Round The World

New Delhi, 24 June 2022

India’s Foreign Policy

THE NATIONAL INTEREST

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof. International Relations, JIMMC)

In a recent webinar, a German scholar, who has worked in India, commented that India’s national interest is complicated. It is unclear and ambiguous. India is becoming a hybrid ally, cooperating with countries in some areas, disengaging on others. He was perhaps hinting at India’s cooperation with other three countries in Quad, but not on Ukraine war. Likewise, India is a member of SCO, but is having border conflict with China. Does this charge of India’s ‘ambiguity’ in foreign policy hold water? Addressing this question prompts the exercise in this piece to identify India’s national interest pursued by the current foreign policy regime in New Delhi.

Let us take a premise to define India’s national interest, obviously, there could be many. The premise here is, India needs friends and allies to defend its national security and build its economy. The target is 5 trillion USD in the immediate future and more in the longer term to fulfil India’s aspiration of becoming a world power. 

In the past, until a few years ago, as the countries’ strengths were measured by their defence capacity, India’s foreign policy was driven by her security imperatives. New Delhi relied on its friendship with the Soviet Union marked by the Indo-Soviet Friendship Treaty of 1971. The day New Delhi signed that treaty, India’s avowed policy of non-alignment was dead, although later, another political regime in New Delhi talked about genuine non-alignment etc. It could, however, be viable. At any rate, that is another story requiring an elaborate discussion. 

A decade ago, when the economy became the measure of a country’s capacity, and foreign policies were driven by trade and investment, India needed new friends. It did build some, but not quite. India’s foreign policy suffered from a mismatch between economy and politics in its foreign policy from the beginning. One could concede that lapse in the past as security was a greater need than economy. However, with international institutions maturing, and the world powers collectively addressing sovereignty and integrity of countries, security took a back seat as the economy became a front-runner.

China epitomised the above trend by rapidly building its economy despite a contrarian political approach at home and abroad. The dubious credit goes to the west for propping up the Chinese economy by exploiting its captive work force etc. As China uses its economic might to pose security threats to other countries, the need for blending economy and security became the new foreign policy approach. Where does India figure in this new trend in pursuing its national interest?

Clearly, the interface between politics and economy is still missing if we survey India’s friends and partners. New Delhi seems to be ignoring the commonplace maxim of William Clay, “This is quite a game, politics (read foreign policy). There are no permanent enemies and no permanent friends, only permanent interests (read national interests). From this point of view, has our friendship with Soviet Union, historically pretty long, being beneficial to us? Is India’s current friendship with Russia helpful in present scheme of things? Many observers have argued that the friendship with Soviet Union has hardly helped us in material terms except supply of arms and a veto in the Security Council on Kashmir.

India’s friendship with Soviet Union was a product of our first Prime Minister Nehru’s monumental follies. Continuing that friendship with the Soviet successor, Russia, reflects the present government’s inability to undo those mistakes. Although the current regime is overtly critical of Nehru and his policies, it has not been able to correct the fault lines in our foreign policy created by Nehru.

To recall a few, Nehru made the mistake of taking the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations ignoring the advice of the army which was clearing the entire Kashmir of Pakistan-backed tribal infiltrators. Second, Nehru, having studied in the west, became averse to western politics. He dismissed in 1960s the budding European Union as a ‘club of capitalists’, singled out the Anglo-French attack on Suez Canal in 1956, while keeping mum on Soviet invasion of Hungary the same year. Nehru gave away the offer of a permanent membership of UNSC to India in favour of China, thanks to his fascination for the Chinese.

Noticing Nehru’s tilt towards the Soviet Union, American and western powers sauntered towards Pakistan and China. India then had to depend upon the Russian veto. If Nehru had maintained equi-distance from both super powers, as Indira Gandhi tried to do through the so-called non-alignment, again a figment of Nehru’s policy imagination, our dependence on Soviet Union would have reduced.

In the war with China in 1962, India received military support from then pariah state Israel. It took us decades to decouple Israel and Palestine and to make independent relations with the former. Thanks to the boldness and sagacity of the present regime. Admittedly, India-Israel relations will remain controversial vis-à-vis Palestine, but the relations with both countries must remain independent of each other.

India is making some changes to its foreign policy strategy. From non-alignment it has switched to multi-alignment in the hope of building a multi-polar world. The Foreign Minister reiterated this strategy recently in a talk organised by a media house. Thus, India is a member of Quad as well as of SCO. But a multi-polar world is not supported by historical evidence and multi-alignment does not inspire confidence among partners. When the world is being divided into two fiercely antagonist blocs, I have been maintaining that, India has to choose its side. It cannot stand on two stools at the same time.

On economic front, all major economies except China belong to the bloc led by USA. India does not have solid partners or friends in these blocs as it has perhaps not yet got rid of her lackadaisical approach to economic imperatives, both at home and abroad. Look at New Delhi’s FTA negotiations running over fifteen years with the European Union, a major economic collective of 27 countries. New Delhi is dragging it so long for whatever reasons. India needs EU, not so much the other way round, although it can change in the wake of EU’s ‘systemic confrontation’ with China. EU countries may invest in India but it is not automatic.

At any rate, bridging the gap between foreign trade and investment policy with security policy will redefine India’s national interests. We have to carefully choose our friends who will help us build the synergy between economy and security. This simple existential reality in international politics could not escape the attention of the ingenuous minds in the South Block! ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)