It has become too difficult in modern India to talk what you believe, and believe what you talk. Hypocrisy, corruption, intolerance, glamour and similar superficial and hollow priorities not only dominate the daily life of the common man but also the government and its policy. Government is busy tapping the phone of opposition leaders, politics dominates over cricket, Naxals massacre a whole company of CRPF paramilitary personnel, the CM of a state (here Shibu Soren) is more worried about passing the mantle to his son than governance like many other CMs have done before, a party (in this case BSP) that openly opposes every single policy of a party (Congress) supports it to bail it out on a cut motion it supported till a day before…what this country is? Is it a chaotic order or ordered chaos or a mix of both moving towards order or disorder or in part both! What! A country that has failed to have visionary policies, a principled polity for its own people; can such a country ever have a visionary foreign policy?
Well, the above paragraph is all about home issues but the foreign policy is very much interlinked to the home policy. Due observation of the foreign policy suggests that it also has remained in the same state of flux as on the home front.
India, South Asia, East Asia and Central Asia:
South Asia holds the key to India’s emergence on the world stage. If India can bring some European Union type of federation in South Asia, no one, not even China will be able to downplay or undermine India at any point in the future as well. There are solid reasons that support this hypothesis.
Economically this zone is going to be the most populated, fastest developing and with one of the most diverse and tolerant people who have the potential to be global citizens. Geographically this is the most strategic location with world most vital trade routes along its borderss. Indian Ocean is already the 2nd busiest sea route and the most important in terms of the number of countries and people dependent on it. The land routes if and when they open will link the whole of East Asia and Central Asia deep till Europe and Russia. The Historical ‘Silk Route’ also falls in the same zone. Historically this is one zone which is culturally most diverse and yet with common strings attached to all the constituents. Politically this zone has more or less democracy. Most importantly India, the most important of the SAARC nations is very much on the path of being a successful democracy. And trust me when SAARC will come full circle this zone has the potential to emerge as world’s largest economic zone, cultural zone, tourism zone, knowledge hub and a global hub of futuristic solutions.
The South Asian of future would be not limited to the seven constituents currently but also Afghanistan, Myanmar and may be Tibet Autonomous Region in some way at a later stage.
Do we need a Euro out of South Asia?
Speaking at a recent event called SASIAN Journeys (South Asian Journeys) in New Delhi to bring together the South Asian countries together culturally, Ariane Mnouchkine, the world renowned French stage director said that Europe did a mistake by uniting economically first in place of culturally. Well, Europe might be a model for many as of now but in our case i.e. South Asia, we have been unable to forge economic unity despite acknowledging its huge potential to change the face of one of the most backward regions of the world. Blame games have become part and parcel of every SAARC summit. But the fact of the matter is we have not been able to bring any major economic shift in our policy even on a bilateral level with any South Asian or East Asian countries. And that too despite the legacy of a shared history which is more or less harmonious and not as bloody as that of Europe.
Here is a situation where European countries which slaughtered each others and millions of others and still have significant cultural blocs working against each other united economically but a South Asia with a shared legacy of History and Geography remains one of the most divided regions of the world.
So, is Ariane wrong to have said that cultural and not economic unity should come first? I sincerely believe that unity, howsoever it comes, is a good thing. But in our case it can’t be about Economics only. Our experience belies that there can be an economic unity even as political disputes persists. But has South Asia with a tolerant country like India at the centre failed to unite only because we had deep rooted political differences which spilled over all other differences?
SAARC has failed till now not only because our politicians have failed us and not simply because we have boundary disputes. There is one reason which runs deeper than all this and has consciously and subconsciously made us unappreciative of each others beliefs and ideals. Though what I am going to talk next is not the ideal way but probably if the whole of South Asia had been Christian or even Hindus some sort of confederation would have arrived.
There are deep rooted prejudices which dominate the domestic politics of this zone. In India this emerged and now has almost subsided, let’s not deny it has become over altogether, in terms of Hindu-Muslim issue. In Pakistan it was anti-India which basically has its root in the artificial partition of the two countries in 1947. The anti-India card has lost its shine with the major political parties in Pakistan but fundamentalist forces continue to stoke passion in the name of Jihad which again has its root in the Hindu-Muslim difference. Bangladesh, despite owing its origin to India has displayed not only pro-Pakistan but anti-India sentiments. No need to tell the reason is again the same Hindu-Muslim issue. We do not have any major difference with Nepal, Bhutan and now Sri Lanka as well. Maldives of course we have good relation with.
