Round The World
New
Delhi, 24 May 2019
Beyond Borders
NEW GOVT’S PRIORITIES
By Dr D.K. Giri
(Prof. International Politics, JMI)
After two months of
mind and body-wrenching electioneering in the biggest democracy in the world,
the results are out. A new government will be in place. In a way, the entire
world was watching India’s cacophonous, vibrant, yet, enervating election
process, and was waiting for India to resume its international engagement. The
new government will not have too much time to celebrate its victory as it has
to right away plunge into action in world affairs.
Paradoxically,
international issues and forces influencing a country’s internal affairs were
not matters of debate in the parliamentary elections, except the surgical
strike at Balakot and a narrative of nationalism built on it. In fact, the
concept of nationalism emanating from a retaliatory strike against Pakistan was
not successfully debated by the Opposition, which fell into BJP’s strategy and
ended up copying their ‘frame’, claimed to have initiated the surgical strikes.
The military actions, including surgical strikes, constitute security
operations which do not define nationalism. Somehow, nationalism became the
whole basis of India’s pride and policy in foreign affairs. A debate on
nationalism is, however, beyond my brief here.
The first priority of
the new government is to define the theoretical or conceptual foundation of
India’s foreign policy. Of late, experts advise to invoke Kautiyla’s arthashastra as the basis of India’s
foreign policy. Arthashastra deals
with political statecraft, economic and social policies and military strategy.
Indubitably, arthashastra is an
original and authentic text that draws on Indian culture, practices and wisdom.
Like, perhaps, the Chinese ace strategist Tsan Tsu’s ‘The art of war’, Kautilay’s
arthashashtra is a unique treatise,
although it is broader and more comprehensive than the former.
It is certainly
advisable to refer to a classic like arthashastra,
but to contextualise it, let us look at three frameworks New Delhi seems to be
using. One, the Nehruvian approach, focusing on negotiation, aspiring for a
multi-polar world, retaining geo-political autonomy etc.
Evidently, the
BJP-government attempted to move away from Nehruvian approach, but for some
inexplicable reason, it could not. It is perhaps the foreign policy mandarins
schooled and trained in Nehruvinism which stalled the shift. It was seen in
their dealing with China, a muddled up strategy weighed down by Nehruvian legacy
of collaboration as well as confrontation.
Second is the
neo-liberal perspective, i.e. making economy the measure of strength of the
country, and the key determinant of foreign policy. Indian missions across the
world were mandated to focus on building businesses for India, a clear shift
from defence and security agenda to trade and commerce.
The third is the
hyper-realist approach, which emphasises the military preparedness. This
perspective privileges military strength over other determinants. That is how,
for the last 10 years or so, as Indian economy grew, New Delhi went on a
purchase-spree of defence equipments at a heavy cost to India’s development
process.
There is a fourth
approach, New Delhi is not adopting or is unaware of, is a progressive foreign
policy, i.e. inclusive, and based on principles, mainly solidarity. The other
principles enunciated by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore,
include pluralism, diversity, democracy and multiculturalism etc. These
principles lend any country the power and scope for resilience not fragility.
India leads the world in the concept of solidarity. The concept of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ meaning the
‘world is one family’ is uniquely Indian.
Further, way back in
1893, in the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago, Swami Vivekananda addressed
the gathering “sisters and brothers of America”, and surprised the world with
such an intimate address and endeared himself to one and all. He cautioned, we
should not mix security issues with a progressive approach. Security issues are
temporary, emerging from time to time, die down once they are resolved, but
progressivism is based on timeless values.
The second priority
is to make foreign policy part of national planning and discourse. Although one
can normatively delink foreign policy from domestic issues, a strong economy,
stable politics, and sound society help a bolder foreign policy. As India is
perceived to be emerging as a major power in the world, and it aspires to
become a big power, Indian citizens will have to dare that dream and behave as
a big power. While fighting the nefarious aggression of Pakistan, we need not
behave like Pakistani leadership, duplicitous and double-crossing. The ‘urge to
be great’ attitude will help build a better democracy at home.
The third priority is
to take global responsibility, if India wishes to become a world power. India
is fairly active in trans-national issues such as climate change, refugee
crises, international terrorism, poverty alleviation etc. New Delhi has become
the convener of international solar alliance, leading the charge against
terrorism in international fora, dealing with its own heavy influx of refugees.
But New Delhi does not take positions on violation of human rights, fights
against authoritarian dictatorial regimes.
On the other hand,
New Delhi has been on the wrong side, like in Myanmar, doing business with the
military junta etc. New Delhi could justify it by invoking its national
interest, which is the key driver for any country’s foreign policy. But when
the values and national interests converge, that is the measure of a great
power.
The fourth priority
is to define its approach to China. Given the complicated, unending US-China
trade war, and rivalry for supremacy, there is a great scope for India to
sprint forward to replace China as a manufacturing hub of the world. Reportedly
150 CEOs of MNCs have expressed interest in moving their bases from China to
India. Donald Trump is determined to isolate China economically, and build
alternative sources to Chinese supply.
But sadly, New Delhi
has been prevaricating on China. It is caught in conflicting dualism. Both
Japan and India are wary of Beijing’s policy in Asia. Both countries’ economic
stakes in China are high. But they have divergent approaches. Japan is
economically withdrawing from China, expanding its links with ASEAN countries,
and attempting to check China militarily with the help of Americans.
India is anxious
about China’s territorial claims on India, its incursion into South Asia, but
it wants to maintain stable relations with it. Such strategy is determined by
two factors, India’s huge power asymmetry with China, and second, New Delhi’s
misreading and miscalculation of Beijing’s designs.
The fifth priority
will be to play to its real strength, i.e. the soft power, and alliance
building. Joseph Nye, an international political theoretician suggests that
culture-rich countries like India need to switch from hard power to soft power.
Many countries in the world do not have military or economic power, but are
influenced by soft power, health, education, social-capital and so on.
India is a bigger
soft-power than China, and New Delhi must use it to counter China and build
alliances in the world. New Delhi’s attitude to Israel and Islamic terrorism
converge with America’s. There are many other areas of convergence with other
big powers, which New Delhi should build on.
Finally, India should
not try to overtake China in economic and military terms, at least in near
future, although it should treat Beijing as number one adversary. It must build
strategic and military alliances to counter China, which will reduce its own
spending on military hardware, which can be used for deepening development.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|