Strategic alliances are meant to increase options for a country. What then ensues when a strategic alliance slowly becomes a redefining factor in the process?
The emerging alliance between India and Israel is known to be one of the most pragmatic alliances in modern-day geopolitics, both countries united not by ideologies but by sheer necessity. The high-tech military hardware, advanced surveillance technology, intelligence, and agricultural breakthroughs have cemented Israel’s position as a vital ally for India in its quest to become a security-focused superpower. But behind all these achievements there lies an even more intriguing, yet lesser-known, prospect: that of India adopting Israel’s way of thinking.
However, upon closer examination, one can see that the partnership is more imbalanced than it seems. For India, it provides a chance to acquire advanced military equipment and learn valuable skills in military operations. Meanwhile, for Israel, it gives the opportunity to have one of its biggest markets. Nonetheless, the degree of imbalance between both states is evident when considering how much India relies on Israel in certain spheres.
Dependence in international relations is not usually openly discussed. Instead, it reveals itself through a number of means. First, other partnerships become more difficult to establish. Second, doctrines begin to converge. Finally, the vocabulary of security changes, becoming similar to that of another country. In India’s case, this process is more apparent within its domestic policy.
It cannot get clearer than in Kashmir. In the past decade, there has been an increase in surveillance and monitoring in Kashmir, accompanied by stricter rules and a larger security presence. Critics argue that the parallels with the Israeli regime in the Occupied Territories are not accidental but instructional, in that they speak about an exchange in more than technological terms. The parallels demonstrate how a political conflict can be controlled if not solved.
The connections reach well beyond geographical space, too. Israel’s entrenched security system has erased all distinctions between external threats and internal dissidents, bringing both under the umbrella of one strategy: preemptive action. Likewise in India, politics of dissent that relate to questions of identity and territory are increasingly being securitized.
This is precisely when the relationship acquires an ideological dimension, irrespective of whether the intention behind this was present or not.
India has always prided itself in the world community for being pluralistic, constitutionalist, and as a postcolonial democracy. India’s claim to leadership in the Global South has not only been based on power and influence but also on a moral foundation. But now, with increasing evidence of India turning its back on minorities, particularly the Muslim minorities, India has found itself in a difficult position. The question is raised concerning how much the two nations can learn from each other’s policy positions.
It should be noted that this should not blur the fundamental differences between these two states. However, influence does not require a likeness. Influence works on the basis of the normalisation of practices previously viewed as extraordinary.
There is another aspect of the Israel – India partnership, which has remained understudied up to now. One should note that apart from technology transfer, the Israeli security philosophy is also exported. The global network of partnerships includes states suffering from internal dissent, and in this context, control prevails over conciliation. Thus, in addition to being an ally, India is part of an international security system.
However, this direction poses certain risks.
The problem is that an excess of dependence on Israel may have the effect of limiting the country’s strategic independence, which is what India desires to achieve. A diversified foreign policy in theory may turn out to be a dependent foreign policy in practice. Most importantly, the adoption of a highly securitized approach towards governance may lead to the erosion of the democratic flexibility that has been unique to India.
As far as Israel is concerned, such expansion of partnerships will only perpetuate a model that has consistently faced criticism across the world. While such actions can contribute to strategic success, they can also serve to normalize a set of practices that exacerbate conflict rather than help to solve it.
The crucial question is not whether India must terminate cooperation with Israel. There are no grounds for either desiring or undertaking such an action. The crucial question is whether India can cooperate with Israel without copying it.
For it’s not the risk in collaboration. But it’s the risk in transformation.
As soon as an alliance starts shaping how the state will lead its people, conceive its enemies, and envision its future, then this alliance stops being an alliance. It starts becoming a paradigm.
And paradigms are much more difficult to undo once established than mere policies.
