|
Round The World
New
Delhi, 22 March 2018
Congress Foreign Policy
THROWBACK TO NON-ALIGNMENT?
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof. International Politics, JMI)
The Indian National
Congress in its 84th plenary session held last weekend, strongly
censured Modi government’s foreign policy. The Resolution read: “Congress
expresses its concern over the conduct of foreign policy in a cavalier manner,
which has damaged India’s profile globally and undermined its national
interest”. More significantly, Congress President Rahul Gandhi talked of a
third alternative in international politics, clearly recalling the ghosts of
non-alignment. He said, ‘World politics is dominated by two models, one of USA,
and the other, the Chinese.’ In coming 10 years, he vowed ‘to build a third
model with love, brotherhood, and non-violence’, which will be drawn on the
Nehruvian vision.
To recall, in 1950s,
after the 2nd World War, as the world was divided in influence of
two super powers –the US and the Soviet Union, Jawaharlal Nehru in the company of
Mashall Tito of Yugoslavia, and Abdul Nasser of Egypt, created the
non-alignment movement (NAM), to maintain equi-distance from both super powers.
When Janata Party came to power in 1977, it talked of genuine non-alignment.
However, NAM became inactive with changes in world politics, disintegration of
Soviet Union, radical geo-political changes in many countries. In the 21st
century, Soviet Union is said to have been replaced by China as a ‘super power’
with its economic might. Rahul Gandhi and the Congress party steeped in
Nehruvian approach, see another ‘historic opportunity’ to create a third
alternative led by India with unique Indian political values of non-violence
etc.
How sound and viable
is a third alternative? We have experienced the unviability of policy of
non-alignment, a utopia in international politics. No country can remain
non-aligned in an interdependent world. A country may have to surrender parts
of its sovereignty to a group of countries integrated in a common purpose and ‘shared
future’ like the European Union or other regional bodies. To remain
self-reliant, independent and non-aligned was unpragmatic.
It was no secret that
Nehru was ‘blackmailed into silence by Soviet Union when he was about to condemn
Soviet occupation of Hungary in 1956, as he had already criticised the
Anglo-French attack on Suez Canal in the same year. Second, India had to sign a
friendship treaty with Soviets in 1971 in the wake of Bangladesh war.
Strange that the Congress
President should talk of a third alternative to the so-called US and Chinese
models. Even these two models are not defined or detected world-wide. True that
US is militarily the strongest country today, and China has some surplus money,
and both are drawn into some undeclared conflict over their respective spheres
of influence. But, surely, unlike in the past, the world is not split into two
blocs, it is rather a multi-polar world, and that is what we should aim to
consolidate, while strengthening our bilateral and regional relations.
Congress foreign
policy formulations appear to be altruistic, with a heavy moral overtone like
that of Nehru, and less pragmatic. One is not evaluating it vis-a-vis
government’s policy. That is competitive politics between two adversarial
parties. We assess it on its merits in terms of diplomacy and national
interest. Take this statement, for example. Congress suggests that “India
should recalibrate its equations with USA, arrest the slide in relations with
Russia, and improve communication and trust with China.”
At the same time, the
Congress upbraids the government for allowing China to entrench itself in
neighbouring countries, encircling India which threaten the regional balance
and stability. Congress President ruled, “China is present everywhere, Doklam,
Nepal, Sri-Lanka, Maldives, Myanmar and so on. It is buying influence by giving
money”. The nexus between China and Pakistan is dangerous for peace, and security
of South Asia. It goes on to caution about the increased Chinese presence in
Maldives, “there is a need for internal vigil to safeguard our interests and to
thwart attempts of any country to establish bases, that will restrict India and
make the Indian Ocean area vulnerable”. On countering Chinese influence on
Myanmar, the Congress calls upon the private and public sector companies to
invest in the key infrastructure of the country.
Under these
circumstances, how could one preach love, brotherhood to China? We did that
once under Nehru and chanted “Hindi-Chini
Bhai Bhai” (Indians and Chinese are brothers), but Chinese respond to such
entreaties by incursion into our borders, and claiming disputed territories.
Yes, the Congress, or
for that matter, any practitioner of foreign policy should realise that
international peace will be secured through ‘balance of power’ and even
‘balance of terror’, not by platitudes. If India does not stitch strategic
alliances, partnerships, it could be vulnerable. Non-alignment or third-Indian
alternative is a no-go option at present as it would incur heavy expenditure
and risks for us to defend ourselves against multiple threats.
Congress is right in
suggesting that we have bilateral tensions in our neighbourhood. Modi began
well by inviting eight leaders from SAARC countries to the inauguration of his
premiership. But, down the line, the government seems to have lost the plot
with our neighbours; on Nepal, India’s support to Madhesis, not the entire
country in their difficult transition to democracy, in Sri Lanka, meddling in
their elections, in Bangladesh, prevaricating on Rohingyas, in Maldives, not
acting swiftly in their times of crises, at least putting international
pressure, and issuing unequivocal condemnation of the repressive regime and so
on. But most of India’s discomfort or challenge in handling the neighbours is
owing to Chinese interference in these countries.
I asked a foreign correspondent
who is friendly with India, why is India losing out to China in its
neighbourhood. India is democratic, non-aggressive, whereas China is predatory,
and undemocratic. He smilingly said, “When you give a ship to Sri Lanka, the
Chinese give them a port”. So is the story with other neighbours as well. The
Nepalese ambassador once said, “Everyone is trying to tap into the surplus
money, China has, so are we”. China, obviously, is using its economic might in
conducting its foreign policy. Can India do the same? Not really, not now. May
be in future.
In Marxian approach
which holds by and large across the world, it is the economy which maintains
the super-structure. India needs to catch up with China in its growth and
development by heavily attacking mismanagement, corruption and bureaucratic
inertia at home. We have to come up in human development index -- health,
education, skill building and gainful employment. These strengths will reflect
on our foreign policy and in dealing with other countries.
Undoubtedly, China
has invested in skill-building, infrastructure, technology and so on. You name
a product, it is and can be made in China. Can India boast of such outstanding
innovation? Yes, indeed, we have the human resources, knowledge base but we do
not have a system that can harness these.
Finally, a word about
Pakistan which is our immediate concern. Even the Congress foreign policy
document admits that China and Pakistan, especially their nexus is the biggest
challenge for India. What is the novel idea in dealing with Pakistan? We have
suggested, in the past, options in this column. Fresh approaches will help. We
know Pakistan will not rest until Kashmir is out of its aspirations. How do we
ensure this? Criticising any government, NDA or UPA will not help the cause
without a new radical approach. All political parties, and stakeholders in the
country, stay engaged on it, until we achieve peace and stability with
Pakistan.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
