Democracy is a rare phenomenon in Asia. It is indeed disturbing that so many people on this vast continent should be living with so little freedom. We the people of India are among the few Asians sophisticated enough to support a real, functioning democracy. While this distinction is a badge of honour, it is also our cross to bear.
Last week, things flared up in Tibet yet again. As the Chinese military machine crushed the revolt on the streets of Lhasa, journalists searched the faces of China’s political leadership for some trace of guilt or regret. Even as we write these words, preparations are underway for a diabolical celebration of tyranny in Beijing. This vile event stirs up comparisons with the Berlin Olympics of 1936, which Hitler held to be a step towards building the political authority of his ‘Thousand Year Reich’. In the recent past, a similar uprising for democracy in Burma was brutally suppressed by the ruling military junta. In both instances, the world asked to know what India would do about this. In both instances, India chose to tell the world: “Not yet”.
But we have to start somewhere. A few weeks ago, I wrote about how India failed to come clean on Kosovo, which would have been a relatively low risk foreign policy undertaking. The situation in Burma, or Tibet, or, for that matter, in Pakistan and Nepal is incredibly more complex and a minor mistake could precipitate a major crisis. Becoming a superpower starts with attitude. One way to start is by becoming a regional power. And in order to do so, we must create what is called a “sphere of influence”.
The Chinese have a huge head start. They have made the best of their neighbourhood, which, to say the least, is tailor-made in their favour. Their foreign policy has been consistent, ruthless and eminently supple in its tactics. The Chinese have a plan for India; the joint military exercises with India are not merely incidental. The Chinese are pressing for a relationship with India that will be essentially the same as that which the US has with Canada. They see China as the axis of the world, with a docile India following at their heels.
Prime Minister Singh also has a basic idea. The humble scholar that he is, he is using the paradigm of the academic world: he believes that if we focus solely on self-improvement, India will automatically be accorded the status that suits our calibre. Most certainly, there is some merit to this. There is something about America that makes people want to crawl through sewers and drainpipes in order to get there and India should indeed strive to achieve that ‘something’. Unfortunately however, India does not have the many geographical advantages that the United States enjoys. In the first half of the previous century, the nations of Europe knocked each other senseless in two great wars. Both times, the US, which was placed securely across the Atlantic, was able to tilt the balance and emerge as the real winner. However, India is located at the epicentre of the next potential world conflict. With no allies in its immediate neighbourhood, the future of free people depends on us. So, in order to stand up for freedom, what does India need to do and understand?
1) “Splendid Isolation”: This is the policy successfully pursued by the US till the First World War. Away from the endless political intrigue and backstabbing in Europe, the Americans developed themselves rapidly in the Free World. When War broke out in 1914, the US was reluctant to abandon its policy of “splendid isolation”. Public opinion was provoked by the sinking of the Lucitania by a German U-boat, which killed 125 Americans. Government circles were unnerved by apprehensions over the now infamous “Zimmermann Telegram”, a secret German missive asking the German Embassy in Mexico to persuade the Mexican Government to attack the United States at an opportune moment that fell into British hands. It is too late for India to adopt this policy. For one, the epicentre of conflict is located in Asia and isolation is too regressive an idea in this era of globalization.
2) Nuclear Power: The keyword in ‘superpower’ is ‘power’. The meaning of the latter has evolved and today it could stand for both ‘military power’ and ‘economic power’ (The wildly optimistic notion of ‘knowledge superpower’, as conceived by Vajpayee, approved by Dr. Kalam and well liked by Dr. Singh would be suited only to a much more sophisticated world). That India will have a bright economic future is self evident. However, in order to successfully hold the Chinese feet to the fire, India will need to build up a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons. Defence is one of the issues on which Dr. Singh’s government has performed remarkably, if somewhat surprisingly, well. Of late, the Prime Minister declared the creation of a separate division of the army in Arunachal Pradesh. Besides, India has also started building a missile shield and recently acquired the ability to fire nuclear missiles from sea, while India’s first nuclear submarine, the so called “Advanced Technology Vessel”, will take to the waters soon. It is also fortunate that the DRDO has finally scrapped its decades’ old vainglorious venture to build every missile from scratch and opt openly for foreign collaboration without trying to “reinvent the wheel”. At the same time, India has an unambiguous “no first use” policy with respect to nuclear weapons, as every civilized nation should.
