Round The World
New Delhi, 31 March 2023
Dare & Democracy
SOUTH BLOCK TO RECONCILE
By Prof. D. K. Giri
(Secretary General, Association for
Democratic Socialism)
A diplomat from a middle-sized European country ruefully
said to me, “how do we raise human rights issues with your government? It is a
big country and a huge market. We are not talking to some small country in
Africa or Latin America.” That is a dilemma posed by India to other countries,
especially democracies.The other one was manifested in the practice of
realpolitik by a rich and progressive European country.
When the civil societies in that particular country raised
the issue of human rights in India, their government cautioned and counselled
that in the national interest of the country, trade and commerce had to be
privileged over human rights. Even Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar says,
“Westerners talk of rule-based international order but sacrifice it at the
altar of their respective national interests. We Indians have to run our
industries and feed our hungry, many of them below the poverty line.So, we have
to buy oil from Russia as others do.”
Such tension between idealism and pragmatism is felt across
the world. Rich industrialised countries believed in maintaining their
political and economic power disregarding democratic principles abroad. That
approach has been evident in the Western countries’ massive trade and commerce
with China in the face of ruthless suppression of human rights including
rolling over the tanks at Tiananmen over students protesting for democracy.
Many a country in the world, including India, is
diffidently conscious of the dichotomy between growth and human rights. That is
why, perhaps, the Indian government appears indifferent to allegations to
violations of human rights. At the same time, New Delhi believes that Western
perception of human rights does not converge with that of Global South, and
Western countries could be guilty of maintaining double standards. At any rate,
why is New Delhi using both dare and diplomacy in its foreign policy? Although,
evidently New Delhi has not arrived yet as a world power, it believes and is
perceived to be at the threshold of the top.
Secondly, New Delhi’s current foreign policy is driven by a
muscular nationalism, a ‘dare you’ approach. While it is certainly good for a
self-confident and an aspiring power, India should adhere to realism as well as
norm-setting. On the first principle, realism, is a matter of perception. The
leadership gurus like David Schwartz says, ‘you are what you think you are’.
More power to South Block and India’s economy!
Also, there are credible research and prognoses that India
will be the number one or two economy in the world and will overtake China. A
short analysis by the noted American geopolitical expert, Peter Zeilan, makes
such prediction. China’s economy is a ‘bubble’ created by the United States
after the summit between Nixon and Mao to isolate Soviet Union and secondly, as
a part of American globalisation push during the Cold War era. Whenever America
wants to pull the rug, Chinese economy is bound to collapse.
On the other hand, India has not been internationalised. It
did not grow much, nor did it suffer like others. It does not get growth, but
it also does not get instability. India is slowly transitioning, lot slower
than those in her peer group, yet the growth is steady. In a few decades it
will be the largest population in the world and will remain so for about 50
years. It will not suffer the demographic crunch like the Europeans or even
Chinese. India has problems but they also find solutions.
More important, India is closer to what they need. With its
growing friendship with Australia, supply of food and minerals should not be a
problem. India is the first stop off the Persian Gulf, therefore, despite the
usual perceptions of inefficiency, women’s issues, corruption, Pakistan, India
has much less to worry about than China. India can come with solutions from
time to time and solve its problems, but China is inevitably close to the end.
Such pontification is giving India the confidence and
confirming the refrain that India will grow despite its leadership. So, India
could dare!
The other part of our concern which is intrinsic to India’s
soil is democracy and everything that goes with it – human rights, gender
equality, pluralism, liberty, choice, justice and so on. Note that democracy
for various evident reasons, has become a universal aspiration. India is a home
of democracy as Prime Minister Modi suggested on Wednesday, 29 March 2023, to a
Summit for Democracy, co-hosted by USA, Costa Rica, the Netherlands, South
Korea and Zambia. He said, “the idea of elected leaders was a common feature in
ancient India, long before the rest of the world.”
Furthermore, Modi had claimed before that India preceded
the Greek city-state in 6 Century BC that gave rise to Damos and Kratos
(peoples rule). He cited the statecraft of Mahabharata, practiced over 5000
years ago where the citizens were enjoined the responsibility of “choosing
their leaders as their first duty; and the Vedas which dated much earlier than
the Greek principles spoke of political power being exercised by broad-based
consultative bodies” (modern day cabinets, legislatures, etc.). He added that
climate change and Covid vaccine were also people-driven.
So far so good. But sadly, what is experienced on the
ground is far from desirable. Like others, we tend to follow a double standard
by undermining those we claim to be our heritage. Our democratic institutions
are undermined. No democracy can function effectively and healthily without
robust institutions and in some cases autonomous ones. One of the architects of
European Union, the French Foreign Minister, Robert Schumann, said, ‘great
(wo)men are known by the institutions they leave behind.’ Second, human rights
are flouted with impunity.
The attacks on minorities, vandalization of churches and
other religious institutions, targeting the Muslims, including the inhuman mob
lynching, are absolutely out of order. Going after the journalists critical of
viewpoints or actions are out of democratic line. If BBC brings out a
documentary that could be engaged and proved to be malicious but income tax
raids on their offices is not the right reaction. No doubt, IT raids should be
conducted automatically. The timing, cause and effect sequence in the BBC saga
shows us as not a mature democracy. If Hindenburg brings out ‘discrepancy or
unethicality’ in a business house that must be addressed, not trashed.
All in all, admittedly, the present dare is a sign of a
country in resurgence. But on democracy, the ‘glorious past’ and the ‘present
predicament’ do not go together. Will the honorable Prime Minister address
these distortions? -— INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|