So it is actually the failure of India to properly address the Hindu-Muslim issue that has affected not only the polity in India but also its policy towards Pakistan and even other Islamic countries from time to time. The vice versa is equally important. Fundamentalist in Pakistan and Bangladesh stoke passion against a ‘Hindu India’ where Muslims are not safe. India’s greatest bête noire among states, Kashmir, which is the only Muslim majority state and centre of controversy with Pakistan is also very much about the issue.
It is unfortunate to feel compelled to be a young Indian of 21st century and talk about a state on religious lines but the question has kept coming back to our generation on similar lines.
Why India failed to emerge as one nation?
The most defining reason why this happened is India’s failure to emerge as one nation. Here again the oneness of India is more about cultural than economical. In the post eighties the politics of caste and religion divided the population and confused our policy makers. But before that it was right after the partition that the problem should have been addresses. A country that rose out of the bloodshed of millions of its own people should have sincerely, to the satisfaction of both the communities, aspired to settle the major issues among the two communities and actively taken steps to check fundamentalism and promote nationalism.
We never accepted our own people as Indians but as Hindus and Muslims. We gave them separate laws, allowed fundamentalist organizations to grow and tried to feed the anger and frustration of partition with the Nehruvian version of secularism and internationalism which was essentially western. The secularism that talked about diversity more than unity and internationalism which failed to see its immediate neighbours. That was amply reflected in our then policy towards Pakistan and Tibet.
One can say that it is easy to criticize but there can be no doubt that while we hardly promoted anything indigenous, the fundamental principle on which our whole independence struggle was based, we went on to begin from the top. We began with pumping money into higher education when the stress should have been on primary education. We divided our states on linguistic basis when culturally uniting factor like food or dress or just administrative convenience should have been made the basis of dividing states.
Lal Bahadur Shastri had too short a tenure to bring any major difference. Indira was most worried about asserting, rather imposing her and the state’s authority than worrying about the long term interest of a democratic India. She did some blunders as well we had to pay a great price: the massacre in Nellie during an election forced on a furious Assam, Bhindranwale, Operation Bluestar and even the beginnings of Indian support to Sri Lankan Tamil insurgency. Morarji Desai was more interested in dismissing governors and Congress ruled states to focus on issues of national importance.
Rajeev Gandhi and then Chandrashekar completed the circle by doing their bit to the Kamandal and Mandal. The knee jerk economic policies of the previous government gave the opportunity to Narsimha Rao to bring the much needed liberalization followed by another spate of confused Prime Ministers before the situation would finally stabilize under Vajpayee only to be derailed by one Narendra Modi. The last important man at the helm and the current one, PM Manmohan Singh is PM simply because he never deserved to be one! But Manmohan Singh has matured over the years and the stress on building India as a knowledge economy and development is one good thing about the humble PM.
At the political level it was probably only Atal Behari Vajpayee among the Prime Ministers of India who tried to address the Hindu-Muslim issue at the fag end of his career. He failed partly because his own party betrayed him and partly because age was not on his side. Most of the parties in India including Congress want Muslims not to vote as Indians but Muslims. The reason is obvious: Power. Until and unless this issue will not get addressed there will be political parties and religious groups who will be ready to raise the issue and incite passion.
Apart from the failure of the polity and the politicians, weak of civil society organization, lack of awareness about rights and duties, poverty and illiteracy were all reasons that have kept India divided.
So do we really need to wait for our Abraham Lincoln?
The Silver Lining
The one silver lining and the one never seen before is that people of this country have themselves taken initiatives which are finally bringing the much needed exchange and understanding of the issues common to us all including the Hindu-Muslim issues. Reservation issue is gradually losing its relevance partly because there are not many jobs under reservation but mostly because the average level of competency has increased. Religion is still important but there is a realization that stoking riots will be ultimately harmful and very importantly people have begun to accept each others good thing. Culture is no more permanent even in one person’s life. The new age culture is about things which have nothing to do with religion. There is a metro culture, there is one college culture and there is one party culture….similarly different professions have invented their own code of values and conduct. Today the religion of a journalist is integrity, religion of player is winning medals for the country, and the religion of a doctor is to treat his patient.
