RIC redux: How India should navigate old groupings in a new world order

In recent months, there has been growing interest in the Russia-India-China (RIC) grouping among Indians. This interest stems largely from a growing sense of unease—if not anger—with Donald Trump’s ongoing tariff war.

Once regarded as a staunch ally of New Delhi, Trump’s sudden, unpredictable tilt toward Islamabad—his public praise for Pakistan’s military and even his offer to mediate on Kashmir, a diplomatic red line for India—was seen as either dangerously naïve or strategically duplicitous.

This was seen in Delhi as a betrayal, forcing the country to relook at its geostrategic options. One wondered if India had placed too many eggs in the American basket. Should India look afresh at older platforms such as RIC—not out of ideological compulsion, but as a pragmatic approach?

More from Opinion

GST reforms: A demand-side push to sail India’s ship amid global headwinds How India stands up against bullying, but with reforms and patience

Testing Time

When RIC was first conceptualised in the 1990s, it was designed as a forum where Russia, India and China could discuss global and regional issues. Over the years, however, this forum was overshadowed by broader groupings such as Brics and SCO. It also became a victim of growing India-China distrust.

While Russia remains a steadfast partner for India, despite its increasing dependence on China due to the ongoing Ukraine war, the same has never been the case with China. Beijing remains Delhi’s strategic adversary, despite being an important economic partner. Border tensions—including the standoffs in Doklam and Galwan—and broader concerns about China’s activities in the Indian Ocean and South Asia underscore the trust deficit. China’s growing alliance with Pakistan, as one saw during Operation Sindoor, further deepens India’s distrust.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How PM Shinawatra’s ouster has deepened political crisis in Thailand

Beyond Tianjin: Can India and China find common ground?

India must, therefore, approach RIC with caution. New Delhi cannot afford to fall for the Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai narrative—even when American perfidy becomes too obvious to ignore.

Adopt Realistic Approach

In today’s fragmented global order—further disrupted by Trumpian unpredictability—India must resist aligning fully with any single bloc. This isn’t about reverting to Nehruvian non-alignment, but about pragmatic multi-alignment. It’s time India engaged with all major powers.

This multi-track approach should not be viewed as indecision but as pragmatic diplomacy. In this scheme of things, no one is a pariah. What matters is India’s supreme national interest—a fact that the Ministry of External Affairs reminded Nato’s secretary-general of this week when he threatened New Delhi with “secondary sanctions” over its ties with Moscow.

The goal is not to choose sides but to make choices that serve India’s long-term interests and aspirations.

Significance of Strategic Autonomy

Since Independence, strategic autonomy has been the cornerstone of India’s foreign policy. Since 2014, this policy has been reoriented from ‘non-alignment’ to ‘all-alignment’, with the country’s strategic autonomy intact. Whether it is forging closer ties with the US, while simultaneously buying Russian arms and oil, or standing by Israel without abandoning the Palestinian cause—India has consistently taken an independent path.

This approach must continue. India must collaborate with others where interests meet, and part ways where they don’t.

India’s rise brings both opportunities as well as challenges. It must realise that while partnerships help, its growth depends on its own strength—economic, military, and political.

The truth is that neither Washington nor Beijing truly wants New Delhi to emerge as a rival power. Both offer engagement—but often attach strategic strings. Recognising this reality is essential.

In today’s volatile global order, which is akin to a 3D chessboard of overlapping alliances and competing interests, India must therefore act like a fox rather than a hedgehog. The fox, as the old saying goes, knows many things, while the hedgehog knows one big thing. India cannot afford to get locked into any singular alliance system. It must be prepared for multiple options and opportunities.

India should, therefore, focus on its own interests. The growing interest of Indians in RIC must be viewed through this lens. It is not about rejecting the US or embracing China—it’s about building a place of its own in a multipolar world.

A Lonely but Glorious Rise

This stand comes with a price. India often finds itself alone in a bloc-oriented world order. Both sides see it as suspect. Recently, following the Brics summit in Brazil, some geopolitical analysts went so far as to call India an outlier—or worse, a Trojan horse in the grouping. Conversely, the US-led West finds India’s engagement with countries like Russia and Iran, as well as its presence in Brics and the SCO, problematic.

What both sides don’t realise is that it is the presence of a country like India that helps keep the volatility of the world in check—whether political or economic. It helps maintain some degree of balance in a bloc-based global order.

In the global power game, there are no permanent friends or enemies—only permanent interests. This, however, does not mean that India’s foreign policy should become unethically Nixonian in nature. For India, a civilisational state steeped in dharmic consciousness, foreign policy must be more than transactional—dictated largely through the wider lens of dharma. It is this timeless principle that must guide India’s foreign policy. And in this worldview, there’s always space—and scope—for both Quad and RIC.

The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.