 "India and the Greater Indo-Pacific: Balancing geopolitical equations")
Synopsis
Looking at the complex geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges the Indo-Pacific region is currently grappling it is necessary that there is a need to broaden the geopolitical concept of the Indo-Pacific to the Greater Indo-Pacific. The Greater Indo-Pacific can rebalance the global geopolitics and geoeconomics while checkmating China’s hegemonic role. India, being the Centre of Indo-Pacific geopolitics, can play a central role in the formation of Greater Indo-Pacific.
Introduction
The recent war between Israel and Hamas, as well as Russia and Ukraine war along with the Red Sea crisis demonstrates that some of these crises are having an impact on the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific. Along with these wars, the rise of China is also posing a substantial challenge to the Greater Indo-Pacific encompassing major countries of the “Eurasian Heartland” in the phraseology of Halford Mackinder, like India, the US, Japan, South East Asian countries, South Korea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Russia and Kazakhstan. Though the idea appears to be entirely imaginary, understanding the present geopolitical complexities is necessary to consider the Greater Indo-Pacific concept. Both the US and Russia should learn from Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s relations. Improved relations between Moscow and Washington can enhance peace and security in West Asia, the Mediterranean and Indo-Pacific regions as well also in the post-Soviet space. Bringing these above-mentioned regions into a Greater Indo-Pacific framework can give impetus to peace and security in the region as well as enhance economic cooperation. A Greater Indo-Pacific can also provide a necessary challenge to China’s hegemonic geopolitics. In this context, India can play a vital role in giving the necessary leadership to Greater Indo-Pacific.
Theoretical underpinning of Greater Indo-Pacific
The prolonged crisis in the “heartland” in the form of a war between Russia and Ukraine, as well as the onset of the war between Israel and Hamas and its spiral impact in the form of the Red Sea crisis, is providing a new kind of geopolitical equation in the global map. One thing is sure: phrases like alliances and block politics (though not in an ideological framework) and issues relating to armament and disarmament are currently gaining broader importance in geopolitical discourses. The two wars, as discussed above, demonstrate the significance of the metaphor of “Eurasia” as coined by British geopolitical thinker Halford J Mackinder in his classic work Democratic Ideals and Reality published in 1919, where he eulogised the concept of “World Island” and also “Heartland” in the lexicon of geopolitics.
The reason for discussing the metaphor of “Eurasia” or “Heartland” in the present strategic polemics on the Indo-Pacific is to highlight how these two trajectories can be relevant in the context of the geopolitics of the region. Though Mackinder has not talked about the concept of Indo-Pacific, his article titled Geographical Pivot of History, published in 1904, discussed the concept of “Inner Crescent” and “Outer Crescent”, where much of the Indo-Pacific comes under the ambit. For instance, India is in the inner crescent of Eurasia and Japan and the United States are in the outer crescent as per Mackinder. Highlighting the strategic significance of both “Inner Crescent” and “Outer Crescent”, Mackinder, in his book Democratic Ideals and Reality, suggested that “The actual balance of political power at any given time is, of course, the product, on the one hand, of geographical conditions, both economic and strategic, and, on the other hand, of the relative number, virility, equipment, and organization of the competing peoples” (p.192).
Similarly, German geopolitical analyst Karl Haushofer in his seminal work Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean, published in 1924, outlined the strategic significance of this region in the global geopolitics. Describing the strategic significance of this region, Haushofer describes this region as a “giant space is expanding before our eyes.” He further highlights that this region “awaits the dawn of the Pacific age, the successor to the ageing Atlantic, the over-age Mediterranean and the European era.” (as quoted in Weigert, H. W. (1942). Reviewed work(s): geopolitik des pazifischen ozeans by Karl Haushofer (Review: Haushofer and the Pacific_). Foreign Affair_, 20(4), 732–742). Similarly, Nocolas J Spykman in his classic work Geography of Peace, outlines the concept of Rimland where countries like Japan, India, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, located to adjacent Heartland can play a greater role. In this context, he highlights Rimland’s logic, which contrasts the Mackinder approach. Spykman stated, “Whoever rules the Rimland commands Eurasia, and whoever rules Eurasia commands the world.”
Impact Shorts
More ShortsThe necessity for delving into some of the issues relating to theoretical polemics of Indo-Pacific, as highlighted in the above works of both Mackinder, Haushofer and Spykman is to trace out the significance of the concept of Indo-Pacific, which is gaining much importance in the present-day geopolitical analysis. One may recall here that Indian scholar Kalidas Nag, in his work Greater India, explains India’s role in global geopolitics. In the same book, Nag highlights that “India, through the hands of Ashoka, showered her blessings of peace and progress over this symbolic union of Asia, Africa and Europe with the ties of Internationalism”(p.127). Nag’s work further highlights India’s inroad into “Tibet, China to Korea and Japan on the one hand, and across Burma and Indo-China to Java and Indonesia on the other hand” since the “ beginning of the Christian era”(p.130).
