Look East PolicyEdit
Look East Policy emerged as a defining strand of India’s modern diplomacy, conceived in the wake of sweeping economic reforms and a changing regional order. Initiated in the early 1990s, it was designed to reorient India’s external outreach toward East and Southeast Asia—areas of rapid growth, expanding trade networks, and increasingly integrated supply chains. The aim was not just to chase markets, but to build durable, reciprocal relationships that could advance India’s economic vitality, energy security, and maritime influence without accepting a passive role in a regional order shaped by others. Over time, the policy evolved into a broader framework—now often referred to as the Act East Policy—that anchors economic engagement, connectivity projects, and security cooperation in a shared push toward a prosperous and stable Asia.
The Look East Policy reflects a pragmatic approach to diplomacy: expand trade and investment, align with regional growth engines, and use economic strength to secure strategic outcomes. It situates India as a credible partner in a region where rising economies are knitting together diverse value chains. It also signals a recognition that India’s own development hinges on better access to East and Southeast Asian markets, capital, technology, and infrastructure. While the policy has generated substantial benefits in terms of trade volumes, investment, and connectivity, it has also invited debate about balance, risk, and how best to advance national interests in a multipolar neighborhood. In the later years, the policy has been reframed under the banner of the Act East Policy, which emphasizes faster implementation, deeper integration, and closer defense and security cooperation with partners in the region.
Historical context and objectives
The Look East Policy took shape in a period of global reorientation after the end of the Cold War and amid India’s own shift toward economic liberalization. The core objective was clear: diversify India’s economic partnerships, reduce overreliance on any single market, and position the country as a reliable bridge between South Asia and Southeast Asia. The emphasis was on markets, investment, and the hard economy of trade and infrastructure, with an eye toward strengthening energy security and maritime mobility.
Key goals included: - Expanding trade and investment links with the economies of Southeast Asia and East Asia, including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam. - Integrating India into regional value chains and financing mechanisms that could accelerate manufacturing, technology transfer, and services. - Enhancing connectivity and mobility to and from India’s neglected northeast, so that land- and sea-based corridors could link India’s interior to regional markets. - Building strategic partnerships to secure sea lanes and to foster a stable, rules-based regional order conducive to private-sector growth. - Harnessing regional institutions and forums—such as ASEAN—to advance bilateral and multilateral interests, while pursuing joint projects in finance, infrastructure, and defense.
The policy was never a one-off diplomatic maneuver; it was anchored in a broader reassessment of India’s foreign policy tools—diplomacy, economics, and security—under a skyline that included regional actors and global partners. It was also closely tied to India’s own reform agenda, including financial liberalization, privatization, and tariff rationalization, which opened the door to more meaningful engagement with East and Southeast Asia. For many observers, the strategy reflected a sober recognition that growth in Asia was driving the region’s future, and that India needed to be part of that trajectory rather than watching from the sidelines. For its part, Act East Policy later codified this shift into a more action-oriented framework with a stronger emphasis on execution, connectivity, and defense cooperation.
Implementation and milestones
Implementation blended diplomacy, trade diplomacy, and infrastructure connectivity, backed by a growing set of institutional mechanisms. The region’s complexity demanded flexible engagement—bilateral deals, regional frameworks, and project-based cooperation—balanced with a long-term strategy to avoid overextension.
Notable strands of implementation included: - Strengthening ties with ASEAN member states and integrating into regional platforms that span the Asia-Pacific, including energy collaborations, manufacturing partnerships, and people-to-people links. - Advancing connectivity projects that tie India’s northeast to Southeast Asia, such as the multi-modal transport corridors and port connections designed to shorten distance to regional markets. - Developing strategic partnerships with major regional players such as Japan and South Korea, in parallel with expanding engagement with other economies in the region. - Creating and supporting regional frameworks—such as the BIMSTEC grouping—that align India’s northeastern growth with the Bay of Bengal and the broader East Asian oceanic economy. - Forming and deepening security and defense arrangements with partners in the region, including training, joint exercises, and information-sharing initiatives to safeguard maritime routes in the Indian Ocean Region. - Pushing forward trade agreements and investment deals, with the aim of reducing barriers, protecting intellectual property, and ensuring a predictable regulatory environment for Foreign direct investment and private sector cooperation.
In the mid-2010s, the policy began to be branded more explicitly as the Act East Policy, a shift intended to emphasize speed of execution and a more robust integration with regional economies. The policy’s practical effect has been to open up Indian markets to East and Southeast Asian products and capital while offering those economies improved access to India’s own vast consumer base and internal market. This reciprocal dynamic has supported a gradual strengthening of economic, technological, and security ties across the region. Notable project examples include the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Corridor and the India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway, both of which illustrate the emphasis on physical connectivity as a driver of broader economic integration. See Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Corridor and India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway for details.
