|
Round
The World
New
Delhi, 8 July 2022
India’s Foreign Policy
PRINCIPLES VERSUS PRAXIS
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof. International Politics, JIMMC)
The
epic ‘Mahabharata’, famously filmed by B.R. Chopra, teaches us plenty of
principles of statecraft in several episodes. In one such tellingmoment, in the
last battle between Duryodhana and Bhimasena fought with maces, Lord Krishna
gives a powerful message to his own brother Balarama. It so happened that
Bhimsena hit Duryodhana below the belt on latter’s thigh, which is not
permissible in a mace-fight. He did it on the hints given by Lord Krishna which
themselves were allegorical. As Duryodhana lay on the ground deeply wounded,
breathing his last, Balarama, who was witnessing the fight, took out his mace
to hit Bhimsena to death. Balarama was the greatest mace fighter of the time
and was teacher to both. Lord Krishna jumped in between Balarama and Bhimsena
and lovingly admonished the former, his elder brother.
Notably,
what Lord Krishna said, is of immense importance to our foreign policy which
maintains a delicate balance between principles and praxis, often times,
tilting in favour of praxis as many countries do. My argument has been, in view
of many a determinant of our foreign policy being not in place, the principle
and praxis in our foreign policy have to be merged. Let us understand how Lord
Krishna said to Balarama, “in a battle between dharma (principle/good)
and adharma (evil) the only place to go is to the battlefield (ranabhumi);
you had gone away on pilgrimage (tirtha yatra) having refused to take
sides, you cannot come at the last stage and seek to influence the outcome of
the battle, because you are not aware of what has happened in the epic battle.
Duryodhana has been the epitome of adharma (Lord Krishna cited several
of those acts of adharma). So why extend the courtesy of dharma
to the evil-incarnate, Duryodhana”.
If
we scan the history of making and practice of India’s foreign policy, it is
based on dharma (principles) like non-intervention in others’
territories, no-war but peace-seeking, non-alignment, promotion of virtues of
democracy, tolerance, accommodation, equity between nations and so on. Our
adherence to dharma has earned us goodwill of the international
community. Indian democracy and pluralism are cited as examples of best
practices by other countries. But whenever we have failed or been reluctant to
support other countries on the basis of dharma, we have become weaker in
our own and others’ perception. For instance, our positions on Tibet, Myanmar, Afghanistan,
Iraq and now Ukraine do not enhance our image as an aspiring world power.
The
former US President Barack Obama, a ‘good friend of India’addressing the Indian
Parliament on 8 November 2010 spoke glowingly about India – our history,
culture, politics, civilisation and so on. But on standing up for democracy and
human rights which we dearly uphold, Obama was critical, mildly though. He
said, “when peaceful democratic movements are suppressed – as they have been in
Burma, for example – then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent……
Faced with such cross-violations of human rights, it is the responsibility of
the international community – especially leaders like the United States and
India – to condemn it.And if I can be frank, in international fora, India has
often shied away from some of these issues”.
Some
of us have maintained that, it is in the national interest of India to stand up
for democracy and against violation of human rights anywhere in the world, particularly
in our neighbourhood. Our position on Tibet has been fraught with risks for
India’s security. Tibet was a buffer created ironically by the British colonial
regime between India and China. Nehru’s giving away Tibet without reciprocal
obligations from Beijing and India accepting it as a part of China has brought
the PLA on to our borders. It is another humanitarian matter that we have
sheltered Dalai Lama to the chagrin of Beijing.
When
Afghanistan, an independent and sovereign country, was invaded by the Soviet
Union on 24 December 1979, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was ambivalent, not
even supporting a UN resolution which called for withdrawal of ‘foreign forces’
from the soil of Afghanistan. That is why, for our noncommittal approach, we
got sidelined in the fight against Taliban or in takeover by Taliban recently.
Similar has been the story on Iraq which was invaded by Anglo-US combine
without a UN mandate. Currently, as the war is raging in Ukraine, India seems
non-involved. Is that a right stand?
Apparently,
New Delhi has sympathy for Moscow’s position in the current war in Ukraine
because of our longhistory of friendship and dependence on Russia. We have also
managed to buy some oil from Russia whereas Europe, dependent largely on
Russian oil and gas, has cut off supply. In that sense, New Delhi perhaps made
a smart move! In keeping with the practice of non-alignment, the efficacy of
which we have questioned repeatedly, New Delhi is friendly with both United
States-led NATO bloc as well as Sino-Russian alliance. If this stance is
maintainable is another question that needs to be investigated.
On
India’s attitude towards China, Prime Minister Modi attended the 14th
virtual BRICS summit hosted by China in June 23 and 24. Narendra Modi and
Xi-Jinping may meet in person at the SCO summit in Uzbekistan in September,
first time both coming face to face after the April 2020 stand-off at the Line
of Actual Control. But do such meetings yield any tangible result, solutions to
ongoing border disputes etc.
Curiously,
with China you can talk and talk, but Beijing will do what it wants to, being
indifferent to persons (country heads) and principles of international law. The
14th virtual BRICS summit in June was hosted and hijacked by China. Beijing
went by a blue print it had prepared for the new world order. BRICS, as has
been conceived and constructed, has inherent contradictions. Participation in
BRICS does not help the partners constituting it.
Remember,
the bloodshed at Galwan as Beijing sought unilaterally to alter the LAC.
India’s only reason for joining BRICS is perhaps to preclude any drastic change
in the Indo-Pacific. Yet both China and Russia do not even favour the change of
name from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific. Let us also not forget that neither
Soviet Union nor Russia has supported India against China since 1962, in view
of the ‘brother and the friend’ syndrome. Russia is set to have facilitated
some discussion between India and China after February 2022. To be sure, Russia
is legally (treaty-bound) obliged to take the Chinese side in any future
showdown between India and China.
If
India could manage to persuade Russia to negotiate with Ukraine and if Russia
could get China to disengage from areas occupied since 2020, it would make some
sense for India’s foreign policy. Until Russia stops the war and China
withdraws from Indian territory in Ladakh, all that was said in the joint
communiqué released by BRICS sounds hollow. The words like responsive,
transparent, democratic etc. coming from Russia and China sound incredible as
both countries have violated each one of them.
On
economic front, not only investment to India has diluted, even the Foreign
Portfolio Investors (FPIs) are exiting India. The war in Ukraine is one of the
reasons for depleting investment. This bringsus back to the question raised in
the beginning that, “dharma (principles), and vyabaharikta
(praxis)” have to be combined to stamp India’s footprint in international
community. Some thoughts for South Block to chew into. –INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
