US-China dynamic evolving, India's rise must navigate difficult waters in an era of greater uncertainty. Mastering mind games and playing hardball become essential in a more visceral world where the rules-based order faces unprecedented challenges.
3장
Navigating the Global Disruption
In this turbulent era of new politics, India must pursue multiple approaches-both orthodox and imaginative-while leveraging partnerships with global powers. Though America's revisiting of first principles has profound consequences, China's rise demands equal attention, offering lessons in demonstrating global relevance. India must navigate a more nationalistic world where diplomacy extracts gains through competition while supporting a rules-based order.
India carries three historical burdens: the 1947 Partition that reduced its strategic space, delayed economic reforms that created a capability gap with China, and prolonged nuclear ambivalence. Yet current global disruptions present opportunities through neighborhood engagement, ASEAN partnerships, and Japan's evolving security posture.
The world faces an extraordinary prospect of its two leading players-the US and China-doing whatever it takes to win. For decades, China was winning without fighting while the US fought without winning. America's famous optimism eroded, culminating in the 2016 election where the upholder of the international system turned revolutionary, while China now defends the status quo.
This disruption isn't entirely unprecedented-"America First" has historical precedents, and many nations prioritize national interests over international responsibilities. What's different is America's global magnitude. The insecurities created by globalization in the West are difficult for many in Asia to comprehend, as the uneven distribution of benefits within and between societies was overshadowed by the advantages of a seamless global economy.
The competition is fundamentally about disruption itself-control over emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, hypersonics and biotechnology will determine global influence. This isn't simply the entrenched power resisting the rising one; history shows dominant powers sometimes help aspirants rise, as the US did with China since the 1970s.
The Sino-US competition will be a protracted contest without clear outcomes, unfolding through tensions, negotiations and adjustments. An America choosing to be a higher-cost but more insular economy, a nationalistic but innovative technology creator, and a self-sufficient but more powerful military would transform the global landscape.
For India, navigating this disrupted world requires strategic clarity without excessive caution that prevents seizing opportunities. India cannot give any nation veto power over its policy options, especially in a world where all significant players maintain flexibility in their choices. When the smoke clears, a fundamentally different global architecture will emerge.
4장
Krishna's Choice: Strategic Culture of a Rising Power
The strategic culture of a rising power requires navigating complex choices in an increasingly multipolar world. Like Krishna in the Mahabharata who made difficult decisions for the greater good, India faces its own strategic dilemmas in positioning itself among competing powers. The nation must balance pragmatism with principle, leveraging its growing influence while maintaining strategic autonomy in relationships with major powers like the US, China, and Russia.
As India rises, questions emerge about what kind of power it will become - a status quo power, a revisionist force, or a unique hybrid reflecting its civilizational ethos. The answer lies partly in the Mahabharata, which deeply influences Indian strategic thinking with its multipolar setting where leading powers balanced each other until competition between two major poles forced others to take sides. Krishna's strategic guidance, particularly his counsel to Arjuna at crucial junctures, provides a sophisticated model for India's approach to international relations, emphasizing selective engagement and strategic restraint.
The epic offers crucial lessons for modern statecraft: the importance of resolve in implementing key policies despite potential consequences (exemplified by Arjuna's battlefield dilemma and Krishna's insistence on duty); the need for rising powers to display responsibility while developing capabilities (illustrated by Krishna's patience with Shishupala's hundred transgressions); the wisdom of looking beyond conventional thinking (demonstrated by Arjuna choosing Krishna's guidance over his mighty army); the challenges of playing by rules when others don't (as seen in the Kurukshetra war's ethical dilemmas); and navigating the complex ethics of deception in international relations (reflected in Krishna's strategic interventions).
India's contemporary challenges mirror these ancient dilemmas - whether confronting cross-border terrorism, responding to territorial provocations, or developing strategic patience in regional conflicts. The narrative emphasizes that asserting national interests is the dharma of a state, while cautioning against both excessive deliberation masquerading as strategic wisdom and reckless advocacy of force without considering consequences. Unlike authoritarian societies more skilled at strategic deception, India's democratic nature requires building broader consensus across political and institutional stakeholders to implement cohesive strategies.