Economic dimension
A central premise of Look East was that regional growth would lift India’s own economy through expanded trade, investment, and technology transfer. The economic dimension has involved a mix of market access, industrial collaboration, and logistical modernization. By aligning with East and Southeast Asia’s growth engines, India sought to diversify sourcing, expand export opportunities, and upgrade its own manufacturing base.
Key components include: - Expanding bilateral and regional trade in goods and services, supported by tariff rationalization and standards alignment, as well as joint port and logistics initiatives. - Encouraging greater foreign direct investment from East and Southeast Asian partners into Indian manufacturing, especially in sectors where India has competitive advantages, such as information technology, automobiles, textiles, and pharmaceuticals. - Building regional value chains that connect India’s domestic capabilities with regional suppliers and customers, thereby improving productivity and specialization. - Developing energy and resource security through diversified supply chains and durable energy partnerships—particularly in a region where energy demand and price volatility can have outsized effects on India’s economy. - Supporting infrastructure that reduces transaction costs and time to market—roads, rail, port capacity, and digitization initiatives that connect the interior of India with regional hubs.
In practice, these efforts have produced tangible gains in trade diversity and investment flows, while highlighting the importance of stable policy environments, sensible regulation, and transparent procurement practices. The policy also recognizes that regional interdependence is not a zero-sum game; success for partner economies tends to reinforce India’s own growth prospects. See ASEAN and BIMSTEC for the regional architectures that support these economic links, and Foreign direct investment for the broader framework governing flows of capital.
Strategic and security dimension
Beyond economics, the Look East framework has a strategic logic tied to maritime security, crisis management, and regional balance. As Asia’s growth accelerates, sea lanes, port access, and coastal defense become increasingly important to national sovereignty and national wealth. The policy therefore integrates defense and security cooperation with economic outreach, aiming to foster predictable behavior, shared norms, and capable regional partners.
Elements of the security dimension include: - Collaborating with East and Southeast Asian partners on maritime drills, counter-piracy efforts, and information-sharing on security threats in the Indian Ocean Region and adjacent maritime spaces. - Aligning defense procurement and industrial collaboration with regional partners to build supply chain resilience and reduce dependency on a single source for critical equipment. - Engaging in diplomatic forums that support a rules-based order and dispute resolution mechanisms, while maintaining the flexibility to pursue national interests through bilateral and multilateral channels. - Supporting regional stability that underpins sustained investment and growth, including efforts to resolve border and border-area issues in a manner consistent with national sovereignty and regional norms.
Supporters of the policy argue that a strong Eastward orientation enhances India’s strategic autonomy: by diversifying partners, improving logistics, and building capable regional cooperation, India reduces exposure to risk from any single power center and enhances its own leverage in regional diplomacy. Critics, however, caution that a faster tilt toward East Asia could complicate relationships with Western allies or provoke frictions with a rising power in the neighborhood. The balance—between hedging against risk and overcommitting to any one bloc—remains a central feature of ongoing strategic debates.
Controversies and debates
Like any major foreign-policy orientation, Look East has faced its share of scrutiny and disagreement. From a vantage point that emphasizes practical, market-led statecraft, several lines of debate stand out:
Economic primacy vs. domestic priorities: Proponents argue that regional integration pays for itself through access to markets, capital, technology, and lower production costs. Critics worry about whether large-scale projects deliver commensurate benefits to ordinary citizens or simply channel resources to politically connected interests. The best defenses stress transparent procurement, competitive bidding, and clear, measurable outcomes tied to jobs and growth.
Sovereignty and regional behavior: Engagement with East Asian partners requires accepting that regional norms will shape, and in some cases constrain, domestic policy choices. Supporters say that a rules-based, cooperative regional order benefits India’s sovereignty and prosperity; skeptics worry about gaining leverage by leaning on partners that may have uneven records on human rights or governance. The conservative critique emphasizes preserving autonomy while pursuing gains through bilateral deals rather than through pressure from abroad.
China’s rise and regional hedging: The policy is often framed as part of a broader hedging strategy toward China’s ascent. Critics may label this as containment or cherry-picking partners; supporters contend that a diverse network of trusted partners is prudent realism in a volatile region, reducing exposure to any one power while widening diplomatic options.
“Woke” criticisms and mischaracterizations: Some opponents dismiss Eastward engagement as a post-colonial or geostrategic maneuver driven by ideologies rather than interests. From a policy perspective that prioritizes sovereign decision-making and market-driven growth, such criticisms miss the point that regional integration can enhance prosperity, strengthen institutions, and yield reliable partners across a spectrum of governance models. A practical, interest-driven view holds that long-run gains come from competitive markets, rule of law, and stable, enforceable agreements rather than ideology.
Implementation gaps and accountability: Like all long-term strategies, Look East faces challenges in translating agreements into fast, tangible benefits—whether through bureaucratic inertia, bureaucratic bottlenecks, or uneven execution across states and sectors. Advocates insist that tighter governance, better metrics, and faster decision-making are essential to keep the policy credible in the eyes of business and the public.