Politicians, for the first time, globally, no more are the role models and in India they are completely off the radar. The role models of today’s India are Shahrukh and Amir, Tendulkar and Amitabh, Arvind Adiga and Abdul Kalam, A. R. Rehman and Kiran Bedi, Ravi Shankar and Al Gore and those who have left their identity of caste, region and religion much behind their identity as an Indian and even beyond, as a human being. Vegetarianism and environmental consciousness is the new religion. RTI and PIL is the new revolution. Interestingly these are the issues which Indian culture is essentially about.
Today even an Indira Gandhi can’t dare to impose emergency. Fundamentalism is hated and young people are interacting like never before. In India an average Muslim knows more about Ramayan and Mahabharata than about Quran. Nationalism is rising above religious beliefs and rationality above religion and nationalism. Holy and Id is being celebrated by all. Om is recited by all the musicians and singers without religion coming in between. Songs with terms like ‘maula’ and ‘allah’ are recited by all. Love marriages and friendship between people of different religion and caste is becoming a general phenomenon. All this is creating an atmosphere of trust and harmony, respect and affection among different caste and religions including Hindus and Muslims.
So we are seeing the change in polity towards issues of development, justice, security and social harmony. This has resulted in de-hyphenating the religious fundamentalist and divisive forces. India historically always had a syncretic culture. The developments above do suggest a return towards the religion of tolerance and mutual respect away from the religion of identity. The most important factor why this is going to continue is that politicians are nowhere in any of these initiatives.
What ails us?
The difficulty of being India is that you can’t be decisive and aggressive when you need to be. Interestingly that is not because India never learnt the art of making strong bilateral ties that would de-hyphenate its policy towards other countries. An expert said on AIR hours before the current SAARC summit, why can’t we leave Pakistan and move beyond? True, we have strong ties with Bhutan but we never did in Bhutan what we are doing in Afghanistan today. We never paid much attention to development in Nepal either. For that matter we never did anything in our own states which did not send enough MPs for the ruling coalition. We took them as granted. The result: the balance in our backyard has suddenly started to shift in the favour of China.
Unfortunately our big talks are never backed by big aids or big actions. Our politicians remain too mired about next election than about the future of the next generation. The politics of politics in India is no one ever leaves politics once they enter. Same old ideas of such people keep doing rounds until they finally die and leave politics. I think Indian democracy badly needs electoral reforms. That would infuse the system with people who have ideas in place of money and power. Our representatives are mostly in politics to save their businesses, gain influence and promote their cronies. So actually it is nothing but the problems inside that ails our foreign policy.
In recent times it was only the government led by Atal Bihari Vajapayee that tried to bring ‘Realpolitik Pragmatism’ in our foreign policy. It decided to support the Northern Alliance and participate in humanitarian activities later on when the US actually conspired to keep India out of Afghanistan, established defense ties with Israel, worked on Indo-US relationship, visited countries like Cambodia and Vietnam and brought breakthrough agreements with Pakistan and even China. Thanks to Mr. Vajpayee also for ensuring a free and fair election in Kashmir much to the antagonism of his own coalition partner National Conference and for a state which hardly sent MPs for his own party ever. The UPA did well to persist with the US and humanitarian activities in Afghanistan but it lost on Pakistan, China policy. NAM countries, it has completely ignored; East Asia, it seems to have forgotten.
Our politics is mostly not about national interest. When Barack Obama came to power he retained the US Fed Chief Ben Bernake. When Congress came to power it didn’t think once about retaining Brajesh Mishra who was heading the talks with the Chinese. No need to tell what it did with the post of President by not seeking a second term for someone like A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. No need to tell what precedent it set when Field Marshall S. F. Manekshaw died. The fact that the defence minister didn’t go to salute one of the greatest general of India citing health reasons, the fact that the navy and air staff sent two-star general rank officers, shows the sincerity of the government of the day towards what is propriety and what is national interest.
Foreign policy is also about symbolism. Foreign policy is also about rising above politics on domestic front. Foreign politics is also about setting high standards of public life in the eyes of you own people. We all know the respect and influence Barack Obama commands. That’s definitely not just because the US is world’s largest economy. Even with an economy five times the current one, does such a sick mentality help on the foreign front.
So the solution is beginning on the home front. India is too big a country whose inside would go unnoticed.
The Future of Indian Foreign Policy:
The foreign policy of a country that happens to be the home of every sixth person of the human world holds great significance. The challenge becomes especially significant if we consider its unique geographical position, its ancient history, its huge natural resources, its democracy, its culture and tradition and the hope it is for another millions around the world.