This strategic culture manifests in India's current approach to international relations - maintaining strategic autonomy while building partnerships, developing military capabilities while emphasizing peaceful resolution, and balancing regional interests with global aspirations. The lessons from Krishna's choices continue to influence India's diplomatic positioning, military modernization, and strategic decision-making in an increasingly complex global landscape where traditional alliances are evolving and new power centers are emerging.
5장
Overcoming the Dogmas of Delhi
In a society where opposition always opposes, it's harder to reconcile narrative gaps with intent. China has elevated dissimulation to high statecraft, glorifying deception in works like the 36 Stratagems, while India struggles with gaps between declared policy and actual objectives. Whether with China, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka, India finds dual-track policies challenging when contradictions face public scrutiny. A cohesive elite better executes strategic deception.
Pakistan, like the Trigarta warriors in Mahabharata, demonstrates single-minded hostility toward India, corroding its own system with forces it nurtures. India needs strategic clarity about Pakistan, recognizing visceral feelings while acknowledging neighbors aren't choices. Practical responses include ending protection for terrorists, enforcing accountability, abandoning naive engagement, and making Pakistan's posture costly to sustain.
India's foreign policy evolution reveals both successes and missed opportunities. Historical judgments often overlooked security implications, with an overemphasis on diplomacy leading to misunderstandings of other nations' behavior. The 1972 Shimla Agreement exemplifies this problem-India's optimistic approach resulted in both a revanchist Pakistan and continuing Kashmir issues. Economic considerations form another critical dimension, as successful growth stories globally have leveraged international environments for national development. While India attempted this approach, it lacked the single-mindedness of nations like China and the Asian "tiger economies."
The interconnection between diplomacy, strategy and economics isn't always self-evident-the economy drives diplomacy, not vice versa. While 1990s reforms served India well, subsequent free trade agreements with Southeast and East Asia proved more challenging, with growing deficits negatively impacting domestic industry. China poses a special trade challenge even without an FTA.
Maximizing diplomatic options requires engaging multiple players while maintaining independence. This "hedging" has evolved from non-alignment to strategic autonomy to today's multiple engagements-explaining how India can simultaneously pursue seemingly contradictory relationships like "Howdy Modi" alongside Mamallapuram or Vladivostok summits, or participation in both RIC and JAI groupings. Risk-taking remains inherent to diplomacy, with India's global positioning improving through confident calculations and determined policy implementation.
6장
Public Opinion and Western Relations
The chapter opens with the observation that the "Indian Street" often shows better geopolitical instincts than the formal diplomatic establishment of "Lutyens' Delhi." Common citizens intuitively understand which countries offer better opportunities for trade, travel, emigration and education-often ahead of official policy shifts. Their sharp popular imagery of nations like Russia, America, China and Pakistan captures diplomatic complexities despite lacking formal training.
The chapter examines the complex historical relationship between India and the West, noting how Western policy toward India has been characterized by paradoxes-helping India after the 1962 conflict with China while opposing its assertion in the 1971 Bangladesh war. The West rationalized this approach by citing India's non-alignment during the Cold War, while India points to Western partiality toward Pakistan as driving it closer to the Soviet bloc.
Despite significant improvement in relations, divisive issues persist where Indian and Western interests diverge, particularly on economic and social questions affecting millions. India represents a broader developing world constituency on matters of equity and fairness, reflected in differing positions on trade, climate change, and intellectual property. As India rises, it positions itself as more "South-Western" than purely Western-aligned.
In security matters, India has sometimes suffered collateral damage from Western initiatives, such as the Afghanistan jihad that fueled terrorism in Kashmir. The author highlights Western double standards-sanctioning Myanmar's military regime while supporting Pakistan's, prioritizing strategic calculations over human rights concerns in cases like China's famine or Bangladesh's mass killings, and treating the Air India bombing differently from the PanAm Lockerbie incident.
The West's enduring influence stems from institutions and practices established during its dominance, creating a complex web of rules, regulations and narratives that shape global activity while diminishing competitors. As global power redistributes, alternatives will emerge, requiring the entrenched powers to compromise with rising ones. Unlike China, whose engagement with the West was primarily economic, India offers both economic opportunity and political compatibility through its pluralistic, democratic character.
