Round
The World
New Delhi, 19 March 2021
Quad &
BRICS
INDIA’S
STRATEGIC DICHOTOMY?
By Dr.
D.K. Giri
(Prof.
International Relations, JIMMC)
The Quad summit last week deepened the
alliance of four members as it rattled China, the main adversary. As an
illustration of the growing partnership, it was resolved that the production of
Covid-19 vaccine be augmented and supplied to the countries around
India-Pacific. The idea or refrain is, the vaccine will be manufactured in
India with American technology, Japanese funds and distributed with Australian
networks. The other notable accomplishment of the summit is a joint declaration
by the heads of governments and a jointly authored op-ed article in an American
daily. Prior to the summit, each country used to issue their respective
communiqué.
While New
Delhi is cementing its partnership with the Quad members, mainly United States,
questions are being raised about India riding two horses at the same time. The
horses in question are the Quad and BRICS. The critics have begun to dub such
act as strategic confusion, not autonomy. Global
Times, the Chinese newspaper known for making controversial comments on
international issues, said that it saw “a contradiction in India’s
participation in both the forums”. It also suggested that Quad constitutes a clique
in international politics and is going nowhere.
Be that as
it may, one tends to believe that India’s membership of Quad and BRICS does
indicate a fair degree of strategic confusion and dichotomy. The apologists of
India’s foreign policy will argue that New Delhi is maintaining a fine balance
in a polarised world. The participation in Quad assures a free and stable
India-Pacific. Membership of BRICS will lend some diplomatic value as it
provides a channel of communication between Delhi and Beijing and a gateway to
countries like Brazil, Russia and South Africa. They take a similar position on
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). But has the so-called balancing
exercise yielded any material dividend for India. That is the point of inquiry
in this piece.
The
concept of ‘strategic autonomy’, is not a new one. This has bugged the foreign
policy makers from the beginning. Recall, Nehru building a non-aligned block
along with Josip Broz, having the real moniker as Tito of former Yugoslavia,
Sukarno and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Nehru apparently did so to stay away
from both the super powers during the Cold War. But he could not maintain the
strategy of non-alignment for long, in 1956, he criticised the Anglo-French
attack on Suez Canal while, the same year, he kept quiet on the Soviet invasion
of Hungary. Again in 1971, as India intervened in Bangladesh crisis and the US
threatened by sending its 7th Fleet, Indira Gandhi, the then Prime
Minister signed a peace and friendship treaty with the Soviet Union
compromising the non-aligned status of the country.
Worse,
India had to bear a heavy cost for
its defence. Since it was part of no alliance it had to carry its own cross on
matters of security. On the dispute in Kashmir, India and Pakistan plunged into
a virtual arms race. The arms exporting countries took advantage of the conflict
and began to sell arms to both India and Pakistan. One remembers the
delegations headed by either the Prime Minister or President consisted mainly
of arms manufacturers. It was a routine for visiting head to touch New Delhi
and Islamabad in the same itinerary and conclude arms deals.
A similar
approach of so-called strategic autonomy continues till date irrespective of
the political party at the helm in New Delhi. India has been oscillating
between the BRICS and Quad, between the East and West and now between Eurasia
and India-Pacific. Global Times
referred earlier warns that New Delhi will fall eventually between two stools
unless its stands firmly on one of them. Beijing perceives New Delhi’s
balancing tactic as blackmailing China. The Americans might have a similar
conjecture although they would need New Delhi as a counter-weight to Beijing.
Looking at
the past, after the non-alignment, New Delhi perhaps wanted to create some
space vis-a-vis the US after the disintegration of Soviet Union. That is why it
joined the BRICS. Was it not an
ill-conceived strategy? The US was engaged in disengaging Soviet Union from
South Asia, mainly from Afghanistan. So it supported Pakistan as it considered
Islamabad to be a frontline player against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
New Delhi could have given a hand as Afghanistan too was a non-aligned,
independent and a sovereign country. New Delhi was equivocal. It is now back to
square one. It has to back American efforts in bringing peace and stability to
the war-torn country. New Delhi’s clear position then would have saved it a lot
of tension and costs in dealing with Pakistan.
As China
emerged as a big economic and technological power almost replacing former
Soviet Union as the other super power. In American’s foreign policy
calculation, China became a threat to their hegemony in world politics. They
began to soften their approach towards India, remember Bill Clinton questioning
the legitimacy of accession of J&K to India during 1993-97. Much water has
flown down river Ganges and Mississippi since. Clinton’s successors George W.
Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump deepened the cooperation with India to make
it one of the most strategic partners.
Even for
India, China has emerged as a threat in terms of security, diplomacy, trade and
so on. More seriously, Beijing has nudged and nurtured Pakistan to go after
India. China’s belligerence and territorial aggrandisement has cost India
heavily. The latest incursion in the Eastern Ladakh has been the worst of all
where India soldiers had to lay their lives in defending our territory against
Chinese expansionism. Somehow, to surprise of many, Beijing agreed to disengage
in the Eastern Ladakh area but mounted cyber attacks on India’s infrastructure.
The spying activities by Chinese officials and companies are commonplace.
Against
such a backdrop in New Delhi’s relations with Beijing, and the major powers of
democratic world coming closer, should India continue to equivocate on its
alliance building. Is the choice not clear? Neutrality, non-alignment is not an
option in an inter-dependent world. Balancing is no more possible. It will
impose heavy cost and credibility loss. It’s time to choose your tent.
On the one
hand, there are countries adhering to democracy and human rights – US, Japan,
Australia, and possibly Israel, South Korea, New Zealand, Canada and EU. On the
other hand, there are repressive regimes like China, North Korea, Russia,
Pakistan and perhaps Turkey. On the one hand, democracy and on the other,
autocracy and dictatorship. Democratic world is extending a hand of friendship
to the biggest democracy of the world, on the other, the autocrats and despots
seek to curb India’s growth and influence. Where is the confusion? Is it not
high time, New Delhi withdraws from BRICS and SCO.
A last
word. BRICS and SCO are run largely by Beijing. How can India remain in these
blocks when China conspires to encircle India and squeeze it, and worse,
invades it territory. Is there any room for manoeuvre? Let New Delhi stop its
self delusion.--- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|