In the post-US dominated world, Indian Foreign Policy would be much more important for many more people of different region, race, color, religion and nationalities around the world. From South East Asia to Middle East, from Australia to Europe, from Kabul to Baghdad…for the blacks, whites and Mongoloids, for men, women and kids…for minorities and the exploited… and for all those who aspire for a fairer world, it would be none other but India whose voice would be vital. The most simple reason being India’s strategic location, increasing global profile, inspiring heritage and worlds most diverse and yet united people. Interestingly, this time, it won’t be only the past of India but also the future of this country that would hold an equal promise. So the rise of this country would be equally crucial for those living within and without India.
Sounds like a claim too high and far away from what rational thought would suggest given what we have talked above and what the existing reality suggests! Period. It is not a dream that can be dreamt only in articles like the one you are reading now. It is but a vision that has roots in reasonable context of the contemporary world based upon the potentials of this land. Despite all its imperfections and despite all the efforts of sidelining India, slowly, the elephant has begun running. The day is not far when the elephant would be running like a tiger. And this time it won’t be only economy that would be running. It would be science and technology, culture and tradition, lifestyle and values of this land.
Michael Walton, Assistant Professor, Harvard and Senior Fellow, Center of Policy Research, speaking in at the SASIAN Journeys event said, ‘Italy with its traditional high level artisan skills shaped tastes and created markets for its products globally. South Asian has the potential to create a global taste.’ He said that Bollywood and Yoga are already being accepted and appropriated by the West. How soon the government appropriates these subtleties in its foreign policy and how long it takes for the Indian economy to break even to be recognized as one that can be no longer ignored is a matter of not more than a decade or two at most. And the moment these both come together India’s taste will be the taste of the world.
The rise and fall of a civilization is accompanied by simultaneous developments in all the aspects of life. The rise of India will not only be the rise of another country but the rise of an order that would form the standard for the rest of the world.
Threats to the Rise of India and Indian Advantage:
The greatest threat to India in recent years and in the past has come from China. 1962 war more about demoralizing India than Chinese quest for land. It is one threat which becomes important since we have a common border spread over thousands of KM and territorial claims all along. Adding spice to all these is the 1962 war, Chinese skirmishes for six-days at Nathula in 1967 and the recent reports of Chinese incursions. Manmohan Singh would do well to try not to be remembered as a ‘no sense of security’ PM. Along with this if India is not assertive about it right on Arunachal China is only going to create more troubles for India.
But there can be no denying that India of 2010 is much capable than what it was in 1962. A SWOT analysis of the strategic and political and strategic advantages and disadvantages vis a vis China:
Strength and opportunities: Strategic
Geographically, India is a peninsula with one of the longest seacoast. Its seacoasts touche the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, one of the major sea routes carrying energy, manufactured goods, people and raw materials across the world. It is the second busiest sea route of the world. There is enough evidence that with the rise of Asia, it will be not only the busiest sea routes in the years to come but one where domination will be keenly contested especially with China.
But the location of India above Indian Ocean is one advantage that gives India a major strategic advantage. Indian Ocean is surrounded by the major chokepoints which include Bab el Mandeb , Strait of Hormuz , Strait of Malacca , southern access to the Suez Canal , Sunda Strait and the Lombok Strait . Almost 80% of China’s oil tankers pass through the Strait of Malacca . In case of any conflict India today can create nightmares for Chinese oil supplies.
Another great geographic advantage is the Himalayas. Here once again, the major threat comes from China. Recently, China has built an intercontinental missile base at Delingha, north of Tibet . But even with a range of 1,500 miles and new guidance systems that make the missiles highly accurate it is no joke to hit accurately after traveling 600 miles over the Himalayas.
Strength and opportunities: Political and diplomatic
The 19th century was the century of the Atlantic and the 20th century of the century of the Pacific. As the global politics shifts its nerve centre from Washington and London to New Delhi and Beijing, the 21st century will be the century of the Indian Ocean.
The context is already being laid. Since 1997 there is an organization of 14 countries, called the Indian Ocean Rim - Association for Regional Co-operation (IOR - ARC), formed with the aim of defining economic cooperation among the member countries. The world envisages a geopolitical role for the IOR-ARC which will eventually include all the 35 countries and island nations around the Indian Ocean. In the meantime China has openly displayed its military might and has called on the commander of the US Pacific Fleet to recognize the Indian Ocean as a Chinese sphere of influence to be managed by Chinese nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. Chinese quest for a naval base in the Indian Ocean should be seen in this context.