A lot of words on this web log have already been devoted to the India-US nuclear deal. Both India and China are starved of energy resources; unless India can enter the nuclear club as a full time member, we will always be one step behind. If only the Prime Minister had looked beyond party lines to start with, India would have been on the fast track to energy security. India can take firm positions on the Middle East only if we no longer need to deal with rogue nations such as Iran. Advani, who could well be the next Prime Minister, has already said that India needs to amend only one of its laws to render itself immune to the Hyde Act. This week, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is perhaps as liberal as an American politician can possibly get, told Dr. Singh that she was hopeful of the deal going through as well. As I have said before, the Indo-US nuclear/military/civilian cooperation is an imperative.
3) Bold Posturing: Again, this has to do with creating a “sphere of influence”. In the conflict ridden world, New Delhi must do more than issue “calls for peace”. It has also to do with the fact that India has an image of being a “soft state”, a reputation that has, in part, to do with Gandhi’s legacy. The Chinese should have been severely upbraided for protesting against the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Arunachal Pradesh. India needs to display the kind of courage that has not been on show since Indira Gandhi acted decisively to create the state of Bangladesh. In order to do so, India needs to talk tough to China over the border dispute, spell out its stand on the Middle East, adopt a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism and aggressively court key allies even at the risk of making powerful enemies. Ever since India was born as a nation state, India has been stuck with the Nehruvian doctrine of pacifism. Though a great patriot and a great statesman, Pt. Nehru failed to see that the world’s largest democracy had the obvious potential to become one of the foremost nations on earth. This, along with his Gandhian convictions, led him to develop India as a permanent third world country, and he molded its foreign policy to be meek and conciliatory, ever so wary to displease anyone. In order to change the course of history, India must pull out of the so called “Non Aligned Movement”, if only to stress the point that India can be an axis by itself, closer to the centre of the world.
4) On the Security Council: That the largest free nation in the world has no permanent seat at the UN Security Council is a travesty to say the least. India was not at the table when the map of the world was last redrawn in 1945. This historical injustice can only be undone by wresting the diplomatic initiative from the old players. The Indo-US nuclear deal, which overturned four decades of US nuclear policy on its head, could have been a first step in this direction. Beyond the obvious issue of uranium supply, a window could have opened for India to gain legitimacy as a major nuclear power. It would have been a sign of the times, a sign that the rules have to change to accommodate India. However, gaining a permanent seat at the UNSC is uniquely difficult; while India’s enemies will not want India to gain in eminence, our allies, most of who already have permanent seats, will want India to remain forever dependent on their veto power for important foreign policy initiatives.
5) Calculated Warfare: This one is perhaps antithetical; for there never has, nor can be, a “perfect war effort” (although, in my opinion the “near perfect” ones would be Bismarck’s wars of 1870, Frederick's Battle of Leuthen and the Nazi capture of France). Continuing from where I left off on the subject of making powerful enemies, I daresay that it is perhaps impossible to reach the zenith of power without conflict. Every world power has to go through a rite of passage: and it is inconceivable that India can become a superpower without one. The Greeks passed theirs against the Persians at the legendary battle of Thermoplayae; the Romans, in their turn, had to contend with the fierce Gauls and the desperate warriors of Cathage. In order to build themselves into a great nation, the British had to face a crisis of existence time and again: from the times of the Spanish Armada to the Napoleonic Wars all the way upto World War II. The United States reached its height only after the mighty Soviet Union was felled. The same rules apply to India and China, and perhaps, only one of them will survive as a great power; what form the battle takes in this modern world remains to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment