By Satyabrat Borah
The phrase “lines in the sand” has always carried a double meaning. It suggests resolve, a point beyond which one will not retreat, but it also hints at fragility. Sand shifts, tides rise, and lines carefully drawn can blur or vanish overnight. When viewed through this lens, India’s growing engagement with what is being described as the Pax Silica alliance fits the metaphor uncomfortably well. The alliance promises stability, shared prosperity and technological cooperation in an era defined by silicon chips, digital infrastructure and strategic minerals. At the same time, it risks constraining India’s long cherished strategic autonomy, tying its future choices to a framework shaped largely by others.
The idea of Pax Silica is rooted in a changing global order. For decades, power rested on oil, military bases and industrial capacity. Today, it increasingly rests on control over semiconductors, data flows, artificial intelligence and the supply chains that make modern economies function. Silicon has replaced oil as the resource around which influence and vulnerability revolve. Nations that can design, manufacture and secure advanced chips hold a decisive edge not just economically, but militarily and politically. The Pax Silica alliance, loosely understood, is an effort by technologically advanced democracies and their partners to create a rules based ecosystem for this new age, ensuring secure supply chains, shared standards and mutual protection against coercive disruptions.
For India, the appeal is obvious. The country stands at a critical juncture. It has a vast domestic market, a young workforce and growing ambitions in electronics manufacturing, digital services and defence technology. It also faces acute vulnerabilities. India imports the overwhelming majority of its semiconductors. Its digital infrastructure, from telecom networks to payment systems, relies on foreign hardware and software. In an era of intensifying great power rivalry, these dependencies translate into strategic risks. Joining hands with like minded countries to build resilient supply chains, attract investment and gain access to cutting edge technology seems not only sensible but necessary.
There is also a deeper political logic. India’s relations with China have deteriorated sharply since the border clashes in eastern Ladakh. Trust has eroded, and economic interdependence now feels less like a stabiliser and more like a lever that could be used against India in a crisis. At the same time, the United States and its allies are seeking partners to counterbalance China’s technological and strategic rise. In this context, Pax Silica offers India a seat at the table where the future rules of the digital and technological order are being written. Staying out could mean being forced to accept standards and norms set by others, with little room to shape outcomes.
Yet, alliances have a way of demanding more than they initially promise. India’s foreign policy tradition has been shaped by a strong preference for autonomy. From non alignment during the Cold War to today’s multi alignment, New Delhi has consistently sought to avoid binding commitments that could limit its freedom of action. Pax Silica, even if not a formal military
alliance, carries expectations. Participation implies alignment on export controls, technology sharing regimes, data governance norms and even foreign policy positions related to sanctions and strategic competition. Over time, these expectations can harden into constraints.
One of the most immediate benefits of Pax Silica for India lies in technology and manufacturing. The global semiconductor industry is undergoing a partial reorganisation. Countries are seeking to diversify production away from a few concentrated hubs. India has launched ambitious incentive schemes to attract chip fabrication and assembly units. Being part of a trusted alliance increases credibility. It reassures investors that India will be integrated into global value chains rather than isolated from them. It also opens doors to collaboration in research, design and skill development, areas where India has strengths but lacks scale.
There is also a strategic benefit in terms of resilience. Shared stockpiles, coordinated responses to supply disruptions and collective investment in alternative sources of critical minerals can reduce India’s exposure to shocks. During the pandemic, the world saw how fragile global supply chains could be. A future crisis involving Taiwan, a major chip manufacturing hub, would have far more severe consequences. Pax Silica aims, at least in theory, to mitigate such risks through cooperation.
These benefits come with strings attached. One major concern is the issue of export controls and technology denial regimes. The alliance’s core members are likely to impose restrictions on technology flows to countries deemed adversarial. India’s economic and diplomatic engagement with Russia, Iran and even certain sectors of China could come under scrutiny. New Delhi may find itself under pressure to scale back or abandon relationships that it considers important for energy security, defence supplies or regional influence. The question then becomes whether India is willing to trade flexibility for access.