From the above note of Kalidas Nag, it is very pertinent to highlight the fact that India’s historical engagement with Japan, South Korea as well and Southeast Asian countries, along with sharing the cost of the Indian Ocean, makes India the hub of the Greater Indo-Pacific geopolitics. Another pertinent point that needs to be highlighted here is that Indo-Pacific geopolitics, to a greater extent, has also been shaped by the geopolitical developments occurring in the “heartland” in the Mackinderian sense in the form of war between Russia and Ukraine as well as Israel -Hamas war which is having a spiral impact on the geopolitics of Indo-Pacific. Thus, three geopolitical postulates need to be highlighted in the context of Greater Indo-Pacific geopolitics. These are:
How India, being the “pivot” of Indo-Pacific geopolitics, can shape the geopolitical narratives of this geopolitical region. This is more so in the context of the current crisis as happening in the “heartland”, as mentioned above.
To what extent can India provide an alternative security arrangement to the security structure of the Indo-Pacific?
Should India initiate a new regional framework for cooperation beyond the existing Quad?
These three pertinent questions, as discussed above, provide a new strategic narrative for India’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Some of these aspects need to be discussed at length,
War in “Heartland” and geopolitics of Greater Indo-Pacific
One fundamental point that needs to be discussed at length is why the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific is undergoing a ‘shift” in the aftermath of the current war which is going on between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas. If one looks at the strategic location of the current wars, it can be safely argued that the Indo-Pacific geopolitics has been greatly affected by these wars. This is largely due to the involvement of actors like the USA, China and Russia, which stand opposite to each other in these wars. For instance, though China and the USA do not fight with each other in the present Russia and Ukraine war, both are indirectly involved in the war. The geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific got further aggravated with Finland and Sweden’s admission into NATO. Thus, the admission of NATO by these two countries in NATO will add volatility to the neighbouring Indo-Pacific structure. If NATO makes an entry into the war, it could have repercussions on the Indo-Pacific region.
It may be noted that Japan, though having a closer relationship with the US even on a military front, is seeking closer cooperation with Russia on the energy front. At the same time, Quad, consisting of India, Australia, Japan, and the US, focusses on “inclusive and open” Indo-Pacific. Over the years, the Quad Summits have also discussed issues relating to climate change, promoting democratic norms, human security issues confronting the region, and other traditional security issues. Along with these issues, the threat posed by China to the Indo-Pacific region over the years has also received much attention in the Quad Summits. However, the Russia- Ukraine War added complicity to the Quad Summit as three countries, namely the US, Japan, and Australia, treaded NATO’s path. At the same time, India took a cautious position contrary to NATO’s position. India’s principled position is that Russia and Ukraine can negotiate and resolve the issue amicably instead of resorting to war. One needs to highlight here that since the last two years, war has not produced any tangible solution between Russia and Ukraine.
On the other hand, it has accelerated insecurity through its spillover impact on global security. As has been observed, the food security and energy security of Europe, Asia, and Africa are immensely affected due to the ongoing war. In this context, NATO attempted to carve out a new security arrangement with South Korea, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The same was reflected in a policy paper titled Report of the Expert Study Group on NATO and Indo-Pacific Partners published by the United States Institute for Peace (USIP). The policy paper highlights, “For NATO as a whole, these partners not only provide insight and access to a region of growing strategic importance but also enable the alliance to pull together a more global, like-minded coalition of the kind that has proven critical for Ukraine”. One may recall here that before the publication of this report, NATO brought out a report on its official website titled Relations with Partners in the Indo-Pacific Region in August 2023, highlighting some of the points mentioned in the above-mentioned USIP website. The report has underlined, “NATO is strengthening dialogue and cooperation with its partners in the Indo-Pacific region – Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. In today’s complex security environment, relations with like-minded partners across the globe are increasingly important to address cross-cutting security issues and global challenges”. The same can be highlighted in the NATO 2022 Strategic Concept adopted at Madrid during the Summit in June 2022.
Going by some of the above-mentioned policy documents, it can be underlined that by putting NATO in the Indo-Pacific security structure, the United States, one of the key architects of the Euro-Atlantic security arrangement, is adding volatility to the situation. One may add here that if NATO strategies its engagement with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea, it will harm the cohesion within the Quad, by creating another security structure. Though Russia also opposes the concept of Indo-Pacific, it has yet to ally itself with China in military terms in the institutional form in the Indo-Pacific region. This is because Moscow well understands that Beijing will pose a stronger challenge to its so-called Asia-Pacific region. At the same time, Russia has an interdependent relationship with both South Korea and Japan. Thus, any entry of NATO to the Indo-Pacific security structure will only complicate the existing security situation of the Region.
