India: The Quad’s Weakest Link

Authored by thediplomat.com and submitted by SkimpingRainbow

After the first in-person meeting between the leaders of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, we can rest assured that the Quad, which has been largely a paper tiger since Australia informally withdrew in 2007, is being actualized. Now that the Quad has been reinvigorated, the logical next step is to examine the organization’s viability in the defense sphere – especially since the intent of the Quad is to counter China’s growing military capacity. An honest evaluation of the Quad militarily will highlight the fact that India is hampering its overall effectiveness. What’s interesting is that this is by choice.

The non-alignment principle that India adhered to following its independence in 1947 has slowly evolved into a policy in which India attempts to partner equally with the United States and Russia to maintain a level of strategic autonomy. Essentially, by not relying too heavily on either side, India is prevented from having to side with one nation or the other on any particular issue. In terms of policy, this plays out through India establishing 2+2 dialogues with both Russia and the United States, balancing military exercises with one nation with corresponding ones with the other, and by following delivery of India’s first American-made MH-60R helicopters with Russian S-400 batteries.

As the idiom says, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link – and India’s continued procurement of Russian defense equipment will continue to make it the weakest member of the Quad.

Until recently, India could make defense procurement decisions based on three factors: the ability of the equipment to meet the predetermined requirements, the price, and the extent to which the acquisition would benefit India’s indigenous defense industry. For the most part, this has worked. India has been able to amass a military that some consider the fourth strongest in the world, albeit one envisioned to operate in a non-aligned world. With that said, India’s participation in the Quad necessitates an additional point in India’s decision matrix: the level of commonality between the defense article being purchased and the equipment used by other Quad partners.

Based on geography, a Quad versus China contingency will likely be biased to the air and maritime domains. Success in these areas will rely on secure networks that will allow an instantaneous flow of critical information. As an example, Japan and Australia have both invested in Aegis fire control technology that will enable them to share situational awareness with U.S. ships and to accept weapons cueing data from them and vice versa. Russian technology will never have this level of interoperability with the United States or any other of the Quad partners, decreasing over the overall effectiveness of the pact.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Not only will Russian equipment prove incompatible with India’s partners in a future fight, but continued partnership with the Russians will limit Indian access to the equipment that the other Quad members will operate. U.S. technology release decisions are the result of a lengthy interagency process that is finally underwritten by Congress. A consideration in the outcome of decisions regarding the release of advanced technology is the potential for unauthorized disclosure to a foreign entity, intentional or unintentional. As a case in point, India’s upcoming installation of Russia’s S-400 air defense system will likely give the U.S. interagency pause when deliberating on releasing any potential technology that could be compromised through interfacing with or even proximity to such a system.

Turkey, a NATO ally and a country that produces components for the F-35, was removed from the program due to its decision to procure the S-400. Just as NATO with a non-F-35 equipped Turkey will be less effective than NATO with an F-35 capable Turkey, a Quad in which India lacks the same high-end equipment as the other partners will be less capable than a Quad in which India has the same high-end equipment as Australia, Japan, and the United States.

Diplomat Brief Weekly Newsletter N Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific. Get the Newsletter

Indian policymakers have successfully avoided choosing between a close strategic relationship with the United States or Russia. But they have chosen to enter into a security pact that is meant to hedge against China, and must now decide between being a worthwhile member of the Quad or continuing the Russia-United States balancing act.

Timely_Jury on October 25th, 2021 at 09:58 UTC »

India (correctly) regards itself as a great power in its own right, rather than an American pawn. Their alliance with the US is a classic case of my enemy's enemy being my friend. Other than their mutual loathing of China, there is no aim the two have in common. Unlike the individual members of the Quad, the Indian people and government do not have a warm view of the United States. It must be remembered that if China has had one century of humiliation, India has had two, from the battle of Plassey in 1757 to independence in 1947. Indians' feelings towards the West are not too different from those of the Chinese.

Execution_Version on October 25th, 2021 at 01:39 UTC »

I really strongly recommend this podcast episode from The President’s Inbox (a podcast run by the Council on Foreign Relations): https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/the-presidents-inbox/id1172546141?i=1000537670324

It talks about how India views the Quad – which is a very different beast to how the US want India to view the Quad. Well worth a listen, because criticisms like the ones in this article only make sense if you assume that India is coming at the Quad from the same angle as the US.

SkimpingRainbow on October 24th, 2021 at 15:23 UTC »

SS: An analysis by Chet Lee concludes that India is the weakest link in the Quad. His assertion is based on narrow minded strategic thinking.

Chet's arguments are as follows: 1. India does not buy American hardware so will not be able to operate in the Quad at full efficiency.

This seems more like a sales pitch rather than an actual honest critique. While I won't deny there are certain benefits in using the same system, military history shows that army's can work together despite having different weapon systems. Examples of these are all over the world and if needed building an interface between US and Indian weapon systems, given each country's technological prowess in interface system, can easily fill the gap.

Chet asserts that the conflict with China will be maritime and aerial based on geography.

It seems Chet never bothered to open the atlas and look at the long land border India and China share. This myopic argument shows that the author has prioritized US's strategic vision while completely disregarding India's.

India's purchase of Russia's S-400

Once again, the author completely ignores that US has no equivalent to what the Russians are offering India and asserts that this makes India weak. The US never developed an equivalent system because it doesn't need one but that doesn't stop the author from completely de-prioritizing India's own defense especially in light of recent border issues with China.

The author does a bad job at explaining his argument and shows a very narrow minded and US centric strategic view.