Another area of tension lies in data and digital governance. Pax Silica promotes certain norms around data privacy, cross border data flows and platform regulation, often reflecting Western legal and commercial priorities. India, however, has its own evolving approach, shaped by developmental needs, state capacity and domestic politics. Aligning too closely with alliance norms could constrain India’s ability to experiment with policies tailored to its unique context. Conversely, resisting alignment could weaken trust within the alliance.
There is also the risk of strategic over identification. India has worked hard to cultivate relations across geopolitical divides. It engages with the Quad, maintains ties with Russia, participates in BRICS and SCO, and seeks stable relations with the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Pax Silica, if perceived as an explicitly anti China or anti Russia bloc, could complicate this balancing act. Countries in the Global South, many of which look to India as an independent voice, may view deep alignment as a departure from India’s traditional posture. This could dilute India’s soft power and diplomatic leverage.
From a domestic perspective, tying India too tightly to an external alliance could generate political and social friction. Economic reforms and industrial policies linked to alliance
commitments may be seen as favouring foreign corporations or strategic interests over local needs. Questions of sovereignty, particularly around data, technology standards and regulatory autonomy, resonate strongly in Indian public discourse. Any perception that India is ceding control, even indirectly, could provoke backlash.
The security dimension also deserves careful scrutiny. While Pax Silica is primarily framed around technology and economics, its strategic implications are undeniable. Technology is now inseparable from military capability. Shared platforms, interoperable systems and joint research can enhance deterrence. At the same time, they can draw India into security dynamics that escalate tensions. If competition between major powers hardens into confrontation, alliance partners may expect solidarity, not just rhetorically but materially. India would then face difficult choices about how far it is willing to go in support of collective positions that may not align perfectly with its national interests.
There is a subtler, long term concern as well. Alliances shape thinking. They create shared narratives about threats and priorities. Over time, these narratives can narrow the range of policy options considered legitimate or feasible. For a country like India, still defining its role in the world, this intellectual lock in could be as constraining as formal obligations. The danger is not that India will lose autonomy overnight, but that it will gradually internalise assumptions that limit strategic imagination.
None of this means that India should reject Pax Silica outright. In fact, disengagement would likely be more damaging. The world is moving towards blocs and networks, whether India likes it or not. The challenge is to engage on terms that preserve room for manoeuvre. This requires clarity about red lines, an ability to say no, and a willingness to accept short term costs to protect long term interests.
India can approach Pax Silica as a modular partnership rather than an all encompassing alliance. It can participate actively in areas that align closely with national priorities, such as semiconductor manufacturing, talent development and supply chain resilience, while remaining cautious in domains that impinge on strategic autonomy. It can insist on reciprocity and transparency, ensuring that cooperation genuinely builds domestic capacity rather than creating new dependencies.
Equally important is investment at home. Alliances are most beneficial when a country brings strength to the table. India’s leverage within Pax Silica will depend on its ability to offer markets, innovation and stability. This means sustained investment in education, research, infrastructure and governance. It means reducing bureaucratic hurdles, protecting intellectual property while encouraging innovation, and building trust with both domestic and foreign stakeholders.
India must also continue to nurture relationships outside the alliance. Engagement with the Global South, dialogue with China even amid tensions, and pragmatic ties with countries like Russia are not contradictions but complements to selective alignment. They signal that India’s
participation in Pax Silica is a choice, not a compulsion, and that its worldview remains inclusive rather than binary.
The question is not whether Pax Silica is good or bad for India, but how India shapes its involvement. Lines in the sand can mark boundaries, but they should not become walls. The alliance offers real opportunities to strengthen India’s economic and technological foundations at a moment of global transition. It also carries the risk of narrowing choices in an unpredictable world. Navigating this tension will require strategic patience, domestic consensus and a clear sense of national purpose.
India has long prided itself on the ability to walk multiple paths without losing balance. Pax Silica tests this skill in a new and demanding context. If handled wisely, it can be a platform for growth and influence. If embraced uncritically, it could become a subtle tether. The sand is shifting, and the tide is rising. Where India draws its lines, and how firmly it holds them, will shape its future in the silicon age.
