India's strategic autonomy tested as economic tools weaponised, MEA official warns
Synopsis
A senior MEA official warned at a New Delhi roundtable that trade, technology, energy, and security are all being turned into geopolitical weapons — and that India's strategic autonomy will be judged not by how many partnerships it holds, but by whether those partnerships genuinely expand its choices. The debate over 'multi-alignment' versus 'strategic multi-engagement' signals a quiet but significant shift in how India's foreign policy elite frames the country's global role.
Key Takeaways
Aparna Ray , Joint Secretary (CCCS), MEA , delivered the keynote at a CRF–JNU roundtable in New Delhi on 15 October 2026 .
Ray argued that the ability to choose partners and issues of cooperation is itself central to strategic autonomy .
Shishir Priyadarshi of CRF said India's autonomy should be measured by how effectively partnerships expand its choices in technology, energy, and defence — not by their number.
Experts debated whether ' multi-alignment ' or ' strategic multi-engagement ' better describes India's foreign policy posture.
India's strengths in pharmaceuticals , IT , and digital public infrastructure were identified as key leverage assets.
A Global South framework for artificial intelligence and diversified supply chains were proposed as tools to strengthen India's negotiating position.
Aparna Ray, Joint Secretary (CCCS) at the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), warned on 15 October 2026 in New Delhi that economic instruments are increasingly being weaponised in global geopolitics, even as the shifting international order opens new avenues for flexible, issue-based partnerships. Ray delivered the keynote address at a roundtable jointly organised by the Chintan Research Foundation (CRF) and the School of International Studies (SIS) at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
Rethinking Strategic Autonomy
Ray challenged the conventional binary between autonomy and alignment, arguing that the ability to choose partners and select areas of cooperation is itself the essence of strategic autonomy. She stressed that India must develop independent assessments on China rooted in its own analytical frameworks, rather than defaulting to external interpretations. She also called for stronger collaboration among government, academia, and industry to build an Indian normative vision of the international order.
'Strategic autonomy does not require India to choose between engagement and independence,' Ray noted. 'Its real test lies in retaining the freedom to decide whom to work with, on what issues and on what terms' — a freedom she said is being progressively tested as trade, technology, energy, and security are converted into instruments of geopolitical pressure.
Growing Pressure on India's Foreign Policy
Shishir Priyadarshi, President of CRF, highlighted the mounting difficulty of pursuing an independent foreign policy amid intensifying major-power rivalries and the weaponisation of economic and strategic dependencies. He argued that strategic autonomy should not be equated with neutrality, isolation, or disengagement, but with the freedom to make independent judgements grounded in national interest. Critically, he said its success should be measured not by the sheer number of India's international partnerships, but by how effectively those relationships expand India's choices across technology, investment, markets, energy security, and defence.
Session One: Can India Still Choose Its Own Path?
The first session, titled 'Strategic Autonomy Under Pressure: Can India Still Choose Its Own Path?', examined the evolving meaning of strategic autonomy and its relationship with India's tradition of independent foreign policymaking. Speakers assessed the implications of US–China competition, India's ties with major powers, and pressures from regional security challenges. The discussion also interrogated whether 'multi-alignment' remains an adequate description of India's foreign policy posture, or whether 'strategic multi-engagement' more precisely captures its approach. Economic interdependence, critical minerals, emerging technologies, and India's engagement with the Global South all featured prominently.
Session Two: Translating Diplomacy into Strategic Leverage
The second session, 'From Multi-Alignment to Strategic Leverage: What Does India Need to Do Next?', focused on converting diplomatic partnerships into tangible strategic capabilities. Speakers argued that strategic leverage must be underpinned by economic strength, manufacturing capacity, technological advancement, energy resilience, and indigenous defence capabilities. Greater coordination through issue-based partnerships, diversified supply chains, and minilateral arrangements was discussed as a path to strengthening India's negotiating position. India's strengths in pharmaceuticals, information technology, and digital public infrastructure were highlighted as existing assets. The session also explored prospects for a Global South framework for artificial intelligence, stronger regional connectivity, and expanded economic partnerships.
Academic Perspective and the Road Ahead
Dr Aprajita Kashyap, Associate Professor at the Centre for the Study of the Americas, JNU, underlined the importance of shifting India's posture from reacting to the international order to actively shaping it through carefully chosen engagements. She stressed the need to strengthen India's economic, technological, and defence capabilities while converting diplomatic partnerships into meaningful strategic advantages. Acknowledging the diversity of views expressed, she emphasised the value of continued structured dialogue in developing substantive approaches to India's foreign policy challenges. The roundtable's conclusions are expected to feed into ongoing policy conversations at the government-academia interface.
Point of View
Then alignment and autonomy are not opposites — a reframing with real policy consequences. Yet the discussion sidestepped the harder question: what happens when issue-based partnerships conflict, as they routinely do between India's defence ties with Russia and its technology ties with the US? The call for an 'Indian normative vision of the international order' is admirable, but India has been issuing that call for a decade without producing a doctrine that rivals, allies, or even domestic stakeholders can read and test. Strategic leverage built on pharmaceuticals and IT is real, but it is also fragile against the kind of unilateral export controls that Washington and Beijing have both demonstrated they will use.
NationPress
15 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the key message at the CRF-JNU strategic autonomy roundtable?
The central message was that India's strategic autonomy is best preserved not through neutrality or isolation, but by retaining the freedom to choose partners and issues of cooperation — even as trade, technology, energy, and security are increasingly weaponised by major powers. The roundtable, held in New Delhi on 15 October 2026, brought together diplomats, academics, and strategic affairs experts to examine how India can convert diplomatic partnerships into genuine strategic leverage.
What did MEA's Aparna Ray say about India's approach to China?
Aparna Ray, Joint Secretary (CCCS) at the Ministry of External Affairs, stressed that India must develop independent assessments of China rooted in its own analytical understanding rather than relying on external interpretations. She also called for stronger engagement between government, academia, and industry to build a distinctly Indian normative vision of the international order.
What is the difference between 'multi-alignment' and 'strategic multi-engagement'?
'Multi-alignment' refers to India maintaining relationships with multiple, sometimes competing, powers simultaneously. 'Strategic multi-engagement', as discussed at the roundtable, implies a more active and deliberate approach — selecting specific partnerships on specific issues to maximise India's strategic leverage, rather than simply balancing between blocs. Experts debated which term more accurately captures India's current foreign policy practice.
Why is India's strategic autonomy under pressure?
According to speakers at the roundtable, the growing weaponisation of trade, technology, energy, and security by major powers is narrowing the space for independent foreign policy choices. Intensifying US–China competition and the deepening of economic and strategic dependencies are forcing countries to take sides more frequently, making it harder for India to pursue issue-specific, flexible partnerships.
What are India's key strategic assets identified at the roundtable?
Experts highlighted India's strengths in pharmaceuticals, information technology, and digital public infrastructure as existing leverage assets. They also pointed to the potential of diversified supply chains, minilateral arrangements, and a Global South framework for artificial intelligence as tools to strengthen India's negotiating position in the evolving international order.
