The Perennial Return of 'Strategic Autonomy' Rhetoric
FIRST INSTANCE: Post-WWII Non-Alignment (1950s-1970s) After gaining independence, India, under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, championed the Non-Aligned Movement. This stance, while framed as moral neutrality, was frequently met with skepticism and punitive measures from Western blocs. For example, during the Cold War, India's pursuit of indigenous industrial and military capabilities, often
with Soviet assistance, led to reduced economic and technological transfers from the U.S. and its allies. The 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistani Wars saw the U.S. impose economic sanctions and military aid cutoffs, aiming to pressure India into aligning more closely with Western interests (Hess, 2005). The strategic rationale was clear: independent foreign policy, especially one that included engagement
with rival powers, invited economic disincentives. REPETITIONS: Sanctions Regimes and Secondary Sanctions (1990s-2000s) The pattern solidified with the rise of comprehensive sanctions. Following its nuclear tests in 1998, India faced broad sanctions from the U.S., including bans on credit and investment by U.S. entities and export controls on dual-use technologies (U.S. Department of State, 1998).
Although these were eventually eased, the message was unambiguous: specific national security decisions, even those perceived as defensive, carried significant economic penalties if they deviated from an approved Western narrative. Similarly, repeated U.S. attempts to curtail Iran's nuclear program have consistently involved threatening secondary sanctions on countries continuing to trade with