CWA # 2095
NIAS Global Politics, Young Voices (GPYV)
The Eurasian-Indo Pacific Congruence and its Critique
Remembering Amb PS Raghavan and his legacy
Whilst Amb Raghavan’s point about the careful handling of China being central to achieving the objectives of the congruence of constructs cannot be doubted, China respects strength.
|
Santhosh Guru PR
12 May 2026
|
Indo Pacific and India’s Concerns: History, Geography, Energy and Economic Corridors
India has a strong historical connection with Central and Southeast Asia. The ports on India’s west coast established connectivity with the Mediterranean and West Asia, whilst those on the east coast ensured continuous trade with Southeast Asia. However, these trade links lost their significance during the colonial era until the ‘Look East’ policy was introduced.
The Eurasian and Indo-Pacific constructs have India and China at their heart. India is cut off from the Eurasian landmass by Pakistan. The International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) is vital for India’s security in this regard. China, on the other hand, has developed a Sino-centric Eurasian system with its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects. It is attempting to leverage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as an escape route for its Malacca dilemma. China is also trying to break its Malacca dilemma via India’s own territory, Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK). Russia has grown increasingly dependent on China, while its clout in the Eurasian region is gradually being overtaken by China's.
As the world moves toward renewables and the Arctic becomes increasingly accessible, India needs resilient supply chains. The Iran-Israel-US 2026 war further underscores the need for swiftness in this domain. This is precarious for India’s efforts to choke off China in the Malacca Strait in the event of a war.
The India-Middle East Economic Corridor (IMEEC) is a translation of the compatibility between the Eurasian and Indo-Pacific constructs in practice. IMEEC is a vital corridor that increases economic opportunities for countries across the region while revitalizing the ancient connectivity between the regions. The ongoing Iran-Israel-US (2026) war and the problems that IMEEC faced post October 7 attacks (2023) underline the fragility of realizing this connectivity.
The AEASN countries that form the core of the Indo-Pacific construct, along with India, also lack direct connections to the Eurasian region. They also face internal problems and ongoing tensions with China. Herein, India’s INSTC and the IMEEC open up new opportunities for diversification and resilience. US sanctions and the war with Iran impact India’s INSTC dreams. Iran is a significant cultural and regional power in the alignment of the constructs. But the West’s constant pressures on Tehran affect New Delhi’s efforts to expand its strategic reach. The Central Asian countries are keenly interested in the access to the Indian Ocean that INSTC will provide, as well as the prospect of India breaking into the Russia-China duopoly in their region.
Critiquing Amb PS Raghavan’s Insights on the Indo Pacific
Amb PS Raghavan’s inputs on a “soft power collapse” during the British colonial occupation of India are a historical fact. The objective of drawing China into a cooperative order with sensitivity, as he has written, aligns with what countries in the Indo-Pacific hope to achieve through their cooperation.
The India-US interests in the maritime domain have been highlighted as a strategic underpinning of their bilateral partnership. However, the reality of this after the sinking of IRIS Dena by the US, an Iranian vessel that was returning after participating in a maritime exercise with India, is questionable. Similarly, his view that the Indian and US perspectives are less convergent in India’s continental neighbourhood cannot be disputed.
Amb Raghavan observes the reason for the present incompatibility of the constructs as: “there is a significant overlap of potential participants or ‘targets' of these two projects. What puts them in direct confrontation is the mutual suspicion between the principal sponsors of the two projects.”
His prediction about the configuration that best suits China has also become a reality, as US-Russia hostility over the Ukraine conflict (2022-present) has increased Russia’s dependence on China, whilst Beijing, with its rare-earth magnets and other strings, deals with Washington on an equal footing on both bilateral and multilateral issues.
Russia is a great power and will reassert its leadership in both constructs, even if the US does not see it as a viable or desirable development from its strategic perspective. Whilst Amb Raghavan’s point about the careful handling of China being central to achieving the objectives of the congruence of constructs cannot be doubted, China respects strength. So, if other countries have to create conditions for meaningful discussions with China, those conditions must be grounded in the principles of hard and soft power.
While Amb Raghavan has shed light on the importance of the US-Russia-China triangle in shaping Eurasian dynamics, these countries look to India to break the duopoly and the big-power rivalries. Amb Raghavan had argued that Russia’s rejection of Indo-Pacific is based on politics, not geography.
