India-US 2+2 ministerial dialogue between Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh took place April 11 in Washington DC. This dialogue was preceded by a virtual meeting between Narendra Modi and Joe Biden, their first interaction since the Russians invaded Ukraine February 24. The ministerial dialogue was also the first formal exchange since the war.
The divergent positions of both countries on Russian-Ukrainian war were evident from the start. These meetings were expected to bridge the differences. Perhaps not, it was not the spirit nor the objective. The meeting ended in both countries reiterating their respective stances. In arithmetic, 2+2 is 4, but in the chemistry of human relations — diplomatic, social or political, 2+2 could be less than 2. That is what was vindicated in these meetings.
In usual diplomatic summits, in discussion of bilateralism, multiple sectors are taken up. There are usual exchanges of pleasantries, diplomatic tributes, even hyperboles. Modi said that as the world’s two largest and oldest democracies, “we are natural partners.” Biden said, “the majority of our partnership is a deep connection between our people and our shared values.” But the crux of these meetings was the war in Ukraine. India wanted not to focus on Ukraine and separate it from the rest of bilateralism, but the US was making it the main issue at this time and nudging India to recognise it. Jaishankar said, “our convergences far outweigh the divergences.” But Blinken had his own perspectives.
India has a special mechanism in shape of 2+2 dialogues with four countries which New Delhi treats as crucial strategic partners — the US, Japan, Australia, and Russia. Notably, the first three countries are India’s partners in Quad. India initiated this format of diplomacy with the US during the presidency of Donald Trump. The US is the oldest and longest 2+2 dialogue partner. That shows the importance both countries attach to their bilateralism. The first meeting was held in New Delhi in September 2018 between then Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, and their counterparts Michael Pompeo and
James Mattis.
The launch of 2+ 2 was seen as the “reflection of the shared commitment” by India and the US to provide “a positive, forward-looking vision for the India-US strategic partnership and to promote synergy in their diplomatic and security efforts.” Have they done so in the current case of war over Ukraine? Jaishankar said that he held a discussion with Blinken on several issues, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, the situation in Afghanistan, challenges pertaining to the Indo-Pacific region, and a range of key bilateral issues. In a formal statement, he said, “A good part of my meeting with Secretary Blinken in the morning went to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine that has many ramifications. Even countries far away are worried about food security, energy security and commodities prices and logistics disruption.”
In esoteric terms, Jaishankar said, “A strategic partnership like the one between India and the US, is built through shared interest, common values and constant nurturing. It is natural that each of us will bring to the relationship our particular perspectives, experiences and priorities.” He added, “But when there is a mutual appreciation of ties, there is also a desire to better understand each other’s thinking. Our dialogue today has helped in that regard.” Did it?
Let us read the statement of Blinken. He too invoked shared values and international rules-based order to call upon all nations to “condemn Moscow’s increasingly brutal actions” in Ukraine. He urged all partners “not to increase their purchases of Russian energy.” He was very vocal on the Ukraine situation: “Russia’s war against Ukraine is an attack on Ukraine’s people; it’s also an attack on that rule-based order that we both adhere to and defend. The United States will continue to increase our support to the government and people of Ukraine and call on other nations to do the same, just as we call on all nations to condemn Moscow’s increasingly brutal actions. Russia’s aggression stands in stark contrast to the vision that the United States and India share for a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
The US intention is clear. They want to highlight the events occurring in Ukraine and their link with the rationale of the security arrangement (Quad) in the Indo-Pacific. To which Jaishankar replied, “So first of all, thank you for the advice and suggestions in your question. I prefer to do it my way and articulate it my way.” Once again a bold assertion of India’s ‘strategic autonomy.’
Days before their meeting, Biden had called India’s stand “somewhat shaky.” Even one US official had warned that India had been informed that the consequences of a “more explicit strategic alignment” with Moscow would be “significant and long-term.” The US is making a direct offer to India to choose its tent. It is giving India leeway and time to readjust her partnerships. The same official said, “We do differ on Russia and will unlikely bridge the gap, but won’t allow it to derail wider co-operation in the Indo-Pacific either.”
The offer is made even clearer, in a candid remark made by Blinken after the meeting. He said: “India’s relationship with Russia has developed over decades at a time when the United States was not able to be a partner to India.” But, “times have changed” and the US was willing to be a partner of choice with India across virtually every realm — commerce, technology, education, and security.
India seems to be working on the new version of strategic autonomy, which is making specific and contextual alignments underscoring a multipolar world, in which it can also play a global role. Thus, India is partnering with America and its allies in Indo-pacific to restrict China, and going with Russia to wean it away from China and Pakistan at least in her rivalry with Shino-Pak axis. But the war in Ukraine has challenged that position. Will India be able to maintain it? Only time would reveal. But India is surely riding two horses, and we know the consequence of this aphorism.
The writer is Professor of International Politics, JIMMC. ©INFA
