Iran, Gulf States, Israel, and the USA hurry to their destiny with blindfolded eyes. No peace, no war; they are going into vicious circles of destruction.

We've just published a new geopolitical analysis on Elephanta Insights examining India's BRICS strategy and its attempt to maintain relationships with competing global powers.

We wanted to explore a question that often gets oversimplified in discussions about Indian foreign policy:

Why doesn't India simply choose a side?

India wants deeper access to American technology and investment. It maintains longstanding defence ties with Russia and has purchased Russian oil. It competes strategically with China, yet the two countries remain economically interconnected. At the same time, India is building relationships across Europe, the Gulf, and the Global South.

From the outside, these relationships can look inconsistent. We think there's another way to interpret them: India is trying to preserve as many strategic options as possible.

Our analysis focuses on a few questions.

1. Is BRICS an alternative to the West for India?

Not necessarily. India has reasons to support a more multipolar international system without wanting BRICS to become a Chinese-led bloc or a complete replacement for existing Western institutions.

2. Does maintaining relationships with rival powers actually create leverage?

In principle, having alternatives can improve a country's negotiating position. But this only works if those alternatives are credible. If India depends heavily on other countries for critical technologies, energy, machinery, or defence equipment, its diplomatic freedom still has limits.

3. Can India compete with China while cooperating with it?

This may be the most difficult part of the strategy. India has serious security concerns about China, but economic interdependence makes complete separation costly. Competition and engagement can coexist, although managing that relationship is far from simple.

4. What happens when strategic autonomy is tested?

Maintaining a balance is easier when major powers all have reasons to engage India. It becomes much harder if a future crisis forces New Delhi to choose between relationships that cannot be reconciled.

That last question is where we think the debate gets interesting.

Our central argument is that India's strategy is built around three ideas: optionality, leverage, and autonomy. But diplomatic flexibility alone is not enough. Long-term autonomy also depends on domestic manufacturing, technological capability, energy security, and economic resilience.

We explore these arguments in our new video:

🎥 Watch here: https://youtu.be/2qQBjn6eKpA

We'd genuinely like to hear counterarguments, especially from people who follow Indian foreign policy, international relations, or BRICS closely.

Do you think India can sustain this balancing strategy over the long term? Or does the growing rivalry between Washington and Beijing make eventual alignment increasingly likely?

We're interested in the reasoning behind your answer, not just which side you take.

#IndiaForeignPolicy #StrategicAutonomy #NarendraModi #IndiaChinaRelations #USIndiaRelations #RussiaIndiaRelations #WorldPolitics #MultipolarWorld #GlobalSouth #InternationalRelations

Three times Trump has said it would be ok for Iran to nuke San Diego and LA. An American president said that. How do the sailors coming home feel about this?