Though the Biden administration still recognises India as a key partner in its Indo-Pacific strategy, the Quad Forum works well. As S Jaishankar, India’s External Affairs Minister, stated in his recent interaction with the counterparts of Quad countries at New Delhi, “One, the Quad is here to stay. Two, the Quad is here to grow. And three, the Quad is here to contribute.” However, India has always had an apprehension towards NATO’s engagement in the Indo-Pacific. As stated by Jaishankar, “NATO template does not apply to India.” Hence, India needs to distance itself from NATO’s strategy in the Indo-Pacific.
One may add here that the Israel-Hamas war has also impacted the Indo-Pacific. The Middle East conflict is going to have a repercussion on the Indo-Pacific in the long run. This is more so as Italy, part of NATO, is outlining its policy of “Enlarged Mediterranean” and is trying to connect with the Indo-Pacific through the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean. One may recall here that the recent Houthi attack on Red Sea ships bound to or originating from Israel is also going to have an impact on the Indo-Pacific countries. The Israel and Hamas War is also going to affect the Indo-Pacific countries as Quad countries like India and Japan are importing energy from West Asia. The US is also another important player in the West Asian geopolitics.
One may recall here that India, over the years, has secured a stronger footprint in the West Asian geopolitics. In this context, India’s initiation of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) at the sideline of the G20 Summit held in Delhi in October 2023 can be considered a landmark initiative. What gives vitality to the functioning of the IMEC Corridor is that it crosses both West Asia and the Mediterranean Coast, thus giving much leverage to India in the European market through the Mediterranean coast. As has been outlined by Mackinder, the Mediterranean Sea is part of his scheme of “World Island” or “heartland”. A similar view was articulated by AT Mahan in his book Influence Of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783. As Mahan suggests, “Circumstances have caused the Mediterranean Sea to play a greater part in the history of the world, both in a commercial and a military point of view, than any other sheet of water of the same size. Nation after nation has striven to control it, and the strife still goes on”(p.33).
Thus, the IMEC Route will provide an important connecting point for India to connect the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea. This route will give India a better advantage in connecting with the European, Baltic and Russian markets through the Black Sea. Similarly, the port of Sabetta, located on the Arctic Coast of Russia, which acts as a hub of energy export from Russia to the Southeast Asian and Pacific markets, can be explored by India to enhance its presence in the energy markets of Russia and Kazakhstan. It is a known fact that Kazakhstan also uses Sabetta port to export its energy to the Asia-Pacific market through the greater Altai region, which acts as a bridge between Russia and Kazakhstan. As existing studies suggest, the two rivers Obb and Irtysh, which flow to Sabetta from Kazakhstan, are being used for the transportation of oil from Kazakhstan to Sabetta. In this context, Sabetta Port can also be used as a nodal point for the transportation of Kazakh energy.
The major reason for including the “pivot region” of Eurasia, to paraphrase Mackinder, in the Indo-Pacific framework is to highlight how to look at the geopolitical concept of Indo-Pacific by broadening its ambit by bringing the above-mentioned region under its ambit. At the same time, there is a need to augment the Chennai-Vladivostok Maritime connectivity project. Once completed, this will allow India to navigate the Pacific geopolitics to a greater extent, as the Vladivostok Port of Russia is located at a strategically significant position.
Thus, there is a need to broaden the approach to study the Indo-Pacific geopolitics. This will give an upper hand in shaping the geopolitics of this region. It may be noted that Quad is an essential component of Indo-Pacific security architecture, but at the same time, countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Russia, Southeast Asian countries along with European countries like Italy, Germany, France, Bulgaria, and Greece, West Asian countries like Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan and Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia so also North African countries like Egypt can also play an important role in the Indo-Pacific framework. This will also bring out a state of “geopolitical equilibrium”, paraphrasing Henry Kissinger in the context of the Indo-Pacific.
Geo-economic postulates and significance of Greater Indo-Pacific
As discussed above, there is a need to evolve a flexible approach in engaging with Indo-Pacific geopolitics, going beyond Quad’s existing security structure. This will give greater flexibility to India’s foreign policy. A closer look at the course of India’s foreign policy towards the Indo-Pacific demonstrates that over the years, India has adopted a multiapproach in managing the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific. Though India considers Quad an essential construct in the Indo-Pacific geopolitical structure, what can be noticed is that over the years, India has strengthened its relations with countries like the Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, South East Asian countries and even with West Asian countries like UAE and Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Israel and so also with Mediterranean countries like Italy, France, Greece, Bulgaria, Germany which shares North Sea Coast along with Baltic Sea, so also post-Soviet countries like Russia, Armenia, Georgia located at the coast of Black Sea along with Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries.
