A world order but in India’s terms: emerging Indian geopolitics - Sreevidya Balasubramaniam
In this thread, I unpack @narendramodi Ji's geopolitics from an outside perspective. To show contrast, I am giving a brief of the past diplomacy as part 1.
India’s past foreign policy
Non-alignment was a foreign policy instrument India followed since her independence.
It sat on a pile of post-war assumptions of the emerging world order. Promoting peace made the core of India’s foreign policy as a pre-condition to development.
However, this policy had long become redundant in the face of a ballooning war economy globally.
Like many domestic policies post-independence, non-alignment was also strongly influenced by the socialist ideas in support of the Soviet Union in the protracted bipolar power-
structure of the world.
India’s famous recognition of the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China under a leader like Mao Zedong called out the farce of our foreign policy.
While non-alignment earned India reputation of a peace lover and fair player, it also made our
strategies too predictable and vulnerable to volatile changes in regional and global geopolitics.
The effects were felt in terms of vagaries in economy, weakening of defence and ineffective handling of domestic threats. Conceding 38,000 sq km of our land to China was the effect-
of such a weakened state.
Allegiance to ideologies continued until India signed the GATT agreement under the Narasimha Rao government.
The so-called role India’s mixed socialist-capitalist alignments played in developing a robust middle class is debatable.
While these experiments had little effect on India’s bottom lines, opening of our semi-socialist economy certainly replaced 'peace' as the core of our foreign policy.
Under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a tectonic shift happened in India’s foreign policy which started-
with a bang in Pokhran. Since then, India made a course correction to carve out our position in the new multi-polar world.
The inside-out approach of Vajpayee’s policy was shaped by the visions of Swarashtra - a cause pursued by his politics and subsequent leaders of his party.
India underwent a change in this approach under Manmohan Singh with his liberal views on regional and global cooperation.
Although upgrading our risk and national security under the intelligence framework was a step towards understanding and responding to new forms of warfare,
it appeared that India’s policy was only focused on economy at the cost of security.
It was during this period that China began to strengthen their borders and consolidated their economic and military grip over the South Asian countries circling India with the string of pearls.
By 2009, a year after the Congress chiefs signed the clandestine MOU with China, we had seriously lost our readiness to defend extra-military offences such as weapons of mass destruction and became particularly vulnerable to chemical or biowarfare.
The competitive game India has been able to play in recent times gives hope not only to our own future, but also to countries that look upon India as a friend, philosopher and guide.
Keeping our civilisational integrity in the world driven by consumerism; and preserving India’s long legacy of being the Culture Guru of the world is a challenge India can only tide over with careful planning beyond the current geopolitics.
• An inherently proud generation to take on the world.
Age and skills do not bring home the demographic dividends. A national pride is needed.
How India can achieve this in the face of manipulative social engineering is a clear challenge for us.
Making Ajit Doval the National Security Advisor was a much-anticipated move.
However, little did the world expect that a country like India would have the craft and dare to define its own terms while
it’s still a developing country.
Narendra Modi’s new style of leadership powered by Subramaniam Jaishankar’s diplomatic orchestrations and Doval’s formidable combination of master strategy and meticulous footwork enabled India to wield a commanding position in the
emerging multi-polar world.
Modi’s swearing in ceremony asserted India’s lead role in the SAARC countries, but it was the Paris summit on climate change that displayed India’s changing geopolitics in the world arena.
It was obvious from the declaration of ‘climate justice’ by
their so called opposition is shamefully struggling to figure out who their leader today is.
This being the context, our intellectuals start advising how we don’t have a robust ‘opposition’ and the importance of having an opposition.
This is the biggest collective delusion.
If judiciary can work without ideology and opposition, then why can’t the Legislature and Executive work without a political process which costs a fortune, forcing parties to be at war constantly?
What is ideology? Why should ideology lead a group of people?