7장
The Nimzo-Indian Defense: Managing China's Rise
The India-China relationship encompasses complex historical phases that continue to shape current interactions. After the devastating 1962 border war, which left deep psychological scars on India's political and military establishment, ambassadorial relations took fourteen years to restore. The path to normalization began with Rajiv Gandhi's groundbreaking 1988 visit to Beijing, which led to significant peace agreements in 1993 and 1996. These agreements established crucial protocols for maintaining peace along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and introduced military confidence-building measures. During this period, both nations found compelling strategic reasons to improve relations-India was increasingly concerned about strengthening US-Pakistan ties following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, while China was carefully monitoring the weakening USSR and seeking regional stability.
However, beneath the veneer of diplomatic rapprochement, China's actions revealed a more complex strategy. The transfer of nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan-described by experts as an "ultimate gift" rarely given between nations-demonstrated China's true strategic calculations regarding India. This nuclear collaboration, which began around the same time as diplomatic restoration in the 1970s, was later supplemented by sophisticated missile technology transfers, creating enduring security challenges that continue to shape South Asian geopolitics today. The provision of M-11 missiles and subsequent support for Pakistan's nuclear program illustrated China's commitment to maintaining a strategic counterweight to India in the region.
The boundary dispute remained the central obstacle, with China notably shifting its territorial focus to the eastern sector, particularly Arunachal Pradesh, which it began referring to as "South Tibet." This marked a significant departure from earlier positions taken by Chinese leaders Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping, who had suggested more flexible approaches to border resolution. Despite establishing Special Representatives for border negotiations in 2003 and officially designating China as a strategic partner, underlying tensions continued to simmer. The year 2009 emerged as a crucial turning point in China's international posture, with Beijing displaying newfound confidence through assertive policy decisions and calculated political choreography following the global financial crisis.
The economic dimension of the relationship witnessed dramatic growth, with bilateral trade expanding fifty-fold over two decades to reach approximately $100 billion. However, the trade relationship became increasingly asymmetric, with Chinese exports to India more than quadrupling its imports. This imbalance, coupled with concerns about Chinese dumping practices and market access restrictions, has generated significant resentment in Indian policy circles and public perception. The trade deficit has become a symbol of broader strategic concerns about economic dependency and industrial competitiveness.
China's expanding presence in India's neighborhood has added another layer of complexity to the relationship. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), passing through disputed territory in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, represents a direct challenge to Indian sovereignty. Additionally, China's consistent blocking of UN sanctions against Pakistan-based terrorists and its opposition to India's Nuclear Suppliers Group membership have raised questions about its willingness to accommodate India's rise. As both nations continue their ascent at different trajectories, their relationship's future will largely depend on how accommodative each proves to be of the other's core interests and ambitions, with India closely monitoring China's positions on key issues like UN Security Council reform and nuclear cooperation as indicators of genuine partnership potential.
8장
India, Japan and the Asian Balance
India's eastward policy has expanded beyond ASEAN to include Japan, South Korea, China, Australia and the Pacific Islands, fundamentally transforming India's foreign policy footprint. This shift gains significance as major powers in the region change their capabilities and influence-China's rise is already being felt while Japan's transformation is still unfolding.
Since 1945, Japan has aligned its security with American requirements while becoming an economic powerhouse. After briefly holding the position of second-largest economy from 1987-2010 before yielding to China, Japan now faces both psychological and strategic recalibration. As a trade-focused nation affected by rising regional powers, Japan must balance economic goals with security needs while navigating pressures on global supply chains and technology controls.
Japan's political diplomacy, while prioritizing its US alliance, increasingly engages in multipolar approaches. This evolution has led Japan and India to discover strategic alignment despite coming from different historical positions. Their relationship has transformed from one that was "low on ambition and high in rhetoric" to a partnership with economic potential and security cooperation, facilitated by closer US-India ties and trilateral frameworks that are reshaping Asia's political landscape.
The India-Japan relationship has evolved from primarily economic assistance to deep political convergence. Japan's Official Development Assistance has expanded significantly, funding transformative projects like metro systems and the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. Japanese business presence in India has grown with improved conditions for Japanese companies, special industrial townships, training institutes, and finance facilities.
Japan's historical technological contributions have transformed Indian sectors-from Maruti-Suzuki revolutionizing transportation to the Delhi Metro changing urban life. The creation of the Act East Forum to promote connectivity in India's Northeast and extend to neighboring countries reflects the maturing of economic cooperation into strategic policy.
