Round The
World
New Delhi, 24 July 2020
Chinese Incursion
REPOSITIONING INDIA
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof. International Politics, JMI)
After the recent
Chinese incursion into Indian territories, Indians and India-observers abroad
expected New Delhi to radically redraw its foreign policy; to have a stronger,
dependable and durable security arrangement in short term. In longer terms, New
Delhi is expected go all guns blazing to join the rest of the world powers to
liberate Tibet, the buffer built by British between China and India and other
territories occupied or threatened by China.
Alas! The statement
by Foreign Minister S Jaishankar disappoints. At the Mindmine Summit, he said, “Non-alignment
is an old concept, but India is not and will not be a part of any alliance
system.” He added, “It will be opening up spaces for middle powers like Japan, European
Union and others”.
As he elaborated the
strategy, the contradictions became too apparent. The argument has been that
India could not afford an ‘absolute security’ system, defending its territory
by herself. With an economically more powerful and predatory neighbour like
China, India could not spend heavily on defence procurement to match China
military, and to demonstrate power-parity. New Delhi is doing exactly that,
buying weapons left, right and centre-- from Russia, America and France to
augment its defence.
Second, the old
non-alignment concept, which Modi government seems to continue with, while the
Prime Minister has been building personal contacts with leaders like, Netanyahu,
Trump and Shinzo Abe. A nation’s interests are promoted by structures of
relationship, not by personal charm, although the latter may aid the process.
Even the
non-alignment policy did not stand the test of time as we had to sign a treaty
of friendship and security with former Soviet Union in the wake of our conflict
with Pakistan, in Bangladesh liberation. In fact, it was one-sided, as Pakistan
surrendered without a fight. But the threat of United States to intervene on
behalf of Pakistan threw non-alignment out of the window and pushed us straight
into the Soviet camp, the other super power at that time.
Now, as we have been
quietly invaded by China, we are still groping. In fact, on China, the present
government has erred like Nehru did although the BJP leadership is quite
abhorrent of him. It has also been the victim of same old non-aligned policy in
trying to deal directly with China and not succeeding.
The contradictions I
referred to earlier on in the exposition of the Foreign Minister are simply
that he demolishes his own argument which is why India should not be a part of
an alliance. On the contrary, India should be part of an alliance system, as
India is a developing country, it is vulnerable security-wise, and too weak
economically to develop an independent security system against China.
The Foreign Minister
cites the factors that affect India’s foreign policy. He said “we did not industrialise
enough, did not push our manufacturing, opened up a full decade and half later
than China. These are same reasons why India’s economy is five times smaller
than that of China.
The Foreign Minister
also said, India’s foreign policy carries three burdens of the past-- the
partition, delayed economic reforms, and prolonged exercise of nuclear options.
Well, the partition became inevitable but it was incomplete. The Kashmir issue,
he is alluding to would not have been a determinant of our foreign policy if we
had the whole of Kashmir with India. Second, on economic reforms, we were too
influenced by Soviets to see any other model. Nehru and Indira were both
anti-west in their approach.
But the present government
is no different. The first country our Defence Minister Rajnath Singh rushed to
was Russia after the Chinese encroached into our land. On nuclear option, yes,
that too was delayed by Nehru. But it has no more relevance in security strategy,
only for peaceful use. Nuclear weapon is not good even as a deterrent, because
it cannot simply be deployed.
All in all, we were
expecting a robust, radical and fresh foreign policy formulation, not an old,
neutral, non committal, non-aligned, non-engaging one. In fact, the action on
the ground gives more encouragement and hope than the statements. The joint
military exercise in the oceans, space and on the ground point to an ‘India
Engaged’ scenario. It may be a good strategy to emphasise upon action than
words, as Indians are known for words, but no action. If that culture is
changing, that is heartening. But statements of Foreign and Defence Ministers
are important as they are perceived as policies by friends and adversaries.
To amplify our
disappointment, with the exception of India, all other middle powers are a part
of the alliance system, namely in alliance with the US. Their security is
guaranteed by it. The European countries are part of the NATO security system,
where as others including Japan, Canada, and Australia have bilateral security
arrangements with USA. Hence, their security concerns are relative, if they had
no alliance of any kind; they would have to allocate massive resources for
defence preparedness. The Alliance provides them with an immense advantage of
saving their resources.
India is not only without
any alliance system; it is not the nucleus of a sub-regional security, or any
other sub-system. It was her non-aligned policy that imposed a heavy burden on
resources for creating an absolute security on her own. The Foreign Minister
continues to evoke the same strategy by claiming that India will not be a part
of any alliance.
The consequence of
such a policy is that India remains vulnerable even if it may have the fourth
largest army in the world. Besides, the needs of her absolute security as a
non-aligned power stretch her resources beyond the dire needs of development.
In terms of
international trade and other economic activities, the middle powers compete
with even super powers. They have developed enough economic and technical
excellence to compete in world markets. But not India. Some middle powers have
advantage in some sectors over one or both super powers. India is nowhere
there.
The third role a
middle power can play is that of mediation, or influencing the decisions at the
international level. But India, due to her vulnerability on security and
economy, fails to play that role. New Delhi clings to a rapprochement between
USA and China, like it did in the past, to a detente between USA and Soviet
Union.
That is why New Delhi
sought to do business with USA as well as China. Foreign-policy makers in India
must realise that their present preoccupation with pervasive bilateralism will
be of limited value. This has landed India in a no-man’s land in international
arena.
Modi’s foreign policy
suffers from the hangover of the past, burdened with abstract dogmas and moral
imperatives. In a recent television debate when I called for the break-up of
the ‘Chinese Empire’, the BJP spokesperson innocently protested, “We are not
for vivisection of any country’
Bangladesh happened by chance”. She failed to differentiate between ‘China as a
country’ and “China, the Empire’, which has forcibly occupied Tibet, Xinxiang,
‘part of Mongolia,’ and threatening the liberty and autonomy in Hong Kong and
Taiwan.
The tone of the Foreign
Minister was reminiscent past, not much has changed. New Delhi can no longer
have a foreign policy of platitudes. It has to protect and promote her national
interests. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|