Dr D K Giri
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh spoke in Parliament this Tuesday on the border face-off with China. Rajnath Singh is an old hand in governance, deeply experienced and extremely articulate. Yet, his statement to Parliament was esoteric, evasive and laconic.
Also Read
Disappointing, that he did not say a word about what government is intending to do in order to restore the status quo ante pre-May 2020. He was full of platitudes on diplomacy and sentiments about the Army and the 20 soldiers who laid down their lives on 15 June. There is hardly any divergence of opinion or emotions about our Army. Hence, it was esoteric.
No one is itching for a war unless it is imposed, although there is a slender voice doing the rounds that we should give the Chinese a bloody nose even if we get one in retaliation. Diplomacy based on dialogue, negotiations and the international campaign is any day a better option than war, however limited. But, in diplomacy, what is our bargaining chip?
Foreign policy is a strategy of a state vis-à-vis other states or international entities and of achieving specific goals defined in terms of national interest, said Plano and Olton in the International Relations Dictionary. Interestingly, there are key determinants which define our national interest which in turn strengthens those determinants. It is not one or a set of factors but it is interplay of several factors under different circumstances that make foreign policy. There are also external stimuli which a country reacts to and domestic determinants that shape and anchor a foreign policy. While external factors are not necessarily under the control of a country, the indigenous ones are.
In the formative years, immediately after Independence, our foreign policy was based on anti-colonialism, peace and progress, non-alignment, political traditions, security imperatives and above all, the personality and the outlook of the leader. Jawaharlal Nehru, who was both Prime Minister and foreign minister, through his talents, experience and personality, dominated the foreign policy in the beginning. What happened to America’s foreign policy after Nixon resigned following the Watergate scandal? What is happening to China under Xi Jinping?
Until the advent of the BJP into power with a majority government led by Atal Behari Vajpayee, Nehruvian foreign policy was followed under the slogan of ‘Continuity and Change’. In this, there was only continuity and no change except the tweaking of the concept of non-alignment to say ‘genuine non-alignment’ under the brief Janata Party period.
Nehru alone dominated the foreign policy arena until 1964, or till his death. Nehru was considered an idealist, less of a pragmatist. Vajpayee added his personal weight both as a foreign minister in the Janata government and later as Prime Minister. He had announced, “Nothing stops India and the United States from becoming natural allies”. Manmohan Singh, widely considered a weakling by his critics, broke tradition, took a political risk and signed the nuclear deal with the US in 2005. The Leftist allies of his government withdrew support although the government survived with the backing of the Samajwadi Party.
Prime Minister Modi has not signed any substantive agreement on either economy or security with the world’s biggest power, the US, despite overtures by the latter. Perhaps, he built a personal rapport with President Donald Trump through two big public rallies in the US and in India. A solid bilateral agreement on trade or security was expected out of such public display of friendship and partnership.
Both normatively and in praxis, the comprehensive national power of a country is the key determinant in matters of diplomacy. The power consists of a strong economy, sound political order, peace, harmony and national unity. Our economy, even before the pandemic, was crumbling. There are lots of statistics in the public domain including the government sources to show the pathetic situation of the economy.
Paradoxically, we are fighting China but our economy is hooked to the trade with it. Even at present, in Covid times, and the border face-off, our trade with China is growing more than with any other country. Our security strategy is making us spend heavily on procuring armaments. A study on the links of Disarmament and Development says how the cost of one fighter aircraft could run our schools for years; likewise, the cost of a missile could run all our old-age homes for years together. Therefore, in order to be able to invest in the development of people and infrastructure, we need to have a different security strategy.
Our political traditions, ethos and systems have been our greatest strength. Drawing on Buddha, Ashoka, Gandhi, Tagore we have won the confidence of the world. Our political diversity and pluralism have connected us to the world of democracy, human rights, civil liberties, dignity and solidarity. But, of late, we are witnessing disharmony and discord in the society which is affecting our foreign policy. Remember, the proposed visit of Shinzo Abe to Assam in December 2019 did not happen due to riotous situation in the state following the imposition of NRC. If the visit took place, a big trade investment treaty would have been signed.
James N. Rosneau, the American political scientist said that foreign policy is credible and effective when public officials are accountable to the citizens. Also when there is harmony between the Executive and the Legislature. Is this the case today in our country? Look at the state of Pakistan from 1947 to 1989 because of political instability caused by military coups. So, to downplay India’s politics of pluralism and democracy, will undermine our national interest and its articulation in our foreign policy.
Finally, the talk of participating in a multi-polar world is impractical. Deepening convergences with USA, while managing differences with China and soft-balancing major powers are a throwback to the days of non-alignment. Juggling several balls in the air at a time is easier said than done. Maintaining strategic independence in an interdependent world is a tall order. A NATO like alliance is a greater bulwark against aggressive and expansionist neighbours like China. So, our foreign policy determinants have to be reassessed. Is the government on the ball!
The writer is Prof of International Relations, JMI.
–INFA
