India Insider: Strategic Memory and Why Unilateral Power is Resisted

After Independence, India was often described as “tilting” toward the Soviet Union. In reality, this was the outcome of India’s pursuit of Non-Alignment at a time when the United States was actively backing perceived rogue actors in South Asia, most notably Pakistan. What appeared as ideological preference was, in fact, strategic necessity born of hard experience.

The Soviet Union supported India on core security concerns when few others would. The first major Soviet defense deal was not merely a weapons sale. It included licensed production in India through Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, full technology transfer, and made India the first non-Communist country to receive the MiG-21. This distinction mattered. India was treated as a sovereign partner capable of absorbing technology, not as a dependent client expected to align unquestioningly.

By contrast, Washington’s alignment with Pakistan was driven by Cold War geopolitics rather than South Asian stability. Despite repeated military coups, wars with India, and regional destabilization, the United States armed Pakistan, provided diplomatic cover during conflicts, and sustained the relationship through military rule and nuclear proliferation. These experiences deeply shaped India’s strategic culture and explain its enduring emphasis on autonomy, redundancy, and diversified partnerships rather than alliance dependency.

This history is one of the central reasons India resists Washington dictating regional dynamics. South Asia, in New Delhi’s view, is not a chessboard for external powers to reorder at will.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Example

The same pattern is visible beyond Asia. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo. After decades of horrific colonial exploitation, the Belgians realized by the mid-20^th century that they could not hold on indefinitely and exited abruptly, having never prepared the country for self-rule. What they left behind was not independence, but a political vacuum. The United States and the United Nations intervened, but their actions were shaped less by concern for Congolese society than by geopolitical rivalry, ideological competition, and racial hierarchy.

The assassination of Patrice Lumumba destroyed the Republic of the Congo’s (as it was known then) only credible attempt at building a unified nationalist state at independence. The dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko that followed did not merely fail to develop institutions; it actively hollowed them out. Corruption became a governing principle, loyalty replaced competence, and the state turned into a vehicle for extraction. Today’s instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a governance failure in isolation—it is the predictable outcome of a political system designed to rule without building state capacity. For countries like India, this is not ancient history, it is a warning.

Washington’s unilateralism reinforces this mistrust:

The recent military operation to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro without U.S Congress authorization, international legal justification, or an imminent threat would have been unthinkable as recently as the first Trump administration. It became possible in 2026 only because of congressional capitulation, judicial immunity, and the transformation of an apolitical defense establishment into a politicized instrument of executive power. To much of the world, this signals that restraint is no longer embedded in American decision making.

Europe exposes another contradiction. The post war order was built on liberal democracy and collective security through NATO. When that order is weakened by unilateral action, trust erodes, even among allies expected to align automatically.

Even before Trump, the U.S – India relationship remained cordial rather than fully strategic. Before 9/11, India was the most natural regional ally against Al-Qaeda, yet Washington lacked patience and local understanding to navigate India’s complex democracy and nationalism. That failure was not tactical, it was conceptual.

India’s neutrality today is deliberate:

It prioritizes diplomacy over military actions that violate international law. India sees a multipolar world emerging, not as disorder, but as the end of unchecked unilateral supremacy. This is not ambiguity. It is a strategic memory.