Thus, one can highlight three significant inferences necessary to the present study if one evaluates India’s foreign policy in a broader ambit of Indo-Pacific strategy.
Security is one of India’s major concerns in the Indo-Pacific region. Most of the countries mentioned above are apprehensive of China’s move in the Indo-Pacific, which aggravates security concerns. Though, at present, Russia shares a good relationship with China, Moscow’s policymakers are quite apprehensive of China’s aggressive move in its Siberian region.
Similarly, Kazakhstan is also engaging with China to understand its perils. All these countries understand the pitfalls of the OBOR project and its security consequences, understanding it as the imperial project of China. In this context, there is a need to broaden the security architecture of the Indo-Pacific. For instance, China’s aggressive posture in the South China Sea resulted in growing apprehension in the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, etc. Since the Philippines is located at the vantage point of the Pacific Ocean, the growing convergence of interest between India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Southeast Asian countries and South Korea on both bilateral issues and common geopolitical concerns are a step towards a robust Indo-Pacic order. Though Japan is part of the Quad, a growing convergence interest between India and Japan, provide necessary leeway to the Indo-Pacific security structure. Similarly, India’s relations with European countries, as well as the above-mentioned West Asian and North African countries, are growing at a faster pace. In this context, there is a need to give a broader framework to the concept of Indo-Pacific.
The growing geo-economic profile of India weather in Europe, Southeast Asia, East Asia, post-Soviet Eurasia or West Asia and North Africa gives a flip to its engagement with the concept of Greater Indo-Pacific. The logic is that a new paradigm of the Greater Indo-Pacific is best suited to India’s foreign policy calculus.
Though it is a fact that Quad is playing an important role in the Indo-Pacific security architecture, at the same, there is a need to develop a parallel security structure in the Greater Indo-Pacific which will be based on the logic of geopolitics and emerging geoeconomic reality which fosters a “complex interdependence” as outlined by the Neo-Liberal scholar Robert Keohane.
Greater Indo-Pacific and the nature of regional security structure
Given complex geopolitical concerns and geo-economic logic, there is an imperative for India to initiate a new regional grouping. By bringing countries like the US, UAE, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, South East Asian countries, post-Soviet Eurasian countries like Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Kazakhstan as European countries like France, Germany, Greece, Bulgaria and Italy into a common geopolitical and economic framework as this will add vitality to the regional cooperation. India’s bilateral strategic and economic cooperation with these countries can provide the necessary impetus to the fruition of such a regional body.
At the outset, it appears that bringing these countries together at a common table is an impossible task. However, the need to harness energy and economic cooperation will propel these countries to join a common forum. What is imperative to understand here is that there is a need to checkmate China’s imperial and hegemonic posture. Though the US and Russia are strategic foes, both the countries are also members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), so also in the East Asian Summit (EAS). In this context, efforts should also be made to bring countries like New Zealand and Australia with similar concerns for Indo-Pacific peace and security.
It may be highlighted here that the initiative for forming a new regional grouping in the Greater Indo-Pacific region does not undermine the significance of Quad. Instead, it will bolster a new geopolitical order in the Greater Indo-Pacific region. India being an Indo-Pacific player can contribute substantially to the formation of the Greater Indo-Pacific Region.
Conclusion
Understanding the complex geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges the Indo-Pacific region is currently grappling with, adopting a broad definition of the Indo-Pacific is necessary. As the theoretical postulates discussed above suggest, “heartland” still plays a vital role in shaping global geopolitics. As inferred from the recent strategic developments whether in the case of the Israel-Hamas war or in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war or the crisis in the Red Sea are going to shape the dynamics of the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific. Thus, a greater Indo-Pacific approach will be able to contain the power rivalry by bringing both Russia and the US together in a common geopolitical structure. It is a fact that this is quite a mirage looking at the present Russia-Ukraine war, but keeping aside differences, both countries can engage pragmatically. However, Donald Trump tried to engage with Russia more pragmatically in the state of bilateral relations.
Similarly, it is to be noted that peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific to a great extent tied to peace and stability in the Mediterranean geopolitics. It is in this context, India can play a significant role in bringing the Indo-Pacific countries, which includes Russia and the US, so also countries like Saudi, Arabia, Greece, UAE, Israel, Egypt, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Philippines, Vietnam, Greece, Japan, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Armenia under the ambit of forging a greater economic cooperation. Stronger economic cooperation among these countries will pose a challenge to China’s geo-economic and geopolitical strategy. India can also strengthen the institutional mechanism of the Greater Indo-Pacific, which can augment greater cooperation. Thus, the future of Indo-Pacific peace and stability lies in peace and stability in the Greater Indo-Pacific. Being a “voice” of the Global South as well as a global power, India can rebalance the geopolitics of the Greater Indo-Pacific in general and the Indo-Pacific in particular.
The author teaches at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost_’s views._
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