9장
The Pacific Indian: Re-emerging Maritime Outlook
As the world changes, new strategic concepts emerge, with "Indo-Pacific" being among the more recent additions to the global lexicon. While Americans claim ownership due to Donald Trump's use of the term at the 2017 APEC Summit and the renaming of the US Pacific Command, Japanese point to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's "Confluence of Two Oceans" speech at the Indian Parliament a decade earlier. Indians note the term's earlier presence in their naval thinking, while Australians and ASEAN also claim connection to the concept. Regardless of origin, Indo-Pacific represents not a future forecast but yesterday's reality, driven by practitioners' compulsions rather than academic theory.
The Indo-Pacific concept means different things to different powers while remaining a priority for all. For India, it represents the logical next step beyond Act East and transcends South Asian confines. Japan sees it as part of its strategic evolution into the Indian Ocean, while the US views it as a unified theater addressing convergences central to its new posture. Russia might visualize it within its Far East emphasis, Europe sees an opportunity to return to a region it withdrew from, and China has particularly high stakes as maritime capabilities are prerequisites to its global power emergence.
This region represents the contemporary version of the Great Game, where multiple players with diverse ambitions display strategic skills through convergences and contestations along a global lifeline. Though fashionable as a strategic concept now, the Indo-Pacific has been an economic and cultural fact for centuries, with Indians and Arabs leaving imprints up to eastern China, just as Southeast Asians did in Africa. Even the British Empire operated its own version of Indo-Pacific, though neither free nor open, visualizing resources and interests across an integrated zone.
India's maritime strategy unfolds in concentric circles. At its core lies maritime infrastructure development for the homeland, island assets, connectivity to immediate neighbors, and daily capability deployment. The next circle encompasses waters beyond India and immediate island neighbors like Sri Lanka, Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles, plus restoration of extended neighborhood connectivity. The third challenge involves reviving the Indian Ocean as a community built on historical and cultural foundations-only by shaping cooperation across the Indian Ocean can India hope to influence events beyond it. The outermost circle takes India into the Pacific, engaging convergent interests while promoting a stable periphery.
10장
The India Way Forward: After the Virus
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated existing global trends, intensifying geopolitical and geo-economic contradictions. The virus that devastated Wuhan before engulfing the world not only caused enormous deaths but destroyed millions of livelihoods and evaporated growth prospects. The pandemic has fed strongly into the already complex US-China dynamic, adding health security concerns to existing tensions around economic security, technology, and supply chains. This has led to growing conversations about de-globalization, regionalization, de-coupling, self-reliance and shorter supply chains. Trade dependency has become more politically sensitive, and the concept of trusted partners has expanded beyond technology.
In this turbulent global landscape, India stands as a stabilizing force that can contribute to world rebalancing and multipolarity. Its strong bonds with the Global South ensure developmental priorities aren't disregarded, while as an advocate of reformed multilateralism, it can support genuine collective endeavors even in a nationalistic era. As a civilizational power returning to the global stage, India demonstrates that democracy's spread can lead to more vivid expressions of traditions while addressing governance challenges.
The pandemic necessitates a national revival strategy and fundamental rethinking of India's growth model, especially given how current economic frameworks have hollowed out manufacturing capacities. The post-1991 reliance on others' costing has eroded domestic capabilities, with openness abroad ironically leading to stagnation at home. A greater emphasis on self-reliance (Atmanirbharta) and Make in India is essential, not as a move toward autarchy but as capacity-building central to comprehensive national power.
The India Way forward involves becoming more of a shaper or decider rather than an abstainer in global affairs. This is already evident in debates on climate change and connectivity. India must be a just and fair power, representing the Global South while addressing its own developmental challenges and modernizing as a society. The India Way means expressing its brand with growing confidence, whether through civilizational attributes or contemporary achievements. Self-reliance must be accompanied by greater self-confidence, building on the decisiveness shown in addressing recent challenges.
As other societies regard India with increasing interest, the choices it makes will define the India Way. While ethics, culture and history constitute part of India's narrative, a more confident India should take ideological debates in stride as part of a larger global rebalancing. The coronavirus may be the most consequential global happening after 1945, encouraging policy departures across geographies. The paradox is seeking change in the very order in which the world remains deeply invested. A more fragmented, diffused and complicated future awaits, with India's value in global calculations likely to increase even further after the virus-symbolized by the world's discovery of Namaste, the India Way of greeting with folded hands.