Recent studies have concluded that the power vacuum in that ocean in this century can only be filled by India, China or Japan either by "complete pre-eminence or by a mutual stand-off". Common sense suggests that India can be the most favorable contender to fill this vacuum. While Japan never showed any willingness in deep military strategies, China is viewed with doubt. Geography also favors India the most. With Andman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal and Laccadive Islands in the Arabian Sea, and favorable regime in Maldives India has geographical advantage over China. Japan too would be more willing to co-operate with India than China. American discomfort with the rise of a belligerent China is more than obvious.
Threats and weaknesses: Strategic
One of the greatest strategic vulnerability can come from the Himalayan Rivers, all of which have their origin in the Chinese territory. China can disrupt water flow to India. It has already displayed its willingness to do so, if recent reports about construction of dam on river Brahmaputra are to be believed. But water is one issue that will hold great importance for Pakistan and Bangladesh as well. Given the volume of water and international treaties and convention, neither would it be easy, nor is it something that can be done in a couple of years. So, anything on this front is hardly a possibility. Another strategically worrying point is Chinese rapid militarization of parts of Kashmir and Tibet.
China shares boundary with all the mainland South Asian countries, except Bangladesh. It also shares one with Afghanistan whom we want in SAARC. So China has equal opportunities and advantage in these countries like India except that History and Geography favours India more than China with respect to these countries.
China shares border with many Central Asian as well as East Asian countries. That gives it comparably greater options to indulge in Asian than India. So while we have advantage in South Asia, which we have not used to our favour China has used its Geographical advantage in Central Asia with meticulous strategy.
Threats and weakness: Political and Diplomatic
The sheer scale and growth of Chinese economy has created an awe of China in the whole of South Asia and many other parts of the world. While China is perceived as a threat and with doubt, India has done little to match the Chinese economic might and cash the positive perception about it.
Today the situation is that many SAARC members want observer status for China. Australia is still not ready to sell its uranium to India. The US seems to be more than willing to keep India out of Afghanistan.
Being a communist country, one party China has no qualms about engaging with military regimes of Myanmar, or Africa. It does not care about the suppression of human rights or democracy. So it shamelessly engages with anyone and everyone. Its increasing economic might has only helped it pacify this process.
The discomfort of the west with China and its effort to still engage with the Chinese is not unknown. In a world which is being more driven due to economic considerations, India would do well to build economies of scale than rely on goodwill alone.
…………………………………………………………………
What option does India have when our northern neighbor is pouring billions of dollars on military in our own backyard? We take it as a threat. Rightly so because of the kind of war-torn relationship that we have.
Power has a kind of arrogance with it. The arrogance becomes loud when it is backed by the continuous growth of power and the belief of supremacy.
Do we assert? Again, the assertion in whatever form should not lead to a situation like what we have on our western borders. Simply because, a democracy with a billion plus population cannot let instinct dominate over intellect in matters that are avoidable.
What else?
How you deal with your neighbor has a lot to do with what is going inside your home. This simple wisdom doesn’t loose its relevance even on the national scale, at least in the case of India.
Are we as a nation backward because we had to wage four wars? Have we not been able to develop enough because we are not a communist country like China? Did we fail to negotiate with China and the British on Tibet in the 40’s and 50’s and with Pakistan after post 1971 Bangladesh war because we didn’t have strong leaders? Some may chose to go for a yes or no but the answer to all these and many other questions is not a yes or a no. Like most other phenomena in our life can’t be seen in black and white the answers to these questions also lies somewhere in between.
An analysis of the short span of modern world suggests that foreign policy is vital in the context of present realities and future challenges. How an Indian is perceived in the outside world can’t be separated from his/her current individual strengths and weaknesses. But there is an advantage or a disadvantage attached to how the land is generally perceived in that part of the world.
The difficulty of the present world is that the current realities are overwhelmed by so many complex problems that nothing matters beyond the immediate. So, when we decide our response we are more worried about what is going to happen to us rather than what will happen to our future generations. Given the kind of challenges surrounding us, the compulsions of following such a strategy is not altogether misplaced.
But how do we strike a balance between our immediate needs and challenges and future expectations of others and our own aspirations is the challenge Indian Foreign Policy has to handle. The competition, here again, is more with ourselves than anybody else.
