Round The World

New Delhi, 26 August 2017

India’s Foreign Policy

LESS CONTINUITY, MORE CHANGE

By Dr DK Giri

(Prof, International Politics, JMI)

US President Donald Trump’s rhetoric against Pakistan would be music to India’s ears. In fact, many in South Block would be merrily pleased that New Delhi’s concerns against its neighbour harbouring terrorists are finding powerful takers and that ‘Modi doctrine’ is paying off. Looking at a larger canvas, it is clear that India is moving away from the Nehruvian approach towards the world. Since the last three years with Narendra Modi as Prime Minister our foreign policy has undergone radical changes and that the ‘Nehru doctrine’, is passé.

For long it was believed that the foundation of India’s foreign policy was laid by its first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and he left a deep and lasting impact. The core principles enunciated by him continued to serve as the guiding principles of all subsequent governments and Prime Ministers after him. Of course, changes in the policy were introduced from time to time in keeping with the changes in international politics. But the core remained unchanged. That is how the cliché “India’s foreign policy: continuity and change”, gained currency. Professor Bimal Prasad formerly at JNU as Dean of School of International Studies, then our Ambassador to Nepal promoted this approach in a seminal book under the same name.

However, in these past three years visibly there is less continuity and lot more change in our foreign policy. As someone perceptively commented: “Modi has broken the mould without rocking the boat.”

In his book “India’s Foreign Policy – Past, Present and Future”, foreign policy expert Sumit Ganguly, notes four phases. The first is the Nehruvian era (1947-64), which set the benchmark for India’s foreign policy. This was a period of high idealism. The second phase overlaps with the tenures of Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi. This phase was marked by security concerns and dependence on the Soviet Union especially after 1971 war with Pakistan over Bangladesh.

The third is of the 1990s when trade and economy replaced security as the overriding foreign policy interest. In an informal conversation with the author, the Indian Ambassador to France confirmed in late 1990s that all the Indian Missions were asked to scout for trade and investment opportunities unlike in the past when defence deals were a priority. The fourth is the current phase ‘a new phase in India’s foreign policy, “a period of pragmatism”.

On a deeper analysis, however, one would find that there were only two distinct phases in India’s foreign policy, one under the Congress regime, another under Modi, although intervening governments of Morarji Desai (1977-80) and I K Gujaral (1997-98) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1998-2004) had some small shifts in our foreign policy in favour of the neighbours, namely Pakistan. The Janata government of Morarji Desai is also known for espousing “genuine non-alignment”.

India’s foreign policy, rather her national interest suffered from four cardinal faults under Nehru.  Modi has begun to correct those fault lines, and that defines the radical new phase of India’s foreign policy. Congress foreign apologists would contend that Modi’s foreign policy is continuation of Manmohan Singh government’s approach. The then Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor says that the “hallmark of our government was the concrete decision of India’s foreign policy to link India’s economic transformation and growth of India with its foreign policy approach and objectives.” In fact, that is part of the story. They have to acknowledge that India has given up on Nehruvian approach and corrected the historic mistakes of that period. Tharoor, before joining Congress had correctly assessed Nehru’s approach to our foreign policy as a “moral commentary on world affairs.” Be that as it was, it is in order that we recall those landmark events and examine how they were undone.

First, Nehru’s emphasis on moralism in foreign policy in lieu of pragmatism to save our national interest: for instance, he considered the European countries and the United States as capitalists-imperialists, and tilted towards the Soviet Union, borrowing a lot of ideas from the latter. Thus Nehru was called a crypto communist. He dismissed the formation of the European Community in 1957, a ‘capitalist club’ and so we did not have EEC/EU policy for long although around 60 per cent of trade deficit was with EU countries. Modi has deepened our contact with EU countries and initiated new ones.

Second, our policy of non-alignment was unviable, and not in our interest. For greater gains, countries surrender voluntarily part of their sovereignty. Take the case of EU countries, Germany’s defence policy, Japan’s and Korea’s defence ties with the US. As a result, all these countries have emerged economically powerful. In fact, our non-alignment approach had to be compromised in 1956, when Soviet Union invaded Hungary, and there was an Anglo-French attack on Suez Canal at the same time. Nehru was critical of France and the UK but kept quiet on the Soviet action as he was dependent on the USSR for their veto on Kashmir.

Modi has given up non-alignment by beginning to build strategic alliances. India as a poor country had paid heavily to defend itself on its own, despite our friendship treaty with USSR in 1971. The treaty was in violation of the principle of non-alignment, and drained us off as we were compelled to buy armaments from the USSR.

Thirdly, Nehru’s approach to Kashmir: our Kashmir policy has defined many of our foreign policy objectives. When the Indian Army was beating back the tribal invaders of Kashmir backed by Pakistani Army, Nehru ordered the Army to halt, as he wanted to take the matter to the United Nations. He did this against the advice of the Army commander who wanted a few days to clear the entire Kashmir, including what is now called PoK, off the invaders. Without heeding the advice, Nehru took it to UN. The rest is all before us.

Successive governments have tried to fudge the issue and evade it with some veto support from the then USSR. But, the present government sees the problem differently. The Kashmir issue has to be settled through international military support that works as a deterrent; so no one would meddle in it.  

Fourthly, Nehru’s policy on Tibet: it was the British sagacity that they made a buffer between India and China in Tibet, an independent country. Nehru got carried away with the Chinese overtures, so called Hindi-Chini bhai bhai, and gave away Tibet without any reciprocal concessions. China came close to our borders and began to breathe down our neck.

The present government has stood up to our fractious neighbours China and Pakistan, by drawing close to the US. It is our proximity with the US that Beijing and Islamabad are holding off. We do need friends in world politics, although there is no permanent friend or foe. We have made such friends now, the US, Japan, Germany, Israel and others. Such alliances are the bulwark against any invasion or trouble-making in the country. That is the departure from moralistic non-aligned third worldism of the past.---INFA

(Copyright,  India News & Feature Alliance)